There is one item that is going to get overlooked in the course of the debates, though it really grabbed my attention. Trump and all the flat out and very easily debunked lies and inflammatory speech coming out of his mouth kind of make it nearly impossible to examine the stances and policies in a serious way. When one candidate keeps saying how proud he is of himself, that he has a winning temperament and ignores the issue and serious questions, the other falls into the trap of responding to this and explaining why he shouldn't be proud, why his temperament is losing rather than having an informative policy discussion describing what the policies are and how they are different. Clinton actually did manage to squeeze policy in there, which was impressive. I mean if she'd have dutifully stuck to the questions as much as I wanted, though, it'd have looked as though she were ignoring him and that's probably not good debate etiquette- not to mention grounds for another round of robot and other conspiracy theories.
Conservatives get up in arms about a 'no fly no buy' requirement because it is a limit on guns and they are against all gun control. Some will even admit some Americans are on it for no reason and we shouldn't limit their right to guns. Liberals worry that using this watchlist criteria for gun control will lead to easy curtailing of other rights with no warning or justification like the right to assemble and the right against unreasonable searches. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/hillary_clinton_is_wrong_about_the_terror_watch_list.html
The key here is that it is faulty and that while yes, we need to do more in the way of gun control, it seems the danger is less from terrorists buying guns from dealers that follow these rules than say improved background checks and mental health screening (and care, but that needs more time and space to discuss) and other safety measures.
Clinton's unqualified mention of no fly really rankled me in the debate. I'm all for gun control and even working with people who like guns to make sure it's sensible even though I personally have no use for them, but using the no fly list seems utterly screwy for anyone concerned about civil liberties.
Like I said, I'm all for gun control, but using the no fly list is a bit like using stop and frisk and racial profiling and calling it fair and the most successful programs to date. And she did a great job railing against stop and frisk! She should have used the opportunity to go after the no fly list and called for greater care with civil liberties while increasing gun safety.
This article is old, but it's a favorite site:
I don't like Hillary in this area, I think she falls far short, maybe she's trying to win over some moderate Republicans or something with some of her not so progressive stances. It annoys me to no end though. I liked Bernie because he aimed high. You kind of know you aren't going to achieve that in our system, but WHAT IF you could? Plus, in a candidate, I want to know your ideal, your optimal set of policies, not this watered down what do I think we can accomplish and how do we water it down even more to bring on Republicans so we can say we're bipartisan and go down in history as loved and successful in both parties. But this is what we're stuck with.
This is a theory that could help untangle the seemingly contradictory arguments on both sides: