Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her

[JA]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

[JA]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

[JA]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

Lol, do you understand how Dirty campaigning works and why it is called "Dirty" ?

Do you understand what deplorable, dangerous, and shameful mean? Eh, nevermind...

[JA]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

You shouldn't. Are you a weakling? Be strong. Why are you so afraid of a gun? Are you going to use your hands to attack the robber or the criminal? Harden up, my friend, harden up.

Ah, the machismo argument. If you are opposed to guns, then you must be afraid of them, therefore toughen up. Wouldn't the more civilized answer to a culture of gun violence, directly stemming from our nation's adoration of such toxic masculinity and ready access to firearms, be to de-emphasize and de-glorify violence while removing the primary tool of causing mass deaths? But, I guess that might be asking too much of many Americans.

[JA]

Unsurprising, considering most Republicans seem incapable of understanding that: (a) Clinton never proposed disarming or seizing arms from all American citizens, and (b) that there is an irrefutable difference between a political candidate aspiring to the Presidency and a regular citizen in terms of their likelihood of being a target of violence. Personally, while I find everything that Trump says and thinks deplorable, he is but merely the id of our authoritarian, bigoted Republican electorate with a demonstrable lack of self-regulation.

I'm not a Republican, but you have some Democrats and leftists that would LOVE gun confiscation. You can't deny it. That's why this issue is brought up. Some Democrats and far-leftists have to STOP talking about gun control, it's too divisive. Suburban women voters need to let it go as well.

That's a ridiculous reason to bring this issue up in relation to Hillary Clinton, however. She has never articulated any position that even resembles what the Republican Party and, specifically, Trump are suggesting. What other Democrats and Leftists propose is essentially irrelevant in this context. Also, I wouldn't deny that there are some (not even most) Democrats and Leftists who'd enthusiastically support mass firearm confiscation and laws similar to those found in countries such as England - myself included.

You shouldn't. Are you a weakling? Be strong. Why are you so afraid of a gun? Are you going to use your hands to attack the robber or the criminal? Harden up, my friend, harden up.

Ah, the machismo argument. If you are opposed to guns, then you must be afraid of them, therefore toughen up. Wouldn't the more civilized answer to a culture of gun violence, directly stemming from our nation's adoration of such toxic masculinity and ready access to firearms, be to de-emphasize and de-glorify violence while removing the primary tool of causing mass deaths? But, I guess that might be asking too much of many Americans.

Come on my man, how are people supposed to defend themselves? Come on, man. How are you going to defend yourself?

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

[JA]

From what am I supposed to defend myself? I have argued that guns need to be confiscated and banned, except for in tightly regulated and highly limited situations (such as farmers and licensed hunters). In that context, from what am I defending myself? A man with a knife or a baseball bat? Then the answer is a knife, a baseball bat, my hands, or some other object or, ideally, the police. But, again, if we focused on de-emphasizing and de-glorifying violence, along with actually tackling poverty, then the threat of violence would not be so widespread. I'm not saying it's a simple process, but it is the only legitimate process.

In a hypothetical situation where all guns were banned, this might or might not be true.  But whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's even desirable (and I don't want to get into that discussion, which is really a separate question, or maybe two questions) -- you CAN'T get there.  There are too many guns already in circulation in this country, and no confiscation or ban could be anywhere approaching 100% effective.  That genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in again.  So it's rather pointless to speculate about banning guns, other than as an intellectual exercise.

The most effective course is to accept reality and try to come up with the best policies in view of that reality.  It's literally impossible to completely end gun possession in the U.S.  Now that doesn't mean there can't be effective regulations, and IMO there certainly should be; having no restrictions on the weapons you could own is a recipe for disaster.  (To carry this to an absurd extreme: should private citizens be able to legally own a nuclear bomb? Of course not.)

(In case you haven't noticed, I have an aversion to extreme positions on either end of the spectrum.)

I'm glad to see a reasoned response, even if we have points of disagreement. I can certainly understand and respect the argument you've made, which is, admittedly, more practical and realistic. Obviously, the first step in the right direction is stricter regulations and restrictions on who can purchase a firearm or whose license may be revoked. Ideally, the end-result would be the end of guns in mass circulation, but the more pragmatic approach is tighter regulations, which I believe the majority of Americans would support.