I feel quite safe with my current circumstances (I'm an attorney living and working in NYC). However, I don't believe my decision is necessarily what's best for anyone else, to say nothing of using firearms for hunting and sport. I consider myself "pro-choice," and not just concerning abortion.
In any event, you comment is the reason for the last paragraph of my prior post.
The reason why we don't have strict gun control is because a largely Republican Congress (with the assistance a few Democrats who've received much criticism) and conservative Supreme Court has prevented the President and other Democratic leaders from instituting severe gun control policies they are quite vocal and proud of supporting.
If Clinton is elected, I don't believe there will be mass confiscation of firearms, but it will not be for lack of trying. If gun rights are a primary concern to a particular voter (for me, it's just one of a great many important issues), effectively suggesting or emphasizing that Republicans will prevent Clinton's gun control aspirations is hardly a persuasive argument to vote for Clinton or most Democrats. The open Supreme Court seat merely makes the issue that much more acute.
If Clinton tries to argue that she wants and strongly supports strict gun control (e.g., "Australian-style"
, but that she has no hope of ever passing it, she'll sound weak, hypocritical, defeatist and downright idiotic. Simply, she and the DNC cannot have it both ways on gun control, particularly since Clinton's position on the issue has "evolved" so far to the left during this primary season.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read