And let me quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn in The GULAG Archipelago on the general question of "whistling" vs. resisting:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked.
The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
Actually, gun ownership surged during the early Clinton administration in response to his party's push for gun bans and the "Brady Bill".
Quibble: our best numbers come from NICS checks, and they only started in 1998 based on 1993's Brady Bill. E.g. they capture sales of used guns, which the ATF otherwise doesn't have visibility into like they do with new stuff through Pittman Robertson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...). And even that data is getting iffier as more and more people get concealed carry licenses, which generally allow you to skip the NICS check.
But, yeah, pretty much every effort, mooted or actual, at gun control prompts us ornery gun owners to resist, generally by buying some of what's under fire, so to speak.
Unless of course it's more important that the team you identify with wins than what the principles that team stands for are.
But, if you really think rationally about it, supporting Clinton is clearly the best option.
Under Clinton you still get many progressive policy pushes - paid leave, higher minimum wage, protecting abortion, stopping Republican voter suppression, and most importantly, SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS! The supreme court nominations alone should be enough to convince you, and the rest is just icing on the cake. Not the mention, Trump supporters feel like they can be openly racist (which was my fear if Trump won, and sure enough, it has become a reality).
So yes, Clinton is a great option when compared to Trump.
They did. I do not want Hillary Clinton appointing judges to the supreme court any more than I want Trump doing it. Again, Hillary is not a progressive, so I see no reason to believe that her justice picks would be.
You haven't really made a convincing argument in her favor, you've essentially said "yes, she would have been an awful authoritarian who would continue and amplify the bad policies we already had, but at least she paid lip service to some inconsequential social wedge issues that serve as uniforms for my team!"
edit: It's especially disappointing that Hillary didn't lose by an even wider margin. Perhaps if the Democrats got bitten hard enough by their failed strategy we could have a chance at some real reform in four years. Instead people like you rewarded their avarice and deceit, so we can expect things to continue like this.
When she was a Senator, she did absolutely nothing on any of those fronts (or immigration)... even when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
The broader point is that she made no efforts in those areas on the legislative front, even when Democrats held the majority in both houses.
As it was, his answers to specific questions about what he endorsed about Clinton were so carefully phrased that he sounded like Clinton talking about emails.
No matter, though. I'm sure that President Trump will be a wise and careful steward of his new surveillance network.