It will be called "The Tax Funding Omnibus Act of 2017". The reform itself will be spread throughout the bill in hidey-holes, will be buried on page from pages 3,236 to 15,463. The voting draft will be distributed 3 days prior to the vote, and what will stand out won't be the sentence here and there gutting our rights and freedoms, but the raises for congress, the funding for pork projects, and more Homeland Security hooey...

The not so hidden agenda of the "liberal-progressives" is the establishment of rule by an "intellectual aristocracy" where they get to pick the intellectuals. The ability of the general population to resist such an effort, by force if necessary, is counterproductive to these ends. The lib-progs view criminals as far less a threat to their objectives than an engaged and enraged populace and they are correct to do so. That is the real reason behind the second amendment and why the "progressives" want to eliminate it.

It just makes sense to be armed. I think however that guns will be outlawed by governments (not to protect US, but to protect the government from the populace). We should be looking to alternate forms of defense- maybe high tech stuff- that wont be outlawed at least for awhile.

Don't forget, SCOTUS has already ruled that police are not a security force, and can't be held responsible for not protecting people from criminal violence. There's a good reason sheriffs in high crime areas are now advising people to arm themselves for self protection.

Should Hillary's PC police confiscate all my guns (I'll make that hard for hiding some), I'll need something to ward of huge bands of the Birmingham area punks I fully expect to roam the supposedly gun-free streets, kicking in any door they want. Yes, supposedly. Only outlaws will have illegal guns.
Ah, that reminds me, I also need to acquire deadly projectile weapons that are not guns.

The fact that the government does not is the source of our problems...I know we were dumbed down and it happened slowly over time but still in a sense we allowed it to happen and the majority has done little to nothing about it.

Ah, yes......Molotov cocktails...................

"she does want to restrict gun ownership "
I hope you're wrong, but I would not be shocked. My wild guess is the issue doesn't matter to her as it does to you and me; she thinks the sound bite will give warm fuzzies to someone who isn't into guns but knew a few people they didn't like who were into guns. Then she says something about respecting the Second Amendment for a soundbite for people like me who care about that right.

To get votes, politicians need to get urbanites who are into biking to work and museums (me) and rural people who are into guns and motor sports made at one another. Even if the national parks, for example, are plenty big enough to support wildlife and ATVs/snowmobiles; they get elected by getting the two groups fired up fighting over whether parks will be used for one or the other.

It's really sad that this stratagem comes before Constitutional right's, but that's what I suspect is happening.

Since individuals own guns, she isn't talking about us. So she must mean that the government agencies have too many guns. I agree. Close down the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, EPA, BATF, and DHS because they have too many guns. Its unconstitutional. Its not in there, I checked.
(No I did not read the article. Nothing Hillary says surprises me, or interests me since if her lips are moving, she's lying.)

And if what she said was true, it wouldn't be getting any air time - either in the media or on this forum. The facts of the matter are that she does want to restrict gun ownership and does want restrictions on the "lawful, responsible gun owners". The only people who should own guns in Hillary's mind are those protecting her interests.

Lol. Awesome!

Ah, but you think we still live in a land where the Constitution is the law.

By the way, the worst thieves are the government people, not the populace.

1) Cops dont get there until the damage is done
2) Cops really CANT get there and prevent damage, even if they hire more of them
3) Personal security guards are too expensive for everyone to get one
4) Not everyone is some 200 pound bruiser trained in martial arts who will intimidate any potential attacker
5) If someone points a gun at you, you can be killed even if you ARE a 200 lb bruiser.
4) So guns are a cost effective method of personal safety.

END OF DISCUSSION, HILLARY

Perhaps it is a wash being that Hillary Clinton has "too little" character or integrity! Otherwise, who in their right mind (or even with a modicum of intelligence) would listen to a lying, conniving dirt-bag like her?

In a way, Hillary is right. We should withdraw our military from the 140+ countries they are now in, take their weapons and put them in storage, and send all those folks into the work place to do something productive. We can also disarm her personal body guards and other security that she has. However, I don’t think that is what she meant by America has too many guns.

This country has too many Clintons.
She would endorse the Communist Manifesto if she thought it would help get her elected. The issue is not guns, but the fact that Hillary R. Clinton doesn't rise to the level of a whore.

You mean you didn't??

I don't think the USSR was a monarchy... Neither was Napoleonic France...

What she wants is a dictatorship. She wants the "pen and cell phone" power her adored fearless leader has. She wants to make law by dictate.

She needs to go. ALL these "Dynasty-seekers" need to go. If they don't... what will "go" is the America we used to know, and it will indeed go - into the wastebin of history.

She's another one of these "tear down your rights" candidates... protecting the sheeple from themselves, using fear to sell this bag of goods...

The socialist anti-gun crusade, ignoring and twisting the facts, is the same tactic that the Nazi's used to garner support - all woes are the fault of the Jews, and the bicyclists...