let's bring up the gun rights stuff - because why not. its part of the debate
so obama was supposed to take away everyone's guns. that's how the pro-gun argument sold the anti-obama argument. did that actually happen anywhere? did guns get taken out of everyone's hands? nope.
why do gun rights activists jump on the belief that their guns will be taken away and actually believe it? it is never going to happen in our lifetime. it didn't and won't.
back to the candidates:
so trump is saying more guns makes people safer - yet he supports "stop and frisk" because it will stop gun violence, because it will take guns off the street. here's somewhat of a link - couldn't find actual quotes, but it summarizes pretty well:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/trum...eople-in-inner-cities-are-living-in-hell.html
someone please 'splain this... how can more guns make everyone safer, yet at the same time, he argues to have guns taken off the street? is it because "certain" people should have guns, and other "certain" people shouldn't? or am i reading too much into that, and he just doesn't know which is right, more guns, or less guns? and again, he is painting her as a person who is going to take everyone's guns away, which just isn't true.
and HRC - she is standing on the typical "common sense" gun control measures, like minimizing clip size, further background checks, etc. is that too much of an ask because one step toward further gun control means in five more minutes no one has guns anymore. or we can take the
@Monkey Soup argument and say "wouldn't fix anything anyway, so why bother"?
sorry - just having fun Soup - I know you didn't say that... yet
- i kid because i love.