hightor wrote: oralloy wrote:
If she'd been elected, the government would have come and seized everyone's guns.
One of the stupidest predictions I've ever heard.
I realize that facts are anathema to the Left since those facts are always contradicting Leftist delusions. But no, posting facts that liberals find inconvenient does not count as stupidity.
Just how would she have put that plan into practice?
She would have continued and expanded Mr. Obama's executive orders that placed larger and larger groups of law-abiding Americans on the list of people who are prohibited from having guns.
At the same time she would have packed the courts full of judges who would maliciously refuse to enforce the Second Amendment.
It's fine to use rightwing talking points but at least have the sense to edit out the alarmist ignorance shown in your statement.
It is a credit to the Right that you characterize "facts and reality" as Rightwing talking points.
But similar to my above statement, just because facts and reality are highly inconvenient to the Left, that doesn't make facts and reality ignorant.
This really childish statement
And again. Just because the Left has a very strong dislike for facts and reality, that doesn't mean facts and reality are childish.
demonstrates a tenuous grip on the facts
Well let's see if you can manage to point out a single factual claim that I am wrong about then.
I won't hold my breath waiting though. I'm pretty used to liberals saying all my facts are wrong but then running away when challenged to list a single fact that I am wrong about.
and indicates a deep sense of paranoia
Hardly paranoia to take a candidate and party that means to take everyone's guns and is on the verge of doing it, and treat them as the threat to freedom that they actually are.
there may be things we should fear but "the gummint is gonna take our little toys" isn't one of them.
On the contrary, given Hillary and the Democrats' plans to do just that, that is exactly what everyone needed to fear.
Maybe, just maybe, an HRC administration might have tried to close the gun show loophole, limit magazine size, or expand background checks.
"Expanding background checks" is of course a euphemism for "taking law-abiding people who have every right to have guns and putting them on the list of people who are prohibited from having guns".
Mr. Trump will actually protect the rights of law-abiding Americans.
But I never heard her, Obama, or any other proponent of gun control threat to confiscate "everyone's guns".
As the Democrats added more and more groups of law-abiding people to the list of people who are not allowed to have guns, they would have gotten closer and closer to "everyone".
Probably the next category of people to be prohibited from having guns was "people who wear glasses". It would have been a touching tribute to Pol Pot (a foreign political figure that the Left holds in very high esteem).
The resulting political **** storm wouldn't be worth it.
On the contrary, the Left lives
for the joy that they get from violating people's civil rights.