Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Donald Trump Receives Presidential Security Protection" video.

  1. Chainsaw Surgeon And even if there were, they'd be pro-gun, which means they wouldn't have been backing Hillary.
    11
  2. PwnyGOD Now that we can definitely agree on. Both parties chose the absolute worst people to represent them. If no other good comes from this, it should at least stick in people's minds as the perfect example of what not to do again.
    2
  3. Terry Scott Isn't baseless speculation fun? I know I enjoy it. I've got one: Imagine if the moon really was made of cheese. There, now we've both brought up things that don't have any bearing on the world we live in. Yay for silliness.
    2
  4. Billion Dollar Biscuit I'm clueless...but you're the one who doesn't comprehend what a joke is. Hmmm....
    1
  5. PwnyGOD You mean like Clinton, when she publicly said she wanted to enact similar restrictions as those in the UK? When she publicly stated, in plain words, that she wanted to ban handguns and semiautomatic rifles completely? That kind of "extreme few?" It seems that the word "few" isn't very comforting when one of them is running for President. She doesn't support reasonable regulations. She supports confiscations and bans. She said so herself. How is it that so few people have actually watched her speeches? I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican) but I still made sure to research the candidates.
    1
  6. Billion Dollar Biscuit Typical. I don't agree with the Left, therefore I must agree with the Right? So sad. I've got news for you, cupcake. I think both sides are pretty pathetic right now. These two imbeciles are the best you could come up with? I mean, the minor party candidates were a joke, too but not nearly as bad as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. But at least both sides have scared plenty of people into thinking they should only ever vote Blue or Red, right? You did this to yourselves. Deal with it.
    1
  7. PwnyGOD Actually, I wasn't referring to that and it's the first I'm seeing of it. That was about some interview. I'm talking about a speech I watched her give after one of the mass shootings. If I find it, I'll post a link but I assure you, I have no interest in the NRA or their shtick. As for her policies, they're pretty clear. She wants the Heller decision reversed. She's made no bones about that. The Heller decision determined that the second amendment was not simply protecting a State's Right to a militia but also the individual Right to keep and bear arms for home/self defense. Now, if that decision is reversed, then suddenly, we no longer have a Right to defend ourselves with firearms. If that's the case, then we have no "need" for anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns (nobody hunts with a handgun). She has been sure to say on many occasions that she has no problem with guns...for hunting. So, even if I can't find the video of the speech, it's not exactly necessary. She doesn't want to reverse Heller because she thinks we should be able to have the types of guns people carry for self defense. Can you really justify her desire to take away our Right to defend ourselves with a firearm as "common sense" gun control? That goes way beyond background checks and registration.
    1