5 ms·

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away yo

by dreta 10y ago

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.

jinfiesto 10y ago
I guess I'm committed to wearing long sleeves now. Though seriously, I don't think anyone can argue that Trump doesn't fall squarely in the "Authoritarian" camp. Also, the parent doesn't even mention that Trump is "Authoritarian?" Only that he "appeals to white identity politics?"
dcposch 10y ago
> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.
- dreta 10y ago
  There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.
  - Keverw 10y ago
    I know they say there's online loopholes too. Last time I checked the law was they had to ship the gun to a local licensed firearms dealer, who then does a background check and hands over the gun for a reasonable fee.
  - douche 10y ago
    This. It's admittedly pretty simple if you want to go buy a firearm in a reasonable state, like Maine or New Hampshire. You go to the gun dealer/sporting goods store/Walmart. You pick out what you want. They submit your information to the background checking system. You go get lunch and come back an hour later. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen, you pay the cashier and walk out the store with your new firearm. Now, what you can also do legally in most states is purchase a firearm from another private individual through a private sale. An enormous number of second-hand gun sales occur in this fashion, through Craigslist or classified ads or personal acquaintances. Effectively, this is no different than if you were buying and selling lawnmowers or comic books, or any other mundane object. I am skeptical of any attempts to really regulate this activity, because it is effectively unenforceable given the number of firearms currently in circulation and the almost complete lack of any records of ownership history for most of them.
    - cryptical 10y ago
      That's why universal background checks are considered by many to be the first step down the road to a gun registry.
  - BryantD 10y ago
    This is a semantic argument. I agree that the terminology is misleading. However, I think we should always follow the words "there is no gun show loophole" with the words "private citizens can sell guns without background checks no matter where they are," and perhaps "let's call it the private sale loophole."
  - Mathnerd314 10y ago
    There is a "gun kit" loophole, according to this article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-automatic-rifle-building-party http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-autom...
- sp332 10y ago
  Washington D.C. tried to ban handguns in some public places. The supreme court said they couldn't do that. Clinton wants states and cities to be able to enact their own bans, and she will be replacing at least one seat on the supreme court. So a lot of people might be losing their guns under a Clinton presidency.
  - sushiwarrior 10y ago
    How is anyone losing guns? Who is she taking away guns from by placing more restrictions on private sales? Does it really sound like a bad idea having less guns in Washington D.C. when their violent crime rate is over triple the national average[1]? [1]: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/ https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/
    - sp332 10y ago
      I don't think her only gun policy is going to be restrictions on private sales. I think she's going to push for a reinterpretation of the constitution which would allow banning carrying guns in more places.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Have you seen the O'Keefe video where Russ Feingold, a Democratic challenger for U.S. Senate, tells a Palo Alto, California, fundraiser that Hillary Clinton might use an executive order to enforce gun control. http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/13/feingold-okeefe-hidden-camera-democrat-senate-candidate-hillary-clinton-bypass-congress-secure-gun-control/ http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/13/feingold-okee...
  - jphillipsio 10y ago
    Breitbart as a source?
    - zo1 10y ago
      Does it matter? The claim behind the article appears to be a hidden-camera video. Maybe you should discredit that thing, rather than dismiss the article because its a conservative-leaning organization.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      fuck this shit again It's a video, Briebart is just the messenger. When CNN is Hillary's 7th largest contributor, Reuters giver her $MMs, Google give her $MMs, Fox give her $MMs what's left ?
      - jphillipsio 10y ago
        You mean what's left that supports your views?
        SixSigma 10y ago
        No. When CNN tells you reading things is illegal and you should only listen to their opinion, a line has been crossed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
        10y ago
mikeash 10y ago
Only one presidential candidate has said that they want the police to stop people on the street without cause and confiscate their guns. And it's not Clinton. I can't understand why Trump gets any support from gun rights people. He advocates for exactly what they fear.

by dreta 10y ago

jinfiesto 10y ago

I guess I'm committed to wearing long sleeves now. Though seriously, I don't think anyone can argue that Trump doesn't fall squarely in the "Authoritarian" camp. Also, the parent doesn't even mention that Trump is "Authoritarian?" Only that he "appeals to white identity politics?"

dcposch 10y ago

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

dreta 10y ago
There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.
- Keverw 10y ago
  I know they say there's online loopholes too. Last time I checked the law was they had to ship the gun to a local licensed firearms dealer, who then does a background check and hands over the gun for a reasonable fee.
- douche 10y ago
  This. It's admittedly pretty simple if you want to go buy a firearm in a reasonable state, like Maine or New Hampshire. You go to the gun dealer/sporting goods store/Walmart. You pick out what you want. They submit your information to the background checking system. You go get lunch and come back an hour later. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen, you pay the cashier and walk out the store with your new firearm. Now, what you can also do legally in most states is purchase a firearm from another private individual through a private sale. An enormous number of second-hand gun sales occur in this fashion, through Craigslist or classified ads or personal acquaintances. Effectively, this is no different than if you were buying and selling lawnmowers or comic books, or any other mundane object. I am skeptical of any attempts to really regulate this activity, because it is effectively unenforceable given the number of firearms currently in circulation and the almost complete lack of any records of ownership history for most of them.
  - cryptical 10y ago
    That's why universal background checks are considered by many to be the first step down the road to a gun registry.
- BryantD 10y ago
  This is a semantic argument. I agree that the terminology is misleading. However, I think we should always follow the words "there is no gun show loophole" with the words "private citizens can sell guns without background checks no matter where they are," and perhaps "let's call it the private sale loophole."
- Mathnerd314 10y ago
  There is a "gun kit" loophole, according to this article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-automatic-rifle-building-party http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-autom...
sp332 10y ago
Washington D.C. tried to ban handguns in some public places. The supreme court said they couldn't do that. Clinton wants states and cities to be able to enact their own bans, and she will be replacing at least one seat on the supreme court. So a lot of people might be losing their guns under a Clinton presidency.
- sushiwarrior 10y ago
  How is anyone losing guns? Who is she taking away guns from by placing more restrictions on private sales? Does it really sound like a bad idea having less guns in Washington D.C. when their violent crime rate is over triple the national average[1]? [1]: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/ https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/
  - sp332 10y ago
    I don't think her only gun policy is going to be restrictions on private sales. I think she's going to push for a reinterpretation of the constitution which would allow banning carrying guns in more places.
SixSigma 10y ago
Have you seen the O'Keefe video where Russ Feingold, a Democratic challenger for U.S. Senate, tells a Palo Alto, California, fundraiser that Hillary Clinton might use an executive order to enforce gun control. http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/13/feingold-okeefe-hidden-camera-democrat-senate-candidate-hillary-clinton-bypass-congress-secure-gun-control/ http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/13/feingold-okee...
- jphillipsio 10y ago
  Breitbart as a source?
  - zo1 10y ago
    Does it matter? The claim behind the article appears to be a hidden-camera video. Maybe you should discredit that thing, rather than dismiss the article because its a conservative-leaning organization.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    fuck this shit again It's a video, Briebart is just the messenger. When CNN is Hillary's 7th largest contributor, Reuters giver her $MMs, Google give her $MMs, Fox give her $MMs what's left ?
    - jphillipsio 10y ago
      You mean what's left that supports your views?
      - SixSigma 10y ago
        No. When CNN tells you reading things is illegal and you should only listen to their opinion, a line has been crossed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
        10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

Only one presidential candidate has said that they want the police to stop people on the street without cause and confiscate their guns. And it's not Clinton. I can't understand why Trump gets any support from gun rights people. He advocates for exactly what they fear.