Can we all agree that:
1) Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women
2) He is now being accused of what he bragged about by many women
3) Anything Clinton is being accused of (which she never bragged about doing) is just peanuts compared to that?
The dude has grabbed half of the women in Manhattan by the pussy.
It's ironic that while your bullet points seem sort of reasonable, you then end with a blatantly hyperbolic statement that pretty much throws out any reasonableness on your first three points.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but come on, when Trump brags about it and then is accused of it, what are the odds it didn't happen?
Well if we're going based on the few posts above, he hasn't been convicted of anything, thus it didn't happen (or at least we should assume it didn't). Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not a trump supporter, but I don't think it's unreasonable that some women see a potential profit for claiming he did things to them, BASED on his comments. A person half the country hates is accused of assaulting women years ago, all they have to do is be someone who met him (if that), and they can claim he assaulted them and half the country will believe them. Maybe they get in on a class action lawsuit, maybe he pays them to shut up, maybe they don't want him elected, who knows.
Not sure if this is troll post. Do you have any familiarity with the constitution or government? Do you get all your news from Fox? A president cannot get rid of the second amendment. To do that, the legislature would need 2/3rds support. Good luck getting that even with a super majority of democrats. THEN, 3/4 of the states need to agree. Good luck finding some deep red states to agree to that.
The supreme court cannot overturn the 2nd amendment. They rule on the constitutionality of laws, the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, ergo it is law. They can interpret it differently than you, like making it so not all weapons can be privately owned, but they can't get rid of it.
While you're right that they couldn't repeal it, they could certainly cripple it without nearly what you're describing. Whole classes of guns were outlawed overnight in Massachusetts by their Attorney General earlier this year. No congress, no vote, just one person interpreting something differently. Interpretation, restriction, and taxation are all methods by which they can affect the 2nd Amendment (or any other amendment).
It's virtually illegal in many states to carry a concealed weapon. Technically it's legal, but they restrict licenses to the point it's functionally impossible for nearly everyone who isn't "connected" politically. The federal government gets states to do what it wants through restricting funding all the time without having to pass laws. "We're not saying it's illegal to allow ______, but if you do, we won't give you the $10,000,000 you've been asking for to fix your roads."
It would be much easier than you describe to do any of the things below:
1. Interpret the 2nd amendment to not include modern weapons
2. Require strict licensing on the basis that someone has the authority to approve/deny you based on their judgement (and not a set criteria). This one has already been done in the places with concealed carry issues I mention above.
3. Tax guns/ammo to the point that it's no longer an option for many people, and puts companies out of business.
4. Allow manufacturers to be sued when their guns are used in crimes, even though they did nothing illegal. Similar to allowing Ford or Budweiser to be sued when someone drives drunk. This result is the same as the taxation one above as it will increase prices. This one is fully supported by one of the two main candidates at the moment.