Of course he did, but I don't think he'd expect some vulgarity from Debbie, which is really messed up if they'd go as far as even going for personal attacks (like questioning his faith).
It's not a law, it's a constitutional right. And while we can of course debate the intention - it's clear the amendment exists in order to allow citizens to form militias, for example. However it still protects and will always protect the private ownership of firearms.
The democrats are such an embarrassment to our democratic system. Why would they make strategic and tactical comments like that in writing that can always find its way to third parties. I feel sad for Hillary Clinton as now people will doubt it was her own ability that enabled her success.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
There gun industry is larger in the US, so there are more incidents. If there are no guns anway, how would you be able to say the law works or doesnt work?
And why are there less guns? Because less people can buy them. Sooo, gunlaws are working.
I think there's some issues going on in Philly with the whole DNC thing being there.Of course he did, but I don't think he'd expect some vulgarity from Debbie, which is really messed up if they'd go as far as even going for personal attacks (like questioning his faith).
Of course they're crazy, but I doubt they know where Washington DC is located.
But on a serious note: I'm sure riots will happen, but I doubt they'll become problematic unless it turns into millions at D.C.
Either way, it's not a natural thing to have a gun as it'd be to have food or shelter or even air. While I have no problem with it protecting private ownership of firearms, I do have a problem with people hiding behind it to justify owning assault rifles or justify that everyone should have guns, violent or dangerous or not.
Now you know how people and most non-Americans feel about republicans being an embarrassment.
Is it about Obama passing on his torch to Hillary?
Maybe someone will insist on false equivalency there because it is the second amendment, making them think it's more important that shelter or food or something. However, restrictions on the right exist for a reason. We live in different times, but the ability for oneself to arm themselves in the case of tyrannical government isn't THAT crazy. That being said, way too many second amendment advocates insist on overly slippery slopes in regard to putting any restrictions on ownership at all...it's paranoia really. Personally, I'm leaning more towards the types of weapons being sold not being the main issue in preventing mass shootings, it's the ease at which people can acquire those weapons. Way too many states have no requirements of weapon registration or even thorough training.
Oh the damage isn't done yet. Clinton actually hired her for her campaign. I can't understand the logic behind that. So first the email leak proves that Sanders got screwed by the DNC and that it isn't a conspiracy theory anymore. Then miss Schultz resigns, then gets picked up by the person who she rigged the nomination for. Calling this awkward would be an understatement.
I can't... the logic behind this is absurd. Now we know for sure that she doesn't want any Sanders Supporters now.
You keep coming with cases from countrys which have significantly lower murder rates or general massshootings than the US and somehow want to tell us that their system does not work....It makes no sense. Like, at all.
Wtf does this have to do with guns?... You really think the average violent mentally ill individual wouldn't use a gun in place of a knife if they had easy access to it? This is what the entire gun debate is about.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
As silly as the Second Amendment is, why do we need anything bigger than handguns or multiple guns? What if the government just sends its military? Most of us don't stand a chance against military with better weapons.
Nah, it'd have been pretty big because she's part of DNC and benefited hugely from the DNC screwing Bernie over. Most people see her as untrustworthy and bad, as well as ugly, but many know Trump is way worse, so they side with Hillary. Something like this would make people reconsider, however, especially given 3rd party candidates are becoming a thing and they'd begin to think even Trump isn't that dirty. Hillary's reputation is good only among her supporters, otherwise most others don't trust her. A simple sorry wouldn't help much, if at all.
That's a dumb comparison. If a gun was used, far more people would be dead. Plus, knives are used for other stuff, guns are used to end lives, so it makes no sense controlling knives. I don't understand why you're against making it harder for bad people to get guns.
