Only people with an IQ below 97 believe she is planning to “abolish” the 2nd amendment. Yes, this includes you.

That is only an insult for those whom are hung up on notions of IQ.

Well, she outlines it on her site, so it MUST be true. Kind of like how everything in the media MUST be true because they said it. I mean politicians have NEVER been caught trying to sneak changes in at the last minute on legislation. It is completely unheard of!

So, since your fixated with IQs, how low is the IQ of people that believe what she says given her history of lying?

I've seen the claim, Democrats don't want to take away guns, they just want to ban weapons of war. That sounds great, and to those who don't bother thinking immediately assume assault rifles and high powered weapons. So let's just see what are the US weapons of war.

Pistol: M1911

Assault Rifles: M16, M4, M231 FPW

Shotguns: 500 MILLS, M26 MASS, M870

Machine Guns: M249, M240, Browning M2HB

DMR & Sniper Rifles: M14, SDM-R, M110, M2010, M107, Mk 20 SSR

There you go, ban those guns and it will solve our countries gun control issue. See what I'm getting at? Since all firearms are used in war, where do Democrats end their classification of weapons of war? They are starting with assault rifles and high caliber weapons, but anyone with common sense know they will expand it to include any firearm that is used in crime to the list. The whole, give them an inch and they take a mile logic.

Now, putting your IQ bs aside, people know Clinton will try to abolish the 2nd Amendment because for decades now the Democrats have made it clear they do not view the right to bear arms to be an individual right. The good old Democratic Socialists even try to make the claim. Also note that I said "if" she becomes President and abolishes it because I doubt she will win. If her and Trump keep making themselves look untrustworthy people will vote for someone else (plus don't forget that supporters of Cruz, Rubio, Sanders, etc. have said they will write-in their name instead of voting for Trump or Clinton). Notice I also say "try" to abolish here because I believe Clinton has the same resolve as the Democrats that did the childish sit-in. Did nothing the whole day saying they would continue to sit-in until something was done about gun control just for the day to end and return the next business day like nothing had happened. Feign the act of doing something and then business as usual.

(paraphrased) I didn't care when I had the chance to do something during the pre-elections, now I will vote Hillary because Trump isn't acceptable.

OK.

... your Trump support
Trump puppy
etc etc

I'm happy you did read my posts so very carefully and took the diligence to understand them properly prior to replying.

For the record, I do not support Trump in any way.

But I see Trump as the only serious candidate from the point of view of the USA. Personally, I would really have liked Bernie Sanders to make it, for the reasons explained in my earlier posts. Sanders (and Clinton likewise) will be very bad, but since I live in the EU, "bad" means "good". Bad for USA = good for EU.

Unlike some people who are blind in their fanatical political rage, I am able to look at it from the other side, too. While I personally don't want Trump, I believe that for the USA, he is the better choice. The only one, even. That doesn't make me a supporter or a puppy.

Asshole or not, idiot or not, insulting or not, stupid haircut or not, having had bankruptcies or not, he still embodies the "American Spirit" a lot better than any other candidate (or any other candidate since... dunno... Nixon?).
Trump is a distorted carricature of the American business man. Loud, big words, big lies, insulting, breaks contracts whenever he likes, and insists on them being fulfilled as long as they're favorable. Drags the next random person to court and sues the crap out of the for no good reason.
But... love him or hate him for what he is and what he does, he is successful, and this "intolerable behavior" of his is just what has made the USA so successful for many decades. Centuries, even. Ask your native Indians about trusting the White Man and his fine contracts.

Clinton on the other hand is the wife of a... mildly successful former president who was fired for perjury and obstruction of justice, and she has herself been caught being -- let's be kind and say -- inept and very untruthful about it in affairs that one could argue do kinda matter big time. Plus, she has demonstrated several times to weasel her way around in a sheer embarrassing way, including saying the exact opposite now as half a year ago, and several times stabbing the current president -- who is even from her own party -- in the back publicly. That, and stabbing other candidates from her own party in the back.
Wow, really, that's someone whom I'd trust when she promises golden times for everybody, 10.4 million jobs created, super modern infrastructure everywhere, all of that for free of course, and Lands of Milk and Honey, that's someone whom I would want to rule my country. But yeah, no kidding, Angela is not much better than Hillary, I'll give you that.

Of course Hillary would like to nullify the second ammendment as it was originally intended, there's really no debating that one.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/leaked-audio-clinton-says-supreme-court-is-wrong-on-second-amendment/

Of course Hillary would like to nullify the second ammendment as it was originally intended, there's really no debating that one.

The original intention was: Since permanent standing armies are tools of tyranny, and we don't want to be tyrants ourselves, a well regulated militia is required to provide a defence against tyranny.

There's just a few missing steps between that vision and modern America...
* you do have a tyrannical standing army that routinely fights wars of aggression, which is what the militias were supposed to prevent...
* you're anti-regulation when it comes to your non-organized militias a.k.a. individual armed citizens...
* the modern police force are more dangerous than any standing army of the time, thus are also a tool of tyranny that patriotic militias should overthrow.
* even pro-gun people realise that there has to be a line drawn somewhere when it comes to arms. Allowing citizens access to long range missiles and nuclear material is obviously a bad idea. This is itself "gun control". The difference between pro and anti gun people is just where the line is placed exactly.

@Hodgman

Your idea about the "original intention" could not be further off.

Standing armies are not the only possible source for tyrannical activities. The most dangerous source is the governing force put in power by the people. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." does not mean to protect our selves from just foreign entities, but also our own established governments. America is not the "free state" the constitution was referring to. Their were 13 original states when the US declared independence. The collection of the states are what form America as a whole.

Fun fact: each state has its own constitution. The states are supposed to be self governing with minimal federal interference.

Your points:

-The US military is not tyrannical. Expansionism is dead and we are not holding our boot to any nations throat. Militias were never meant to be involved in foreign interests, how are common folks supposed to hold our military at bay? This makes no sense. It is meant to be used as a tool to ensure freedom in the face of oppression by local entities.

-Individual armed citizens in-fact ARE the militia. The militia forms when it is necessary. People don't walk the streets in large groups brandishing weapons to project power. That wont happen unless it becomes necessary. It might not be necessary for another 50 to 100 years, or maybe never. But if guns are gone before then, when that time does come, no one will be able to defend themselves.

-Please explain how modern police forces are more dangerous than the military. And how they are tyrannical? The fact that you can walk to work in the morning and not have to worry about getting hurt is because of the police. Everything you do in your day to day is guaranteed because of the police. Police are good, not tyrannical. They enforce rules that keep everybody safe. They prevent anarchy. Police are a godsend and to say otherwise reflects poorly on yourself. For every terrible story you hear about a specific cop, their exist 10,000 good stories that you don't hear about.

-Painting a very broad stroke across what the term fun control means. I disagree with this definition.

* even pro-gun people realise that there has to be a line drawn somewhere when it comes to arms. Allowing citizens access to long range missiles and nuclear material is obviously a bad idea. This is itself "gun control". The difference between pro and anti gun people is just where the line is placed exactly.

Barring nukes, most military hardware is not illegal for citizens to own. That being said it's almost impossible of most citizens to own a modern M1A3 Abrams, or an F-35 due to the price tags. Arnold Scharzenneger owns a tank, and there is at least one actor out there who owns an F-86 Sabre.

@Hodgman

Your idea about the "original intention" could not be further off.

Standing armies are not the only possible source for tyrannical activities. The most dangerous source is the governing force put in power by the people. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." does not mean to protect our selves from just foreign entities, but also our own established governments. America is not the "free state" the constitution was referring to. Their were 13 original states when the US declared independence. The collection of the states are what form America as a whole.

Fun fact: each state has its own constitution. The states are supposed to be self governing with minimal federal interference.

Your points:

-The US military is not tyrannical. Expansionism is dead and we are not holding our boot to any nations throat. Militias were never meant to be involved in foreign interests, how are common folks supposed to hold our military at bay? This makes no sense. It is meant to be used as a tool to ensure freedom in the face of oppression by local entities.

-Individual armed citizens in-fact ARE the militia. The militia forms when it is necessary. People don't walk the streets in large groups brandishing weapons to project power. That wont happen unless it becomes necessary. It might not be necessary for another 50 to 100 years, or maybe never. But if guns are gone before then, when that time does come, no one will be able to defend themselves.

-Please explain how modern police forces are more dangerous than the military. And how they are tyrannical? The fact that you can walk to work in the morning and not have to worry about getting hurt is because of the police. Everything you do in your day to day is guaranteed because of the police. Police are good, not tyrannical. They enforce rules that keep everybody safe. They prevent anarchy. Police are a godsend and to say otherwise reflects poorly on yourself. For every terrible story you hear about a specific cop, their exist 10,000 good stories that you don't hear about.

-Painting a very broad stroke across what the term fun control means. I disagree with this definition.

"The US military is not tyrannical". That is a matter of perspective. I'm not going to say that you are wrong and Hodgman is right (because neither is a correct statement, but you are not correct either), but that very much depends on who's saying that.

I think you mean "gun control" btw, and not "fun control". I really doubt anyone wants to implement "fun control". :P

Barring nukes, most military hardware is not illegal for citizens to own. That being said it's almost impossible of most citizens to own a modern M1A3 Abrams, or an F-35 due to the price tags. Arnold Scharzenneger owns a tank, and there is at least one actor out there who owns an F-86 Sabre.

Arnold owns a demilitarised tank. Missiles, tanks, fighter planes, etc are regulated in the US, as are fully automatic assault rifles, suppressors and certain classes of sniper rifles.

-Individual armed citizens in-fact ARE the militia. The militia forms when it is necessary. People don't walk the streets in large groups brandishing weapons to project power. That wont happen unless it becomes necessary. It might not be necessary for another 50 to 100 years, or maybe never. But if guns are gone before then, when that time does come, no one will be able to defend themselves.

Good luck with that. Let me know how your militia fares against a predator drone.

Please explain how modern police forces are more dangerous than the military.

Read what Hodgman wrote.

the modern police force are more dangerous than any standing army of the time

The US police could easily outgun any historical army (probably up to around WW2) and plenty of modern armies.

sniper rifles.

Depends on the county for that one. There's no legal distinction between rifles/sniper rifles, but counties do restrict calibre size, some of which really only impact larger sniper rifles.

From what I understand there's no way to get a functional tank unless presenting it as a military/law enforcement dealer sample. Same with post-86 ban machine guns/really any class 3 weapons.

Supressors... Really need to not be class 3, and many states are making it simple to get them. They're only restricted because fo the hollywood trope of them being dead quiet, when in reality, they bring guns down from "Make sure you're wearing ear muffs or else you may go deaf!" to "damn that's loud, maybe I should bring ear muffs"

Good luck with that. Let me know how your militia fares against a predator drone.

I see this argument posted a lot. The goal of a militia in a modern USA wouldn't be to fight the predator drone directly with manpads or something, but to kill the pilot's family and him when he leaves his base of operations.

The US police could easily outgun any historical army (probably up to around WW2) and plenty of modern armies.

Many of our police departments even have better training than most historical armies. The NYPD is basically a military. They've got over 50 thousand employees, around 35 thousand which are armed with everything from handguns to antimaterial rifles, which easilly puts them into the territory of being able to take over small countries.

The problem with gun control is that it simply does not work. I'm actually in favor of gun control (you would never in your life have thought that, would you -- but in principle I really am), but it's one of those crazy dreams that people who only believe in good and do not want to see evil have.

Criminals have guns, and will have guns. Terrorists have guns and will have guns. Ideally, police has guns and uses these to shoot the bad guys before they get to hurt innocent people. Ideally, there is a military that defends in case someone attacks, not a military that invades other countries. I'm all for that. No guns needed, there is no legitimate reason (apart maybe from "shooting tin cans is fun") for anyone to own a gun.

Sadly, reality looks a lot different. Police does shit to protect you, criminals have guns and use them, terrorists have guns and use them, and you still are not allowed to have one. Military is either a mere joke (ours in particular), or an obnoxious aggressive invader, depending on what country you look at. Military leaders are the kind of sick people who shouldn't be in charge in the first place, regardless of where you look.

Even in places where people may quite liberally wear guns (looking at the USA now), the hysteria is outrageous, and you can see how easily drawing a sane line fails from the above mentioned silencer and automatic weapon example.

So you wear a gun, maybe even openly on your belt. What about it? As long as it stays in the holster and the cock isn't pulled back, what harm does it do? There is a quote from "The Duck of Death" in "Unforgiven" which, although obviously not being honest, very well describes the situation: "I imagine you could overlook those [guns], eh, Bill? If you didn't see them... or hear them?".

Now, on the other hand, nobody needs an automatic weapon for any kind of legitimate use, I think we can readily agree on that. It's not useful for either self-defense or bringing down deer. Automatic weapons are high-cadence, low-accuracy things that let you harm many people in short time without a lot of precision or attention on who gets hurt. No suprise one wouldn't like to have everybody carry an Uzi. Nobody needs a flamethrower or a bazooka either, for the same reasons.
There is nothing "inherently useful" you can do with a napalm bomb or a canister of sarine in your home, either. You can't use hand grenades for hunting rabbits (well, maybe you can, but...).

Silencers, on the other hand... wow... Leon the Professional used one. All cleaners in the movies do. Clearly, you must be a criminal if you use a suppressor because there is no way you could want to use one for a legitimate reason, such as preventing hearing damage.

It's not like a suppressor makes a shot "silent" anyway (in a sense of being able to commit a crime and not being noticed), not if you care about having any amount of noticeable energy in the bullet. As soon as your bullet has somewhat of a normal velocity, there is inevitably a hypersonic boom. All the silencer does is, it prevents your ears from falling off and muzzle flash going all over the place.

And with that in mind, the USA are selling 6 predator drones to one of the worst warmongers in the world, this very year. Hopefully they are intelligent enough to keep the emergency shutdown codes (if such a thing exists) around.