Hillary would have abolished the 2nd Amendent.

[Saucy]

It is true.

Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and others have been democratically controlled for decades. Yet, they are full of violence and poverty. Says a lot about their brand of socialism. They enjoy keeping people poor and afraid so they can keep pretending like they're the answer, when they've never been the answer.

 

[lasthero]

It is true.

Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and others have been democratically controlled for decades. Yet, they are full of violence and poverty.

And there are places that have been Republican controlled for decades that have the same problem. Memphis, Atlanta, Houston and others.

As the link I posted shows, there are plenty of cities with lax gun laws that still have a high rate of gun-related crimes.

 

[Saucy]

And there are places that have been Republican controlled for decades that have the same problem. Memphis, Atlanta, Houston and others.

As the link I posted shows, there are plenty of cities with lax gun laws that still have a high rate of gun-related crimes.

Lol you're not going to get a republican controlled city even in the top-10 list. They're all democratically controlled. I lived in both Houston and Detroit. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country, but has a relatively low murder rate, especially compared to cities with higher rates per capita.

Besides, the evidence says there's less gun violence when there are more guns.

 

[lasthero]

Lol you're not going to get a republican controlled city even in the top-10 list.

Want to bet?

Top 100 most dangerous places to live in the USA - NeighborhoodScout

10 Memphis, TN
9 Birmingham, AL
8 Detroit, MI
7 Bessemer, AL
6 St. Louis, MO
5 Wilmington, DE
4 Camden, NJ
3 Alexandria, LA
2 Monroe, LA
1 East St. Louis, IL

Oh, by the way, I looked up the poorest states in the country. Guess what? The top three are Republican strongholds, last I checked: Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama.

 

[Saucy]

Want to bet?

Top 100 most dangerous places to live in the USA - NeighborhoodScout

10 Memphis, TN
9 Birmingham, AL
8 Detroit, MI
7 Bessemer, AL
6 St. Louis, MO
5 Wilmington, DE
4 Camden, NJ
3 Alexandria, LA
2 Monroe, LA
1 East St. Louis, IL

Oh, by the way, I looked up the poorest states in the country. Guess what? The top three are Republican strongholds, last I checked: Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama.

Well, let's agree to disagree on this one. I've looked at ten different lists and they're all different. We can judge by different parameters and get different numbers. But yes, I'll take back my statement for fairness and I promise I'll look more into that before claiming it again.

 

[Nithavela]

YEAH! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! USA! USA! USA! USA! *wildly fires into the air and kills a family dog 2 miles away*

 

[Saucy]

YEAH! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! USA! USA! USA! USA! *wildly fires into the air and kills a family dog 2 miles away*

Hey, we only do that on weekends. We're not completely uncivilized.

 

[miamited]

It is funny how the places that see the most gun violence are the same places that seem to have the most gun control.

Hi dogs4thewin,

Yes, I must agree that isn't really the truth. It may be in some of our cities because they are not what one would call closed systems. The city of New York can have strict gun laws, but you drive across the bridge and get anything you want. In nations that have stricter gun controls, the evidence is far different.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Goonie]

Hey, we only do that on weekends. We're not completely uncivilized.

Well to be fair you do have to find time to go on about Obama!

 

[381465]

The second amendment will continue to exist, but there will be politicians that will make it unnecessarily difficult for legal gun owners.
All states require federal background checks and approval for legal purchases from firearm dealers. Some states duplicate the process for an added fee. Some states restrict some firearms by feature or capacity. Some states require a license to purchase...even though the ATF already regulates sales and background checks.

Take MD. Gov Omalley imposed restrictions on sales of MD approved firearns, limited magazine size, requires a separate buyers license (fee for app and fee for fingerprints), an additional fee for MD duplicating federal checks.
Now if a person wants to buy a handgun in MD, it will cost about $125 before they can actually buy the firearm.
That seems to be more of a punitive and fee driven measure than one based on safety.

A second amendment end run.

 

[Nithavela]

Hey, we only do that on weekends. We're not completely uncivilized.

It is weekend.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anyone who thinks that a president can abolish an amendment clearly has no idea how our government works and therefore their opinions should be regarded as farcical... or, in our current case, 49% of the population can vote for that person and act like he's an American icon right up there with the founding fathers.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Hillary couldn't have done that even if she wanted to. What makes anyone think she would want to, anyway? That's stupid. She doesn't care. In fact, if the gun lobby gave her just a little money she would expand their rights. They don't give her money because they know they don't have to since she won't affect them anyway. Trump just can't help himself, he has to say stupid things constantly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The second amendment will likely never be repealed but it certainly needs modification/clarification to bring it back into line with the original intent.

I think the DC v Heller ruling took care of that in all honesty.

"It's an individual right"
"but it's not unlimited"

...were the two major takeaways from that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What makes anyone think she would want to, anyway?

Two reasons a lot of conservatives thought that...

1) (and this one isn't exclusive to her) Groups like the NRA work closely with the GOP to to make sure that the GOP gets the vote of most gun owners, so in order to do that, the NRA spends large sums of money to go on fear mongering campaigns to convince gun owners that every democrat wants to disarm them.

2) The last major piece of restrictive gun legislation that our nation saw was under another president named Clinton...so people feared that we'd see a 2nd Clinton "assault weapons" ban.


...but with that being said, anyone who things that a president can get rid of an amendment clearly has no idea how our government works. Deep down, I think that The Donald knew that, he was just pandering to a certain type of low information voter when he made those comments.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Two reasons a lot of conservatives thought that...

1) (and this one isn't exclusive to her) Groups like the NRA work closely with the GOP to to make sure that the GOP gets the vote of most gun owners, so in order to do that, the NRA spends large sums of money to go on fear mongering campaigns to convince gun owners that every democrat wants to disarm them.

2) The last major piece of restrictive gun legislation that our nation saw was under another president named Clinton...so people feared that we'd see a 2nd Clinton "assault weapons" ban.

I wasn't going to go that far but yes, it's simply more of the same with conservatives where they believe myths that they want to believe and that they're commanded by right-wing pundits and talk show hosts to believe. It's pretty pathetic. As for a Clinton

...but with that being said, anyone who things that a president can get rid of an amendment clearly has no idea how our government works. Deep down, I think that The Donald knew that, he was just pandering to a certain type of low information voter when he made those comments.

I think all his base is comprised of "low information" voters. It's amazing that when he says things, even things this stupid, he automatically gets cheers - it proves that people blindly support him.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ah, another instance where the left tries to make us Trump supporters look like idiots for believing this.

Hillary Does Want to Ban Guns No Matter What “Politifact” Says

So, yes, Trump was right. Again.

Prefacing their article with the "no matter what Politifact says" descriptor was just a cheap attempt by the author to try to discredit the fact that Politifact called out Trump when he was lying, plain and simple.

Here are the details:
At a rally, he made the comment: "wants to abolish the Second Amendment." "Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away, and she wants to abolish the Second Amendment."

Here were her actual comments on the matter:

In both her 2008 and 2016 White House bids, Clinton has called for stronger background check requirements all the while affirming her support for the right to bear arms.

Clinton does want to keep guns out of the hands of "people we all agree shouldn't have them — domestic abusers, violent felons, and dangerously mentally ill people," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. But Trump’s charge exaggerates the controls she wants to put in place and ignores what she has said on the record.

"I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this," she said in a January 2008 Democratic presidential debate.


The comments she was making (that Donald took out of context) were specifically referring to buy back programs

Her comment: "Communities have done that in our country. Several communities have done gun buyback programs. But I think it would be worth considering on the national level if that could be arranged"

While I disagree with Clinton (and the democrats' stance on gun control in general)...there's nothing about a buy back program that's anti-2A. While I personally wouldn't voluntarily sell my property to the government for 1/4 of what I paid for it, if someone else voluntarily decides they want to do that, then that's between them and the buyer (government).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is funny how the places that see the most gun violence are the same places that seem to have the most gun control.

While I'm very pro-gun...that's the cherry-picking logic that both sides seem to use.

No matter what one's stance is, you can find a state that fits your narrative.

For example, if you want to prove that high gun ownership leads to higher murder rates: Louisiana
If you want to prove that high gun ownership reduces violent crime: Wyoming
If you want to prove that strict gun control works: Hawaii
If you want to prove that you don't need strict controls: Vermont


It's a topic that's very easy to cherry pick, however, when you actually just boil it down to stats, the result (which is inconvenient for both sides) is that there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates, and no correlation between gun control strictness and homicide rates.

Poverty and education statistics have a higher degree of correlation with gun crime stats.

 

[KCfromNC]

"If Crooked Hillary got elected, you would not have a 2nd Amendment, believe me."
-Donald Trump, September 22nd, 2017 at an Alabama rally.

It seems an odd thing to rally on seeing as I was just told yesterday that Donald never talks about the election or his opponent anymore.

Looks like a case of needing to make up something which didn't happen to distract from things which actually are.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It might be funny if it were true.

Gun Laws, Deaths and Crimes - FactCheck.org

I am fairly certain that there are major cities that have STRICT gun control yet high crime. In fact the city with the highest murder rate is KNOWN for their strict gun control ( or one of the highest not sure if it still holds the top spot.