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.)
Strangely, the right to an abortion is absolute in her opinion.
Clinton is better than Trump. By a huge margin. 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.
Hillary will start the slippery slope if she can get it through Congress. She isn’t going to die in this fight. She’s not trying to remove individual ownership of firearms and confiscate all the firearms in the US.
Simply, the NRA is vehemently opposed to the slippery slope.
No need to overthink this
So stop thinking & vote for Trump. Yes, I get it.
No, vote for Hillary and your local Republican Congressman and Senator(if applicable).
The Republicans in the Senate would certainly have the right to block any nominee who will not say specifically that they see the Heller decision as binding precedent.
You think a “counterforce” to “ethical shortcomings” is a Republican Congress? That’s a bit like being scared that a scary dog in the room is going to attack you and bringing in a tiger on the assumption it’ll fight off the dog.
Thanks for giving me permission to vote for Ms Clinton! I was going to do that anyway. And I’ll continue to support my Democratic Congresswoman. Neither Cornyn nor Cruz is up for re-election this year, so I won’t have the pleasure of voting against them.
So–Second Amendment Issues were never your main concern. Is this sudden change a way of pretending Trump’s latest outrage means “vote to support gun rights” rather than “shoot President Clinton”?
Oh, I think she knows.
This is a bit dated but:
Gun ownership is moderate to high in most battleground state. Virginia has below average gun ownership rates, but it is a swing state and they aren’t about to lose any votes here over guns if they can possibly help it.
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.
Assault weapons ban under Clinton.
Obama on the other hand expanded gun rights and helped to increase the percentage of gun owners in America. The NRA’s attempts to expand gun ownership are feeble compared to Obama.
Every gun shop owner I know thinks they could retire after a third Obama term.
Lets say that Hillary was going to ban abortions. How would you feel about supporting Trump then? Just because the issue isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it isn’t important to Bone. In fact it is exactly this focus on this single issue by pro-gun folks like Bone that makes it such a losing issue for Democrats.
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.
There is no single issue that would make me vote for Trump, because it’s a small sacrifice to make to ensure that the country isn’t ripped up by its very foundations. I’d swallow my bile and vote Hillary anyway.
This is master class level irony. An excuse to let any mental defective run around with an automatic weapon is not at all alarmist bullshit. Not at all.
Really? Are you claiming that it’s not possible, as we speak, for exactly that to happen? Need I cite recent history? Or are you just exaggerating for your own effect?
Why not just save us all the time and parrot the Trump line?
Oh, sorry, you are.
Of course it’s possible - it’s also illegal. A person who is adjudicated as mentally defective may not legally possess a firearm in this country. Should we make it super illegal?
No one is suggesting to change this. So when you bring it up as an intended goal in the same post you talk about alarmist bullshit, I’d like to think it was intentional irony since that’s clever. If unintentional, that’s sad panda time.
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.
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!”
Ahh, so are you saying the irony wasn’t intentional? That is unfortunate.
You seem to be ignorant of the state of 1st amendment litigation where claims of violations of the 1st amendment are prevalent. To the extent that there is an attempt to limit speech, many organizations like the ACLU are quick to step up and defend the 1st amendment.
Please tell me your choice of language like “no one’s complaining” or “regulate guns in any way” are more intentional irony. It could be performance art.
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.
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.
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.
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.