They are attacking Hillary because she is a woman.



(Since no Hillary supporters have chimed in I figured I would make the spurious argument for them.

Paints while singing the Anthem:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/24/he-sings-the-star-spangled-banner-while-painting-an-image-crowd-goes-nuts-when-finished-product-is-revealed/

People seem to forget how Carter establishes the "malaise" as the new normal, and sat in the Oval Office in a sweater telling how America needed to turn down the thermostat and wear a fucking sweater.  That's how defeated America was.

I remember that edict. The public utility I worked for was bound to follow it. We all wore coats and gloves in the office and still caught colds. I also noticed during the Carter years how prices went up weekly. And remember how he said his wife was the only woman he lusted after? The good old days.

Hillary has stated her support for Australia-type laws.  Trump should have hit her with that.

The same ones who believed they could keep their doctors.

Amen.

Obama said HRC will say anything and do nothing. Wrong. She says anything then does whatever she wants to, as he does.

Sorry, asechrest. Dems are gullible fools with wool over their eyes. After being shat upon by O, they're rolling over so HRC can do the same.

What makes you think that would happen? All the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs on this forum by paranoid conservatives would have you think left wing demoncrats are taking control or already have and the demons are of a single mind on the subject. But here is the reality that would first need to be reversed:

The Supreme Court of the US would need to reverse its District of Columbia v. Heller decision.[1] The SCofUS rarely reverses earlier decisions.

The 44 state constitutions that enumerate a personal right to bear arms would need to also be amended.[2]

Currently the US Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans.

Among the states:
31 states have Republican governors.
18 states have Democratic governors.
1 state has an independent governor.[3]

23 states have Republicans in control of both state houses and the governor's seat (a trifecta.)
7 states have a Democratic trifecta.
20 states have divided control.[4]

Given the above state of affairs, any revolution over attempts to repeal or amend the second amendment is likely many decades away, if ever.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[2] http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government

The SCOTUS wouldn't have to necessarily reverse it's opinion, at least not right away. Instead, it'll start with smaller measures. Banning certain types of ammo, beginning to ban certain types of parts for weapons, etc.

With the proliferation of guns in America, I don't think confiscation will ever be a viable option. There are too many guns and too many people with guns for anyone to try and actually take them. Not to mention who's going to do it? Generally speaking the ones who complain the most about guns won't pick one up to defend anything so it won't be them.

Further, it's not "paranoid conservatives" but rather concern based on comments made by leftists, including Clinton herself. What makes you think she won't take steps to begin the process of banning guns? Like I said, it won't start with some huge bill in Congress to outlaw them, it'll start much smaller.

Wow!  The talents some people have!  I'm impressed!

I watched it three times.  What does it have to do with beer?