https://presidentialopenquestions.c om/?sort=-votes The second

They will just lie, like with all the other debated matters.

>>31503305
>Vote it up and spread it around so they can't weasel out of asking it
>so they can't weasel out
>can't weasel
>weasel
>now i'm thinking about rabbits
>what am i doing here instead of reading watership down
>that book is better than replying to this mediocre thread
>i replied anyway.

>>31503609
Is it really that hard to take not even five seconds to click the link and vote? Yeah, they'll probably both lie their asses off about everything, but a question like that would throw Hillary and give Trump an opening to attack.

>>31503646
Agreed.

The 2A question isn't perfect. Not even that good. But it is a legitimate concern for us. I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the good be the enemy of the fair.

Besides, it took me all of 20 seconds to vote it up. A tiny inconvenience at worst.

>>31503305
Will do sir
Hillary will look bad no matter what she says about the 2nd amendment

>>31503305
Who cares?

Trump will say he supports it, and Hillary will say that it being an Amendment doesn't mean it can't be regulated.

She'll talk about common sense gun laws and bans on "assault weapons".

You're asking a meaningless question that only one of the two candidates even remotely cares about.

>>31503737
There's a tiny sliver of brilliance in how the question is asked.

Is asks how the candidate will *protect* the amendment. Any answer that results in more limits on 2A rights is tacit admission that they will not protect the 2nd.

I don't expect most people to pick up on it, but some will. Maybe that's a small victory.

>>31503737
Apathy is death.

File: 1475124574507.jpg (17KB, 197x337px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 197x337px

>>31503796
This.

Both have said no fly no buy, both want more watch lists. They already said enough about their stance on the 2nd in the first debate

>>31503831
>Both have said no fly no buy, both want more watch lists. They already said enough about their stance on the 2nd in the first debate

Except Trump also mentioned due process for people on the list while Hillary kept quiet about that.

>>31503844
No Fly No Buy already bypasses due process in principle, dummy.

"You were put on the No-Fly list without due process, but you can appeal it." is still the same fucking thing as being denied a firearm without due process.

>>31503831
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-aligns-with-nra-on-watch-lists-and-guns-1475003335

>>31503788
I think most people already know Hillary won't protect it.

Most liberals and Democrats want to restrict the 2A. They'll say they don't want to ban guns, but they are very open about their stance on gun control.

>>31503895
Do you honestly think either current candidate could do better than that? I'm sure Johnson would say he's against it, but there's a better chance of Nixon rising from the dead and winning than him taking it. In terms of the second amendment this election is not about Hillary or Trump, it's about the supreme court. If Hillary wins, you can bet any gun case that goes before the SC will go liberal, not to mention that if a good enough case presents itself they might be able to reverse Heller or McDonald.

>>31503929
This.

Anyone who's read the dissenting opinions in DCvHeller should know what will happen to the 2A if Hillary gets control.

>>31503929
You also need to understand that Hillary can nominate all the leftist fucks for the SC that she wants, but the Senate must confirm them. The Senate is the key stone for gun rights here.

File: 1464608537761.png (245KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 550x600px

>>31503947
And if the democrats take control of the senate while she's in power?

>>31503947
If Hillary wins, the Senate has no choice but to confirm them.

They'll have no excuses for obstructionism in the eyes of the public at that point.

>>31503972
>Have no choice but to confirm them.
But that's totally fucking wrong, go do more research on this.

>>31503971
Bad things can easily happen.

>>31504068
>>Have no choice but to confirm them.
>But that's totally fucking wrong, go do more research on this.

Has there ever been a case in history when the senate has refused to confirm a candidate for the SC for an extended period of time, other than the past few months?

>>31504179
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

Not really, but a nomination does not guarantee confirmation.

>>31503972
>They'll have no excuses for obstructionism in the eyes of the public at that point.
They don't really have an excuse for it now.

>inb4 the lame duck President thing
When the GOP has been obstructing him since pretty much forever, they can't really make that claim with any seriousness.