# It is in Hillary's interests to pound the message, "I don't want your gun!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 11, 2016, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416 "2016-08-11T05:46:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/81 "2016-08-12T23:02:25Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > I see now we’re going for sarcasm over substance. > > So what? The First Amendment doesn’t offer protection to _all_ speech. Just make a joke about a bomb on an airplane if you believe it does. Nor is it correct to infer that the Second Amendment means everyone should have endless rights to have whatever gun they want without restrictions on ownership. But that’s _exactly_ the argument that NRA types make, and, not surprisingly, so have you. Can you support your claim? Where have I made the argument that the 2nd amendment means everyone should have endless rights to have whatever gun they want without restrictions on ownership? That is not an argument I have made - you are wrong. > [@](#): > > Here’s what you refuse to get because it might run counter to the same old, tired argument: nobody’s interested in taking away your rights to own a gun. I personally have owned several, and I’d be the first to fight against it. But that doesn’t mean society doesn’t need protection when it comes to gun ownership, or that those rights shouldn’t be regulated. But the first part of that thought is completely ignored by Second Amendment defenders. Let’s see if I could blow your mind. I agree that there is no mainstream support to take away the right to own certain guns. I do think society has an interest in ensuring that people who shouldn’t own guns don’t. I also think it’s reasonable to have regulation. Odd huh, I write about the same thing you did, but my interpretation of that is different than yours. But while you equivocate on the ‘right to own a gun’ what specifically are you talking about? Is anyone interested in taking away my right to own a center fire semi auto rifle with a collapsable stock and forward pistol grip that accepts a detachable magazine that has a capacity greater than 10 rounds? Quite a few people want to do that - and one of them is Clinton. > [@](#): > > Here’s a simple question for you: when was the last time a right granted by an Amendment was rescinded or repealed? Simple answer: Never. Not ever. And it wont be. But that’s an inconvenient truth. Here’s a simple question. What is a red herring? > [@](#): > > It’s the disingenuousness of your whole argument. I’m sure you’ll have some snarky answer to that which will completely ignore its substance, but feel free. Before you label my argument dishonest, I would suggest you try to actually understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/82 "2016-08-12T23:24:53Z")
How about we talk about whether gun control is a good idea or a bad idea in another fucking thread? This thread is about whether Hillary should constantly talk about how she doesn’t wanna take your guns, and whether that would help her or not. And I think she should shut up about guns. She’s never going to convince the 2nd Amendment People that she’s not planning to grab their guns on Jan 21st. And talking about guns, even when she’s talking about how she doesn’t want to grab their guns, just reminds them that she’s going to grab their guns. It would be like me getting on TV and promising to never, ever come to your house and strangle you in your sleep. The denial just convinces you of the opposite. So she should shut up about guns. Of course she’d grab all your guns if she could, but she can’t, and she knows she can’t, so she’s going to shut up about it. Trump isn’t exactly a fan of the 2nd Amendment People either you know, he thinks you’re all crazy hillbillies. If you told him the 2nd Amendment was how Muslims and Mexicans get guns, he’d repeal the 2nd Amendment in a second. However, he’s not going to be president, Hillary is. So if you’re going to shit your pants over Hillary, better start shitting yourself now. If no Democrat can be acceptable to you, don’t be surprised to find that no Democrat supports you, and when Democrats win they’ll fuck you over. The NRA used to be carefully bipartisan, but when they turn themselves into an arm of the Republican Party they shouldn’t be surprised to find themselves on the losing side every now and then. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/83 "2016-08-13T02:31:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But her election and her ethical shortcomings magnify the need to maintain a Republican Congress as a counterforce. If the Democrats take over they’ll bring back the earmark train and shockingly many of those earmarks will go to Clinton Foundation donors. If you think principled opposition is what the GOP has become such that they can be an ethical “counterforce” to Democrats Gone Wild, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. Total obstruction is not justified. They refuse to discharge their constitutional duties in even giving a hearing to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. There has not been a budget passed in years. The only thing the GOP supports is tax cuts for the wealthy and the elimination of “regulations”- no specific ones for reasons a, b, and c, no, it is regulations in general. Why? Because the GOP has turned into The Enemies of the American Government party. Why? Because that is what is best for the wealthy. If the people no longer had a voice, if the government eschewed its constitutionally mandated duty to look after “the general welfare” of the population- something the GOP opposes at every turn in every way- if the American government were rendered toothless and impotent, why then billionaires and the corporate class could have free reign to do whatever they want. That is what the GOP has become, and I think it is anti-democratic and un-American. As Justice Brandeis said so long ago, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Which side do you honestly think the GOP is on? Sorry, adaher, I think you are a valuable contributor to this board but you are really wrong this time. > [@Grumman](#): > > You are really very badly wrong, because Hillary Clinton and Trump have both said that people should be denied their constitutional right to bear arms just for being on the No Fly List, which means denying them their constitutional rights without due process. Like “Assault Weapon” bans, it’s a completely moronic idea that sells well to stupid people who don’t understand the subject, who don’t realise that anyone can be put on the list for no reason whatsoever. I don’t see how a person can be a member of a well-ordered militia while on the no-fly list- that says they are not trusted by the US government and would not be accepted in such a role. But I agree that the way people get on that list needs a real close look, and may amount to an insurmountable obstacle to this idea. Maybe. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > It seems well supported that [Hillary Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns”](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/hillary-clinton-believes-pivotal-gun-rights-ruling-was-wrong-adviser-says). It also seems well supported that Hillary Clinton said [“the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk). (This quote seems to have been in the context of discussing a ban on “assault weapons”.) > > The problem is that _Heller_ didn’t strike down “safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns”. [_Heller_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) struck down a total ban on handguns, and also a law which provided that > > So, the pre-_Heller_ D.C. law made home defense using firearms effectively illegal. (“Common sense laws…like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns” would presumably only apply to homes where toddlers are actually present, and would also allow for things like the use of quick-opening safes for the storage of self-defense firearms, rather than mandating that firearms be kept both unloaded _and_ bound by a trigger lock.) > > Similarly, _Heller_ didn’t strike down a ban on “assault weapons”, it struck down a ban on _all_ handguns, along with “safe storage” provisions which made it effectively impossible for D.C. residents to possess any other firearm for self-defense. > > There is no reason to say “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” when advocating for universal background checks; the Supreme Court has never struck down such a law, and there is no indication that even a Supreme Court which included the re-animated corpse of Antonin Scalia would likely strike down such a law. > > There isn’t even any reason to say “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” when discussing bans on “assault weapons”–the Supreme Court (or a Supreme Court which included the re-animated corpse of Antonin Scalia ) might or might not strike down something akin to the original 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, which didn’t ban all guns, or even all handguns, of even all magazine-fed centerfire semi-automatic rifles–although its relative narrowness also made the 1994 ban kind of toothless. > > There’s also a [statement she made](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67) which appeared to support Australia’s “gun buy-back” program. There’s no question that the Australian law was, in fact, a gun _confiscation_ program–you couldn’t just tell the Australian government “Oh, no thanks, I don’t wish to sell my firearms at this time”–so _ **IF** _ she supports such a law in the U.S., she would be calling for confiscation of a large number of guns, from people who are otherwise law-abiding (not just “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists”). > > She has also made statements indicating a much more moderate stance on gun issues, such as from her [acceptance speech](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html?_r=0): “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” That sounds a _lot_ more like “universal background checks” than “have _Heller_ overturned, declare that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, and then enact laws mandating confiscation of large numbers of firearms owned by otherwise law-abiding people, and mandating that any remaining firearms be kept in a condition which makes it effectively impossible to use them for self-defense”. That _is_ pretty much the law in some other countries, but right now the Supreme Court has said that laws which are _that_ restrictive of the right to self-defense are unconstitutional in the United States. > > The problem is, she has said _all_ of these things–“I’m not here to take away your guns”; “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” (_not_ in striking down universal background checks, which has never happened, but in striking down laws which made it effectively impossible to keep firearms for self-defense); Australia’s gun laws would be “worth considering”–which means that anyone who supports an individual right to keep and bear arms finds her _extremely_ untrustworthy on the subject. THIS post is what reasonable opposition looks like. I sure wish GOP congresscritters were capable of supplying such a nice list of actual reasons to support a position. I agree that there is some ambiguity about Clinton’s positions on guns, since she has taken more than one. However, her convention speech position was something that (I don’t think) should be terribly alarming to gun lovers. She could do a better job of reinforcing what position wrt guns she is running on, and with the possible exception of assault rifles, it does boil down to, “I don’t want your gun!” (I don’t think the assault rifle ban will accomplish much other than maybe mollify some lefty voters and piss off a lot of NRA types) I disagree that being very clear about her position on guns would make no difference. We have Trump giving speeches declaring Obama the founder of ISIS, Putin is a great guy, Hillary want to grab your guns. Hillary counters with, “I don’t want your gun!” Who are you going to believe? Well, I think that when it comes to a full-of-shit contest, more people can tell that Trump is winning than not. Campaign promises Can be broken, but it costs political capital. I think being clear on this issue will make it easier for her to move on to some of her other priorities- “What I really want is to take money from the wealthy and rebuild our infrastructure, send kids to college so this country can have a future.” ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/84 "2016-08-13T06:46:26Z")
Just to be clear, I don’t support Trump in any way. I believe he must be defeated and that he really must lose _badly_, for the sake of democracy in American and for the sake of basic decency. This November I would really like to see something like the map all the way at the bottom of [this page](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/). Although Trump has nominally taken a very hardline pro-gun stance, I don’t even really trust him on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. He has–surprise, surprise!–not been [terribly](http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Gun_Control.htm) [consistent](http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/donald-trump-gun-positions-nra-orlando/) on the issue (although it doesn’t appear from any of the statements listed on those web pages that he’s ever been a hardcore “gun-grabber”). As with abortion, I don’t get the impression he really knows or cares much about the issue of gun rights, and he is probably just saying what he thinks a Republican ought to say and what will appeal to his base. Most fundamentally, I don’t think Trump believes in _anything_ beyond Trump. He is utterly untrustworthy, unqualified, and utterly unfit to be elected dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States. [/hijack of Hillary Clinton thread to talk about Donald #&@%\* Trump] ---
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/85 "2016-08-13T12:04:13Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I disagree that being very clear about her position on guns would make no difference. We have Trump giving speeches declaring Obama the founder of ISIS, Putin is a great guy, Hillary want to grab your guns. Hillary counters with, “I don’t want your gun!” Who are you going to believe? Well, I think that when it comes to a full-of-shit contest, more people can tell that Trump is winning than not. Campaign promises Can be broken, but it costs political capital. I think being clear on this issue will make it easier for her to move on to some of her other priorities- “What I really want is to take money from the wealthy and rebuild our infrastructure, send kids to college so this country can have a future.” The “2nd Amendment vote” is the gun nut vote. Most people who buy or own guns don’t do it in order to express their 2nd Amendment rights, and they don’t think Clinton is coming for their guns. She can’t get any of the gun nut vote and she doesn’t need any of it. She doesn’t need to say “I don’t want your guns” because most people don’t think that. And it would turn off supporters who would be perfectly OK with her taking the guns. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/86 "2016-08-13T12:08:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > After the gridlock we saw over the last few years, I’m no longer opposed to earmarks as long as there is disclosure. If some congressman get a library built in his district with his name on it, I don’t really give a shit. It was never a large part of the budget. But it is a large part of campaign contributors’ return on investment. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/87 "2016-08-13T13:33:29Z")
Does no one else remember, “Read my lips: no new taxes.”? No one with even half a brain cell will believe her. She’s a politician, after all. So why publicise the subject? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/88 "2016-08-13T13:40:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But it is a large part of campaign contributors’ return on investment. Is it though? That would suggest that the construction industry makes up a large part of campaign contributions. No, these kind of earmarks are mostly about getting jobs qnd free shit for the incumbent’s district. Frankly, I’m more concerned about legislation that gets passed for contributors’ benefit than an extra bridge or library getting built. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/89 "2016-08-13T18:43:47Z")
Speaking of earmarks, [this article](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/) claims that they were glue that held the parties together, and that banning them helped destroy party discipline and undermine the authority of party leaders, leading to the situation we are in today where our herd-of-cats Congress can’t get anything done. Getting rid of back room deals amounted to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/90 "2016-08-13T19:50:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s already the case, since the right you are depending on is one stated in the Constitution–i.e. part of the government. And that only is interpreted that way because the Supreme Court interpreted it that way–again, part of the government. The fact that you are worried about the right being taken away by the government means it was granted by the government. The notion that our rights were granted to us by the government is pretty contrary to most constitutional thought. The rights in the bill of rights are a list of pre-existing rights that the people reserved to themselves. The only way those rights get taken away is if a super-majority of elected officials decide to surrender that right to the government. > [@](#): > > Not that this has much relevance. The main issue is that Clinton has no reason to try and get the right removed, since she can do anything she’d want under the current framework. The problem is that over the last few decades, gun rights have become a partisan issue. Its not quite as rigid as abortion but I can’t think of very many pro-gun control Republicans (there are significantly more pro-gun Democrats). And its is getting more partisan each election cycle. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, with Trump, all it would take is someone making him angry and he’d do it out of spite. Hell, given how the Republicans have treated him of late, I wouldn’t put it past him nominating a liberal judge just because of that. Once elected, he’d no longer have to answer to them. Trump > [@](#): > > The thing about Clinton is that she’s predictable. Trump is not. She has a lot more going for her than predictability, even if everything that the Republicans are saying about her were true. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/91 "2016-08-13T19:52:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How can she take your guns after Obama already did? How did Obama do it after Bill Clinton already did? > > Or maybe you’re falling for fearmongering. Well, we took them back after Clinton took them the first time and if actions speak louder than words, then Obama is on our side. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/92 "2016-08-13T19:55:26Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Unbloodybelievable. Let me see if I’ve got this straight. > > Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hillary really does want to snatch away your guns the second she’s inaugurated. It’s clearly Trump bullshit, but we’ll leave that aside. > > Are you seriously saying that you’d rather have the candidate who will do his utmost to damage every alliance we have, start trade wars, just flat-out ignore Constitutional rights, and possibly start WWIII just because he can? > > (And all before breakfast.) Lets assume for the sake of argument that Hillary Clinton was going to ban abortions and Trump was going to make abortions free and readily available to anyone that wanted one (which is also clearly bullshit but lets just go with it). Are you saying that some people would not vote for Trump despite all the other issues? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/93 "2016-08-13T19:57:19Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > The slippery slope is alarmist bullshit. It’s an excuse to let any mental defective run around with an automatic weapon. It’s Duck Dynasty-level playing to fear. > > And I’ll be voting for a Republican Senator in about 2416. Then politicians can safely ignore you and go about their business trying to win the votes of others. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/94 "2016-08-13T19:58:38Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > To me, this is a huge blunder. I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan’s first run, or a Democratic presidential candidate since forever. Trump disgusts me, but I’ll be damned if I’ll vote for a presidential candidate that includes me as one of her greatest enemies. If Clinton didn’t have this blatant animosity towards the second amendment, I’d probably pull the D-lever for the first time this year. As it is, I’m leaning Trump. See, I know a couple of guys who are like you- mono-maniacal single issue voters. Let’s be open here- I like guns, I own a couple, I support the 2nd, and most gun controls are useless. But how can you throw away _every other_ important issue: abortion, using nukes, taxes, “trickle down”, no more putting our kids into debt for loans, voter rights, racism, and the list goes on & on- for maybe a few restrictions on buying more military style semi-auto rifles? Would you support the KKK or the American Nazi party candidate just because they are pro-gun? And, who is to say Trump is the big advocate for no gun control anyway? he was in favor of some gun controls in the past, more or less what Hillary is saying. He flipflops like a flounder on the pier, if there was another school shooting and public opinion ran heavily towards restrictions on “assault weapons” he’d sign that bill in a heartbeat. So, you’re not getting protection for your gun from Trump, and you’re not getting your guns taken away by Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/95 "2016-08-13T19:59:38Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Because every person who is mentally defective is adjudicated that way, and we shouldn’t prevent those who slip through the cracks from having that ability. Please. Are you proposing a psych exam before every gun purchase? Can we have a psych exam before every abortion? > [@](#): > > It’s funny how there are laws against slander and libel but no one’s complaining about losing their First Amendment rights…but the second that anyone tries to regulate guns in any way it’s “OMG! They’re trying to eliminate my rights!” Are you under the impression that there are no gun regulations? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/96 "2016-08-13T20:00:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Lets assume for the sake of argument that Hillary Clinton was going to ban abortions and Trump was going to make abortions free and readily available to anyone that wanted one (which is also clearly bullshit but lets just go with it). Are you saying that some people would not vote for Trump despite all the other issues? Of course there will be…his core of supporters who really aren’t in it for the issues anyway. It’s his personal cult of celebrity. Hopefully people on this board are a little more deliberate about their choices, though. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/97 "2016-08-13T20:03:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Is anyone interested in taking away my right to own a center fire semi auto rifle with a collapsable stock and forward pistol grip that accepts a detachable magazine that has a capacity greater than 10 rounds? Quite a few people want to do that - and one of them is Clinton. And another one is Trump. In fact IIRC Trump came out in favor of an assault weapons ban after Sandy hook and Clinton went into Radio silence and her husband wrote an op ed asking the Democrats to simmer down and not overplay their hand on gun control or risk losing elections and abandoning the rest of the Democratic agenda. The Clintons learned their lesson in 1994. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/98 "2016-08-13T20:06:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you proposing a psych exam before every gun purchase? Can we have a psych exam before every abortion? Can we have a psych exam before every child is conceived? Can we have a psych exam before you get a driver license? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/99 "2016-08-13T20:09:45Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The NRA used to be carefully bipartisan, but when they turn themselves into an arm of the Republican Party they shouldn’t be surprised to find themselves on the losing side every now and then. Yes, this bothers me too. The NRA board now includes guys like Grover Norquist. WTF does Grover Norquist know about guns and gun rights that he didn’t learn AFTER he joined the NRA? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/100 "2016-08-13T20:16:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But it is a large part of campaign contributors’ return on investment. Have you heard of the tax code, bankruptcy reform? Earmarks are small fucking potatoes and thy are better than crippling gridlock. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416.md?page=6)