Hacker News Reader

Comment by dreta | Hacker News Reader

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.

View on HN

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms

I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency.

Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.

I know they say there's online loopholes too. Last time I checked the law was they had to ship the gun to a local licensed firearms dealer, who then does a background check and hands over the gun for a reasonable fee.

This. It's admittedly pretty simple if you want to go buy a firearm in a reasonable state, like Maine or New Hampshire. You go to the gun dealer/sporting goods store/Walmart. You pick out what you want. They submit your information to the background checking system. You go get lunch and come back an hour later. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen, you pay the cashier and walk out the store with your new firearm.

Now, what you can also do legally in most states is purchase a firearm from another private individual through a private sale. An enormous number of second-hand gun sales occur in this fashion, through Craigslist or classified ads or personal acquaintances. Effectively, this is no different than if you were buying and selling lawnmowers or comic books, or any other mundane object. I am skeptical of any attempts to really regulate this activity, because it is effectively unenforceable given the number of firearms currently in circulation and the almost complete lack of any records of ownership history for most of them.

That's why universal background checks are considered by many to be the first step down the road to a gun registry.

This is a semantic argument. I agree that the terminology is misleading. However, I think we should always follow the words "there is no gun show loophole" with the words "private citizens can sell guns without background checks no matter where they are," and perhaps "let's call it the private sale loophole."

There is a "gun kit" loophole, according to this article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-autom...

Washington D.C. tried to ban handguns in some public places. The supreme court said they couldn't do that. Clinton wants states and cities to be able to enact their own bans, and she will be replacing at least one seat on the supreme court. So a lot of people might be losing their guns under a Clinton presidency.

How is anyone losing guns? Who is she taking away guns from by placing more restrictions on private sales? Does it really sound like a bad idea having less guns in Washington D.C. when their violent crime rate is over triple the national average[1]?

[1]: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

I don't think her only gun policy is going to be restrictions on private sales. I think she's going to push for a reinterpretation of the constitution which would allow banning carrying guns in more places.

Have you seen the O'Keefe video where Russ Feingold, a Democratic challenger for U.S. Senate, tells a Palo Alto, California, fundraiser that Hillary Clinton might use an executive order to enforce gun control.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/13/feingold-okee...

Breitbart as a source?

Does it matter? The claim behind the article appears to be a hidden-camera video. Maybe you should discredit that thing, rather than dismiss the article because its a conservative-leaning organization.

fuck this shit again

It's a video, Briebart is just the messenger. When CNN is Hillary's 7th largest contributor, Reuters giver her $MMs, Google give her $MMs, Fox give her $MMs what's left ?

You mean what's left that supports your views?

No. When CNN tells you reading things is illegal and you should only listen to their opinion, a line has been crossed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

It's kind of a silly thing to disclose and people should find truth but the blatant propaganda at breitbart isn't where you'll find it.

This guy is not the solution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

I'm done. you're blind.

I hope this spreads wide and far. This is unbelievable.

I guess I'm committed to wearing long sleeves now.

Though seriously, I don't think anyone can argue that Trump doesn't fall squarely in the "Authoritarian" camp. Also, the parent doesn't even mention that Trump is "Authoritarian?" Only that he "appeals to white identity politics?"

Only one presidential candidate has said that they want the police to stop people on the street without cause and confiscate their guns. And it's not Clinton.

I can't understand why Trump gets any support from gun rights people. He advocates for exactly what they fear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com