Gun Control

Hillary Clinton Equates Gun Control Opponents With Terrorists

|

CNN

During a CNN "town hall" yesterday, Hillary Clinton said she was disappointed that Congress did not pass new gun control legislation following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December 2012. "I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation," said the former secretary of state and presumptive presidential candidate. "We cannot let a minority of people—and that's what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people." Evidently Clinton's idea of a more thoughtful conversation about gun control involves equating disagreement with terrorism while claiming some opinions are so dangerous that "we cannot let" people hold them.

I am not sure how Clinton plans to implement this new opinion control policy. As for gun control, she says she wants "background checks that work." If she means background checks that block gun purchases by people with no disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records (a description that fits the perpetrators of almost all mass shootings, including the Sandy Hook massacre), she might as well wish for a unicorn. If she means background checks that strip harmless people of their Second Amendment rights based on irrational criteria, that much surely could be achieved.

Clinton, by the way, twice referred to mass shooters with "automatic" weapons, meaning she does not understand the difference between semi-automatic firearms and machine guns, even after eight years as first lady in an administration that supported a highly contentious "assault weapon" ban and eight years as a senator who supported further restrictions. Her confusion on that point, which President Obama seems to share, in itself would be enough reason to take her advice about gun policy with a grain of salt.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

198 responses to “Hillary Clinton Equates Gun Control Opponents With Terrorists

  1. That’s fair. I think of her as a terrorist.

    1. ter?ror?ism
      ?ter??riz?m/
      noun
      noun: terrorism
      the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      seems the more the hidebeast talks the closer it resembles the enemy.
      Since this opinion is “We cannot let a minority of people, blah blah derpity derpderp.”- sounds like she advocates the use of violence to further her political aims against minorities which by definition IS in fact Terrorism.

  2. “We cannot let a minority of people?and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people?hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    But I thought the left championed minorities!

    1. I thought she must be talking about that minority that terrorizes the majority of people, that she is a member of, the political elite class.

      1. OPINIONS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

        1. Because Tolerance!

  3. We cannot let a minority of people?and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people?hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people

    The irony, it burns!

  4. And this is the tip top of TEAM BLUE’s future, eh?

    Please, please, please may Rand Paul win TEAM RED’s nomination. I would PPV the debates.

    1. Team Red establishment will never let that happen. They will support Shillary over Rand. They actually love Shillary, she’s one of their own kind.

      1. All Rand needs to do is tell them if he doesn’t receive his party’s nomination that he’ll be running 3rd party until he does.

        That will effectively end the GOP.

        1. He’ll stay in the GOP and support whoever they nominate. He is a politician after all.

          1. I’m not and I won’t.

          2. Just sayin…the man is in a unique position. He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.

            Rand could garner enough votes to see to it that the GOP would NEVER win another presidential election. And I, for one, wouldn’t have the slightest problem with him doing so.

            1. If the GOP does not go back to its classical liberal roots, it will repeatedly be:

              “Heads, the government wins. Tails, the people lose.”

              1. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, and every other liberty-oriented candidate for the other offices. But frankly, the LP has very little chance of becoming a force to reckon with.

            2. “He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.”

              We will call you Rand Paul Muad’dib.

              1. He needs to take a sandwyrm to DC and end the evil House Harkonnen

          3. Exactly. He’s a pol. His soul is already in hock to the devil.

        2. Yeah, just like when they put Romney u….oh, wait. Didn’t Rand tow the line then? What makes you think he won’t play ball this time too?

    2. Don’t be confused into thinking Team Red disagrees with her other than on specifics, they totally agree that one of the purposes of government is to stifle the opinions of those they disagree with, they just disagree with different people than Team Blue does.

    3. If Rand Paul is elected president, I think we’ll find him reluctant to scale back executive powers. I hope he’ll stay in the US Senate where he can do a lot more good.

  5. I have never owned a gun. I have never fired a gun. And I personally have no real desire to do either. What do I think about Hillary’s comments???

    Fuck off, cunt.

    1. That’s pretty much what I think of everything that comes out of her prunish old trap.

    2. You’re missing out. Shooting can be a lot of fun.

      1. Meh, my father, who owns enough guns that he has lost count, has taken me out shooting with a variety of his and his friends’ weapons, and yet, between that and Scouts, I still have never taken much of a liking to it.

        1. Maybe I enjoy it because I wasn’t raised around them. That and I like loud things. Fireworks, guns, guitars… If earplugs are a good idea then I’m up for it.

          1. I wasn’t raised around them either, and I fucking love shooting. But I know a lot of people who were raised around them and love shooting as well.

            1. I was raised around them and shot them a lot in the military, so the novelty isn’t really there anymore. I own a few, but the only time I ever shoot them is when I’m bored and can’t think of anything to do besides go to the range (although it’s usually a fun time…just not something I’ll usually do if there are other options).

              1. Ha yeah im in the same boat, its either too hot, too windy, too cold, AKA too far away from my couch after a looonnnngg days work
                but i always have a blast popping cherries so i do take NUBs out and show em the ropes.

          2. If you like fireworks, you might be retarded. Discuss.

            1. hey man blowing shit up is the great American pastime

  6. she says she wants “background checks that work.”

    Anyone who would want a gun is crazy and therefore unqualified to own a gun.

    1. It’s like Catch 22 in reverse!

    2. When applied to law enforcement, you just may have something there.

  7. “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,”

    Which has to take place following an emotional tragedy? Uggo-Paris-Hilton is a completely unselfaware fuckwit.

    1. When she says “thoughtful conversation”, she means, “surrender to me unconditionally”. The only reason you don’t understand that is because you’re a racist.

      1. The only reason you don’t understand that is because you’re a racist sexist.

        FIFY.

        1. Oh im sure shell claim shes not white if she thought it would help her… and the MSM would convince the Proggies shes being hated on for being black, not one of them would be smart enough to question it

  8. Clinton, by the way, referred to mass shooters with “automatic” weapons, meaning she does not understand the difference between semi-automatic firearms and machine guns, even after eight years as first lady in an administration that supported a highy contentious “assault weapon” ban and eight years as a senator who supported further restrictions. Her confusion on that point, which President Obama seems to share, in itself would be enough reason to take her advice about gun policy with a grain of salt.

    I wonder if they think a barrel shroud is that shoulder thingy that goes up.

  9. Did anyone catch her interview on her book on NPR’s Fresh Air recently? At one part she is asked about the Manning and Snowden leaks and she says something about how it was particularly damaging because, and I am not making this up, these ‘low level employees’ made these decisions. The woman’s arrogance and worship of power is just frightening.

  10. even after eight years as first lady in an administration that supported a highy contentious “assault weapon” ban and eight years as a senator who supported further restrictions.

    We have Nancy Reagan and Hillary to thank for FLOTUS becoming an official cabinet level position.

    1. WTF are you talking about? Nancy just told kids to say no to drugs. Hilary tried to install socialized medicine. Nowhere near the same.

      1. I guess it technically goes back to Jackie O and Eleanor Roosevelt.

        But all they wanted was world peace and a fashionable White House.

        Nancy and Hillary were the first First Ladies who utilized the power of the Executive Branch to tell other people what to do.

        1. I guess that makes Edith Bolling Wilson our country’s first woman President as of October 1919?

        2. But all they wanted was world peace and a fashionable White House.

          And equal pay, living wages, etc.

  11. Wow, I guess Hillary really doesn’t want to be the president.

    Go ahead and rile up the NRA.

    1. Yeah…a repeated winner there. They just can’t help it. It’s almost like the GOP on immigration.

      1. A vote to allow guest workers to keep and bear arms would create an interesting debate.

        1. Didn’t the ACLU win a case similar to that recently?

      2. Almost like? It’s exactly like. Which we should all be thankful for.

    2. I don’t think there was ever a question about that. In fact, writ large, that’s what makes me believe that Hillary won’t get the nomination: She has too long a track record of her own and by association that engenders some very motivated dislike. I think that people who would normally not vote or would be marginal voters will come out to oppose her because of that. Any “historic” enthusiasm Hillary brings to the table are offset by the equal enthusiasm of her detractors.

      1. Yes. Obama won the nomination and later the Presidency because he was an empty vessel with no track record. People could project what they wanted him to be on him. Hillary can’t do that. She is love her or hate her a known commodity. She is going to have to win on her merits. That is not a good role for her.

      2. Correct. Why did Obama win? Because he had none of that. Then, once people had projected their moronic bullshit on him, they couldn’t give him up without breaking their brains, so he won again.

        Hillary can’t pull that off in a million years.

        1. “they couldn’t give him up without breaking their brains”

          LOL

        2. Her problem is that she has all of the baggage of her husband, but none of his personality.

          I think people will vote for a politician with a terrible track record as long as the politician is at least somewhat likable and personable. Clinton just alienates people for no reason and demonstrates almost nothing in the way of people skills. She’s like the killjoy girlfriend of your buddy…always miserable about something and taking it out on other people.

          1. I think people will vote for a politician with a terrible track record as long as the politician is at least somewhat likable and personable.

            Exactly
            c.f. Bush v Kerry, Bush v Gore, Obama v Skeletor, Obama v Slick Mitt

          2. When she ran before, I loved her claiming credit for everything “positive” that occurred while her husband was in office as her demonstrable experience. Then, when some of the things were brought up that are no longer trendy in her circles (NAFTA, for example) she jumped back and said that wasn’t her and she wasn’t even in office at the time. “If you think it’s good, then we did it. If you think it’s bad, Bill did it.”

      3. I don’t see how she could ever win, because she has such enthusiastic detractors yet few enthusiastic supporters. Those who vote for her are already solid Democrat votes. But she would light a fire under hesitant Republican voters to get out to the polls.

        1. How? As I’ve been saying for some months, now… “An electorate stupid enough to elect Obama TWICE is probably stupid enough to elect Hillary.”

          Bet on it. And prepare to suffer even worse…

    3. Wow, I guess Hillary really doesn’t want to be the president.

      Apparently not. Of course in the primaries, you have to play to your base, but gun control is about as popular right now with the main part of the electorate as legalizing child rape.

    4. HRC: sellin’ the shit out of some AR-15s.

  12. Nikki: “she says she wants ‘background checks that work.'”
    BF: “Does that mean I get to take my gun home the same day?”

    1. +1.5 hour waiting for NICS phone to answer

  13. “We cannot let a minority of people?and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people?hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.

    “Let.” But don’t you dare call her bossy.

    1. “Ideas are terrifying!”

      -Hillary 2016

      1. “Amerika lite, now with 500% less freedom.”

  14. After Sandy Hook, I decided to test my theory that the longer the news coverage lasted, the more factual the coverage would become.

    Early on in the coverage, there was a lot of misinformation, most of which suited the anti-gun narrative. Within a week, the story had become more nuanced. And as a result, the staunch anti-gun reaction no longer seemed to be justified by anything that actual happened at the event.

    That’s the problem with wanting “thoughtful discussions.” Anti-gun nuts wanted to have thoughtful discussions within the first week of the shooting. The rest of us wanted to understand the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions.

    1. No one has come up with a coherent solution that would have prevented Adam Lanza or Elliot Rodger from obtaining the guns they used to go on their rampage.

      The former stole them from his mother and the latter was not insane, just very disgruntled and angry.

      They’ll talk about liability insurance and taxing bullets and other idiotic burdens, but they seem to shut up when you bring up the disparate impact that would have one minorities that want to own guns to protect them from crime.

      1. the latter was not insane

        [citation needed]

        1. How many posting names do you have and exactly WHO is it that you are wanting these citations from?

          Are citations now a prerequisite for opinions?

          1. How many posting names do you have

            One, which I’ve used, albeit sparingly, since around the time Hillary and Obama were debating in a Democratic primary. You probably have me confused with someone else. I haven’t been on here enough lately to know what the fuck you’re referring to.

            1. I must have, because strangely enough, in an earlier thread today, someone answered my post with that exact same phrase, with the brackets included:

              [citation needed]

              After I made a comment about public schools.

              1. Here it is:

                Acosmist|6.18.14 @ 12:47PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                “thanks mostly to our public school system”

                [citation needed]

                1. That’s another forum regular, and I think it’s a shorthand I picked up on here which originated among Wikipedia editors.

          2. And since the subject of my name came up, I got it from this movie, although shockingly I’m neither Inuit nor a particularly good runner.

            If some internet troll on here is causing you stress, don’t let ’em. Life’s too short.

            1. If some internet troll on here is causing you stress, don’t let ’em. Life’s too short

              I don’t stress out over trolls. The daily nut punch stories here on H&R, that’s a different matter.

        2. He knew what he was doing. It was pre-meditated revenge for a perceived insult to his manhood.

          1. I’m not even an armchair psychologist, but that boy weren’t right.

            1. [citation needed]

              1. That’s the 3rd [citation needed] here today from different posting names. I smell troll.

                1. That’s the 3rd [citation needed] here today from different posting names. I smell troll.

                  Do you have a citation for that, or it is just like, an opinion?

                2. sammich was making a joke.

                  1. {citation needed}

            2. The point the Grand Moff is making, I believe, is that ER wouldn’t qualify as insane in a court of law. He wasn’t in a psychosis and he knew right from wrong.

              1. The point the Grand Moff is making, I believe, is that ER wouldn’t qualify as insane in a court of law.

                Or, necessarily, outside.

                Chauvinism and God-complexes are certainly flawed personality traits, but the best mental health (pseudo-)science to date can’t really classify dangerously insane without evidence of danger. There are legion of competitive gamers rife with chauvinism, god-complexes, *and bloodlust* in excess of Rodgers who pose absolutely no threat to themselves or society at large.

                Just because you can point to someone who *went* insane and killed people is no indication of your ability to point to someone who will *go* insane.

                /soapbox

                1. There’s psychopaths and functioning psychopaths
                  Functioning psychopaths do not get carried away by their impulses to do fucked up things but laugh about them in their own mind as they depict it.
                  this is why i giggle when i’m getting yelled at, if the officer could see what was happening in my brain he would shit his pants

    2. I have one response to the gun grabbers, and it’s not going to change, no matter how many ‘conversations’ we have.

      Fuck you, shall not be infringed.

      1. But, but, but when that was written all they had were muskets! If they had today’s guns they never would have given people a right to own them!

        1. Fuck you, shall not be infringed.

          Now go away, or I must taunt you a 2nd time!

        2. I love when gun grabbers take that tack. It lets me point out that when the constitution was written every military technology in the world was available to US citizens. Cutting edge small arms, cannon, private warships, the works. By that logic the 2nd amendment covers my right to possess an aircraft carrier.

        3. Let’s suppose this were true. Then the founders fucked up and wrote an amendment that was too broad; i.e., the law is wrong and must be fixed. So let’s fire up the constitutional amendment process and fix the law. If the gun control position is so “common sense” and the gun rights proponents are such a “minority”, then surely it won’t be difficult.

          Of course, that would require some integrity and the willingness to expend political capital on an honest (if misguided) endeavor.

          1. I agree. Let’s amend it to just state:

            Fuck you, shall not be infringed.

            1. I’d vote for that amendment.

        4. But, but, but when that was written all they had were muskets!

          Right, the first machine gun patent was in London in 1718. There is no way that information could have crossed the Atlantic in only 73 years for the writing of the Second Amendment!

    3. Caleb, re: “That’s the problem with wanting “thoughtful discussions.” Anti-gun nuts wanted to have thoughtful discussions within the first week of the shooting. The rest of us wanted to understand the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions.”…

      Long ago I adopted the mantra “Wait Three…” (hours, days, weeks, months…) before expecting enough information to come out to let you draw an ‘informed conclusion’ about pretty much any headline news.

      Try it. It’s been quite accurate for many years now. Even the FAA doesn’t issue their findings on crashes or accidents for maybe a year or so. I used to read them in Aviation Week and got a lot of respect for their objectivity, patience and thoroughness.

      Something the MSM is rarely accused of.

  15. Who isn’t a terrorist at this point?

    1. Anyone who works for the federal government or agrees with everything that they do.

      Other than that, everyone is a terrorist.

      1. Basically.

      2. Unless they’re military or military veterans.

        Right wing extremists in waiting…each and every one of them.

        1. Only because they are in waiting to murder civvies
          “Not On Our Watch”

  16. Background checks that work. Hmm. I suppose they could just add a few more questions like “Have you ever read the Constitution?” or “Do you support gun control?” to the questionnaire to weed out bitter clingers and others who hold incorrect viewpoints.

    1. If I were at all religious Bitter Clinger would be my handle and my website would be a pic from MASH.

  17. The Second Amendment is probably the only inalienable right people actually think deserves “thoughtful discussion” about repealing.

    Despite how we actually treat the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, people at least ostensibly say that they are fundamental and absolute.

    However, denying people the right to defend themselves is apparently open for discussion.

    1. The Second Amendment is probably the only inalienable right people actually think deserves “thoughtful discussion” about repealing

      Many on the left would disagree, they would like to have a conversation about that pesky first amendment also.

      1. True. But, still, there’s at least an ostensible admission that Free Speech and Freedom of Religion are fundamental and absolute. Nothing can be used to justify their restriction or abolition.

        Whether or not their words match their actions is another thing.

        People on the Left would never support banning seditious speech during wartime. However, every single case of a bad guy using a guy is used to justify banning guns.

        1. *Free Speech and Freedom of Religion are fundamental and absolute. Nothing can be used to justify their restriction or abolition.*

          Really? Obamacare forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs doesn’t ring a bell for ya?

          1. But we agree with that position…

            Our principles are intact.

            /progtard

          2. What I’m saying is that you would never get them to admit that Obamacare was violating religious beliefs.

            They’ll gladly violate religious beliefs, but they will lie to your face about it being a violation of religious beliefs.

            On the other hand, restricting your right to defend yourself is something they’re proud to admit. Not only that, they will use any perceived national emergency to bring it up for discussion.

            1. Exactly. It’s the old, “You can get it in any color you want, as long as it’s black,” reasoning.

        2. People on the Left would never support banning seditious speech during wartime

          Woodrow Wilson is wondering WTF you are talking about.

        3. “People on the Left would never support banning seditious speech during wartime.”

          No, unless of course Wilson, FDR, and Truman were on the left.

    2. However, denying people the right to defend themselves is apparently open for discussion.

      Old people getting mugged, poor people suffering home invasions, and women getting raped is just the price we’ll have to pay to make sure that the government must be obeyed.

      1. But if we ban the evil guns then the guns wont be mugging and invading and raping anymore

    3. No. Bernie Sanders and others want to effectively repeal the First Amendment too.

      1. I believe that Chucky Moobz chimed in on this as well.

        1. Yes. There’s a whole faux amendment thing going on now — faux because they know it will never go anywhere and just want Team Red Congressblobs to vote against it.

  18. What I love is when these assholes say they want the gun nuts to compromise. OK, fine. Let’s compromise. You get universal background checks, I get suppressors taken off the NFA and new registrations of MGs.

    What’s that? You didn’t want to give anything up? You just wanted me to knuckle under and submit to your emotional blackmail and give you everything you want? Oh. Well fuck you.

    1. This is why you NEVER compromise with the left.

      1. Give them anything and sooner or later the Cheka is murdering your family. Fuck them.

      2. You never compromise with anyone when it comes to fundamental rights.

    2. What’s that? You didn’t want to give anything up?

      Well, yeah. That’s what compromise with the left means. If they don’t get everything that they want, then they call it a compromise. You get nothing.

      Or as Ayn Rand put it, in any compromise with evil, only evil profits.

      1. If I offer you a glass of poison, will you compromise with me and drink half?

      2. We need to move to the center, you know. Moving to the center is the only fair thing to do. Well, as long as the center keeps sliding leftward that is.

        1. And just look at how extreme the Right is now–it’s farther away from the center than it’s ever been!!!11!

    3. And not only that but a compromise means the issue is settled. So they can have that deal and a moratorium on any additional gun control for a hundred years. If the agreement doesn’t settle the issue, it is not a compromise. It is a concession.

      1. Frankly, given their increasingly fascistic tendencies, I’m thinking more Americans need guns, not fewer.

        1. I agree. I wouldn’t make the deal Warty proposes. But I agree that it would at least constitute a compromise.

          1. I wouldn’t either. But just try making the offer to some anti-gun prick some time. Their asshole clenches so tight that they shit diamonds.

            1. That is because it reveals that they don’t want a compromise. They want a capitulation. And they don’t like that.

              1. They want to morally bludgeon their opponents. It’s no coincidence that they call us racists at every opportunity.

                1. They can try. I’m fully confident that I’m morally superior to them in pretty much every way. I know this because I have principles–they largely don’t. It makes me immune to their attacks.

                2. well i actually do think most Homo-Sapiens-sapiens are fucking stupid so does that make me a racist

    4. I’m reminded of an old joke:

      A guy is walking down the street when a mugger jumps out of an alley and snarls, “Gimme all your money!” The man replies, “No!”

      Nonplussed, the mugger says, “Well, gimme half your money!” Again, the man says, “No!”
      “Gimme five dollars!” demands the mugger. The man says, “No!” again, and walks around the mugger and down the street.

      “You know what your problem is?” yells the mugger after him. “You don’t know how to compromise!”

  19. Team Cunt is the gift that keeps on giving.

  20. Excellent. Looking forward to checking in with Hillary Clinton to find out what other viewpoints I may or may not hold.

  21. Evidently Clinton’s idea of a more thoughtful conversation about gun control involves equating disagreement with terrorism while claiming some opinions are so dangerous that we “cannot let” people hold them.

    She learned from the Master.

  22. Clinton, by the way, twice referred to mass shooters with “automatic” weapons,

    At least she did not call them “automatons”. That would be the sign of a true animist.

  23. ” “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,”

    YEAH, THOUGHTFUL STUFF

      1. which linked racial prejudice to firearm ownership in America.

        A research team led by Dr. Kerry O’Brien, a professor of behavioral studies at Australia’s Monash University, examined attitudes about gun control and race using data from the American National Election Study, a survey conducted before and after presidential elections.

        The researchers found that “for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home,” as well as “a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns.”

        A correlation means they are LINKED!!!!!111tenplusone!!!

        1. Possibly because racists view people of different ethnicity as potentially dangerous and therefore a reason for self defense?

  24. After the open carry protests in Chipotle a few weeks ago, NPR had some gun expert named Dahlia Lithwick on. She said they were in the restaurant carrying “assault weapons, like an AR-47”.

    I’m a gun newbie, though I do have a .22 and Springfield XD at home. Is that a real gun or does she not know the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47?

    1. Lithwick is the supreme court reporter for Slate. Needless to say, she is profoundly ignorant about nearly everything.

    2. I think some people jokingly call ARs chambered in 7.62×39 AR-47s. But yeah, she’s saying that because she’s pig-ignorant.

      1. I call her Bessie, she is an AR-10 with a 24″ polygonal rifled triple chromed Noveske barrel and a 50mmOD Nighthawk scope with a 37mm barrel for launching smoke, flares, and tear gas.
        she is beautiful, trim and sexy in every way that a Russian is not.
        clunky inaccurate crap like an AK is no comparison and an insult to her American heritage

  25. Clinton, by the way, twice referred to mass shooters with “automatic” weapons, meaning she does not understand the difference between semi-automatic firearms and machine guns

    Oh, I believe she understands the difference well enough.

    You just don’t get nearly so much support without confusing people into thinking there’s a scourge of machine-guns on the streets.

    1. Yes. And you don’t talk about mass shootings without rehearsing the talking points. The use of the term “automatic” was intentional and deceptive.

    2. They know. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is getting, keeping, and enlarging power.

  26. She should keep making such statements. We all know what a winner gun control is in national politics.

  27. It’s fascinating how you people think mass shootings on a weekly basis, something that only happens here and in shitholes in the middle of civil wars, is a correct price of freedom.

    You and the NRA are always going to be wrong about what the 2nd Amendment means. It is ludicrous to suggest that the founders, or any sane people for that matter, think gun regulation is beyond the legitimate scope of government. Totally ridiculous except to the clapping seals of the gun fetish lobby.

    And I think you idiots know this perfectly well. You know that even in the so-called wild west guns were strictly regulated by law enforcement. You know perfectly well that the 2nd Amendment contains the phrase “well regulated militia.” You just choose to ignore it because you’re extremists. And you’re extremists who think it’s a political statement to carry large guns into public places. In other words, terrorists.

    1. Is your diaper too tight, woomsie?

      Do the facts hurt your pweety wittle head?

      1. I didn’t say anything about violent crime, I said mass shootings. Sort of how we start wars in response to terrorist attacks that have killed roughly the same number of people as broken teacups. Totally a perception thing.

        Yeah crime of all types has gone down dramatically over the last 20 years, and there isn’t a consensus as to why. But among the offered explanations are things like increased incarceration, better law enforcement methods, the aging of the population, the subsiding of the crack epidemic–but not so much the increased presence of guns, which still kill 30,000 people a year. Price of the freedom to potentially kill someone that you’ll probably never exercise!

        1. Consensus! It’s settled!

        2. “Crime has gone down dramatically over the last 20 years, and gun control doesn’t seem to have had any effect either way…but damn it, I still want more gun control!” – shorter, more concise Tony

        3. “but not so much the increased presence of guns, which still kill 30,000 people a year. “

          Amazing!

          How more and more people now own guns in America

          Yet… fewer and fewer people are actually killed by guns?

          (and you have to love the added note by Pew = how “unaware” the public is about it?)

          It is truly bizarre how we have something like 3X as many guns in people’s hands than when “Bowling For Columbine” came out, yet fewer people are killed each year?

          How do you explain it, oh Wise and Sensitive Tony?

        4. Oh, and Moopsie? Adults know that the 30,000# is just a BS stat used by Progtards to make it seem scary. 20,000 of those deaths are suicides.

          So, remember when you talk to adults, sweetie pie? that they’re smarter than you. When you try and use big words? and numbers that you don’t understand? No one is impressed.

        5. Sorry. While a tragedy in their own right, using suicide by gun in this context is grossly misleading, and I know how, you’re a stickler for accuracy.

          1. I don’t see why. The person is still dead. Many who attempt regret the attempt, but with a gun they don’t often get a chance to regret it. That’s the whole point of fetishizing guns, right, how efficient they are at killing humans?

            1. you dont shoot people to kill them, you shoot to stop them from hurting others or yourself, and you stop shooting when they stop being a threat.
              the point of guns is peace of mind and protection for me.
              and yes i need protection because there are a bunch of tonys in congress and the white house who want to unilaterally impose their will upon me like a bunch of creepy rapists.
              the only way gun control happens is with a violent bloodbath tony, are you really that much for murdering of formerly law abiding citizens in the name of your party?

          1. when you have the superior rhetorical position, lies are not necessary.

          2. Should have used the handle Lush Rimjob
            would have been more entertaining

        6. More people die in automobile accidents a year than by shootings and we have no “right” to own cars. Ban personal cars and Amtrak the nation, for the children.

        7. I love how the person claiming to be on the side of “reason” and “common sense” spews a bunch of venom and vituperation, calling everyone who disagrees with him ‘a terrorist’, mis-represents facts, then refuses to actually respond to any actual counter-point.

          This is the “thoughtful” discussion of the Progressives. Failing to accept their bullshit pants-wetting lies is apparently the same as “encouraging mass murder”.

        8. Go fuck yourself you disingenuous piece of shit.

        9. Governments that imposed gun control in the last century have killed more than 500% in excess of non-government related gun deaths world wide

          Gun control would be only enforcable through violence, do you want a civil war tony?
          do you want to see families destroyed because the police murdered them for owning guns
          do you want to see mass squads of police leveled at the hands of far better shots then they?
          what is it about gun control that is appealing to you?

    2. And you’re extremists

      You forgot racists who want to put minorities, wiminz, and defenseless childinz into chains.

      You slipping, Tony, I haz a dissapoint.

    3. a correct price of freedom.

      This suggests that there currently is gun “freedom.” How about we test out if these events persist with “freedom” before we decide if the price is right or wrong?

    4. You know perfectly well that the 2nd Amendment contains the phrase “well regulated militia.”

      During the Revolutionary War, Baron von Stuben wrote the “Drill Manual & Regulations For The American Soldier”. The term “regulation” meant training. When placed in its historical linguistic context, the term “well regulated militia” means a well trained militia.

      If you had bothered to take a humanities class in college, you would have known this.

      1. Wait, he thinks the “well regulated” part means controlled and administered by the gov’t?
        I didn’t bother reading his talking points, so if this is true, I continued to be amazed at how dumb such an obviously well educated person can be.

      2. The term “regulation” meant training. When placed in its historical linguistic context, the term “well regulated militia” means a well trained militia.

        Indeed. It is the origin of the term regulars used to describe a country’s army and to differentiate it from a militia.

    5. Tony….I’m a Canadian. Guns are regulated in the US, aren’t they?

      In Canada, which does not have a gun culture, we have about 1/10 the # of people killed in mass shootings, as you do. And, we’re 1/10 the population. Explain that one, if you can.

      Plus, mass shootings don’t happen on a weekly basis. That study was discounted over and over.

      Second…if you want guns to be MORE regulated, which is what it seems, come up with a set of rules and show, even hypothetically, how this new set of rules will change anything. People on Reason actually respond to logic, if you are capable of arguing that way. I’ve yet to read a post where you actually make an argument. You cherry pick a stat and then say ‘you’re wrong, I’m right’. Make an argument. People will treat that with respect.

      And, begin your ‘rational’ thought process with the fact 300 million hand guns are ALREADY OUT THERE! If you don’t start there, if you start in ‘oh, wouldn’t it be nice..’, then your rules won’t work.

    6. Well, that settles it, the rhetorical force of your ad hominem has convinced, well, nobody.

    7. Gun control has never and will never work. Tony, what is fascinating is that you hear things from Hillary, Bloomberg, MSNBC, or Piers, and actually believe it. Honestly, you are being manipulated. Well regulated militia is not a synonym for regulated by government. Your understanding of the mindset or intent of the framers is truly disappointing.
      The reason congress didn’t pass new restrictions is because there really is very little support for it. People can see through the lies. And while it may come as a surprise to you and people who get their news from outlets like MSNBC, we are not a minority. There never was 90% support.

    8. Do you you know who else who thought that minorities should not have guns ??

    9. You are one disgustingly racist motherfucker.

    10. Tony, you suffer from down syndrome.

      “well regulated militia” written in context of 1770s was any abled bodied person and later codified to define as males 17 or older.

      And since you cannot even grasp that simple concept you will not be able to understand that since “well regulated militia” is in the first part of the sentence it giving the reason why “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

    11. I also find it fascinating that real minorities, especially SD’s like you are hell bent on terrorizing people and forcing their beliefs, which isn’t a right in the constitution, down peoples throats in one breath and in the very next breathe terrorizing non minorities such as gun owners, who actually have an amendment for their rights, and say their right isn’t valid.

  28. Hillary does not hold elective office or any bureaucratic position. She is not officially running for office. Yet CNN hosts a “town hall” for her? Isn’t it just a Q&A on her book tour?

    And yes: fuck off, slaver.

    1. Aside from her missteps, abysmal record, and generally unlikeability, she’s also overexposing the crap out of herself. Her opponents in the primary are going to have a huge advantage over her when the time comes.

      1. Seriously. People are going to be tired of her by the end of this summer (if for some reason they aren’t already). How enthused are they going to be next summer when she’s in 20 debates, and then when the primaries finally start?

  29. she does not understand the difference between semi-automatic firearms and machine gun

    err…

    A weapon can be automatic and not a machine gun.

    for example an AR-15 can be fully automatic but it is not a machine gun.

    Fun clip to help you out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

  30. “We cannot let a minority of people?and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people?hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    Number One: Uh, what about the Constitution?
    Number Two: We can’t let a minority of people “hold a viewpoint…”? Do words not matter to you? As President, would words matter to you? If so, are you in favor of thought crimes?

  31. “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation”…..and not let (my addition) “…a minority of people….hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    Why bother with the conversation? She has already ruled out those who disagree with her.

    She will act on this should she be elected.

    1. No one that says “we need a conversation” ever really wants a conversation. They want a one sided lecture followed by everyone doing what they’re told.

  32. I always suspected Hillary hated minorities.

  33. “We cannot let a minority of people?and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people?hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    For once, Hillbilly, you got it right. . . and the time during which we, the people, will let you & your ilk terrorize the majority of the people is coming to an end. . .

    I smell rain.

    1. I wanna know. Have you ever seen the rain?

      1. Once. It was sunny, oddly enough.

  34. This probably qualified as a minor gaffe. She talked about firearms opinions rather than firearms themselves. The accepted narrative is that the firearms debate is about safety and regulation versus tradition and freedom.

    The truth is that a significant portion of the heat in the gun control debate is cultural, and the winners will cow the losers into neglecting or abandoning their cultural perceptions for or against guns. A gaffe (per Kinsley) is accidentally saying something true when the accepted mode is to fib. Clinton accidentally referred to fighting opinions, which is what her base wants, rather than fighting dangerous devices.

  35. Also, I don’t think the “automatic” reference is accidental so much as stating the strongest possible form of your argument. If people imagine the debate is over allowing violently insane criminals to wield truck-mounted mini-guns with depleted-uranium rounds, then that sets better terms for people who don’t want to liberalize CCW permits for women being stalked by their abusive husbands (which is close to the opposite extreme end of the debate).

  36. “We cannot let a minority of people ? and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people ? hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” ~ HRC

    I’d vote for her in a heartbeat. This is the most enlightened opinion I’ve heard from a feral bureaucrat in my lifetime.

    Wait. She was talking about the US government, right?

  37. I think you mean ‘Catch .22mm’

  38. Nothing like vapid posturing.

  39. Gun control is a wonderful thing, that’s why Chicago, with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, has the lowest murder rate of any large city. (Yeah right.) Also, Mexico has very stringent gun control laws, that’s why none of the drug cartels are heavily armed.

  40. She will have body guards the rest of her life.
    In Chicago the shootings on the streets is very bad to say the least. For whatever reason the powers to be cannot fix this problem.
    Bad guys who aren’t supposed to have weapons are literally putting the good guys, even kids into the ground. Meanwhile the good guys are not allowed to defend themselves because of laws.
    Something is wrong and the good guys are losing.

  41. FBI Admits: FAKE Shopping Mall Shootings.
    http://ppsimmons.blogspot.ca/2…..malls.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.