Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Just Tweeted This Godawful Venn Diagram About Gun Control

Let's get this deleted. Thanks, The vast majority of Americans.


Hillary Clinton just tweeted this Venn Diagram* about gun control

Possible interpretations of what we are looking at here:

1) 90 percent of Americans and 83 percent of gun owners do not support universal background checks.

2) Some unspecified subset of 90 percent of Americans and 83 percent of gun owners support universal background checks, but we are not allowed to know what that figure is.

3) Most gun owners aren't American?

4) The Hillary Clinton campaign is in such terrible financial shape, it can no longer afford (a) logic or (b) designers.

5) Yeah, OK, so she's trying to say that 90 percent of Americans and 83 percent of gun owners support universal background checks. Probably.

6) You should just read Reason's Jacob Sullum on this topic instead.

7) Wait, Hillary is now tweeting in the voice of "the vast majority of Americans"? That seems presumptuous.

This glorious response says it all

* Technically speaking maybe this was supposed to be a Euler Diagram? Who can even tell?

NEXT: Capitalism, Not Socialism, Led to Gay Rights

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.

  1. Dear Hillary: Fuck Off

    1. Second

      1. Ewwww!

        1. He wrote “second” not “secondS.”
          He’s not Crusty for christsakes!

      2. The whole rest of America that is not stupid concurs.

        1. So, we’re doomed.

          1. “The Hillary Clinton campaign is in such terrible financial shape, it can no longer afford (a) logic”

            Of course, she’s stupid because she’s so poor! Too bad she didn’t get a decent education.

    2. Now be fair. I’m sure 90% of the Americans who still speak to Hillary want gun control.

  2. Ah she’s just so exasperated by Bernie that she’s vennting.

    1. You’re charting a course for disaster with that pun.

      1. My theory, it’s a set-up

      2. Don’t be so graphic when plotting your criticisms.

      1. I’m making a point by drawing a line on this subthread right here.

        1. We must lance this abcissa of political demagogy.

    2. Keep in mind that the Democrat establishment has been mad at Bernie for a while now because he’s refused to go full on pants shitting mode on guns. But no worries, there’s plenty of shitty pantsuits lying around the Clinton estate to make up for it.

      1. Every good socialist knows they’re going to need those guns. Duh, Comrade!

  3. So Presidential!

    She really only knows three things. Good. And ball. And ____!



    3. TONIGHT… YOU!

  4. Not sure what’s more offensive: the nauseating deception and pompousness, or the headache-inducing coloring scheme.

    1. I’m pretty sure Ezra Klein is now working for the Hillary campaign.

      1. Is that Exra of Klein Bottle fame?

  5. HRC was around for New Math, her public education has clearly failed her.

    1. Holy crap. That’s like getting sucked into a time warp. I had to close the office door and face the wall so people wouldn’t see me laughing as I read the “Ten Complaints” and “Ten Questions”.

  6. Perfect diagram for her baffling strategy on guncontrol. It is a big losing issue in every single swing state. Gun control is a loser in NC, VA, PA, OH, NV, FL. She’s simply the most inept politician ever.

    Do it Hillary – make gun control the centerpiece of your general election campaign.

    1. Seriously, if Hillary’s basing her campaign on gun control, tranny bathroom laws, and refusing to say the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” it makes me suspect that Hillary is just a Trump plant to derail the Democratic nomination, and not the other way around, as has been speculated.

      1. Damn, Derp. That is interesting.

        1. Since the Clintons are only in it for the money, anyway, the Trump could afford to hire them for this role.

      2. I think the conspiracy theory crap is just that, crap. It’s easier for me to believe that Hillary is really that out of touch and Trump believes every word that comes out of his own mouth.

      3. I find he most plausible solution to be that Trump was self-planted (unbeknown to Team Blue) to derail the GOP from winning the election while at the same time, Hillary and Bill hate Obama so much that they are running a campaign to ensure a Team Red win to derail his legacy and keep them in control of the Democrat plantation through influence-peddling.

        They just so happened to run at the same time.

        1. Armando Iannucci meets The Producers. I like it.

      4. Nah, that’s just a natural side effect of having two candidates who are so terrible that the only people who can even stomach them, let alone like them, are the pure partisans.

        Have they finally figured out that if both parties put forward monsters, the sane people stay home and one of the monsters will still win? Or is this essentially ‘Celebrity Deathmatch’ where we watch two people everyone hates verbally assault each other?

        Two men enter: one man leaves? (I am merely respecting HRC’s wish to be labeled a man, people!)

      5. And all these years of Gary Johnson as the Libertarian Party candidate are really just a part McAffee’s six-dimensional chessgame to with the 2016 election after all!

      6. Now now, she’s also got her support of increased immigration by Muslim refugees and illegal alien amnesty going for her. Surely those are popular positions that will help her in November.

    2. Hillary promised to go full on gun nazi, she’s just keeping her promise to her supporters. Integrity!

  7. The only things I’m sure of from that diagram are 1) Hillary Clinton thinks our rights should be subject to a popularity contest and 2) Hillary Clinton thinks that Congress can violate our Constitutional rights with a simple majority vote.

    No matter whatever else she meant by that diagram, it leads me to conclude that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be the President of the United States.

    The first lie she’ll tell after taking office is that she swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    She’s effectively promising to break that oath before she even takes office!

    1. Umm, haven’t you ever heard of “we the people”? Outside of bathroom stuff, your rights come from democracy, dude.

      1. According to some people, they come from God. Who knew?

        1. I prefer that formulation.

          . . . rather than the idea that they come from Congress and Hillary Clinton.

          1. Me too. I don’t even believe in supreme beings, but I would definitely take a candidate who thinks that rights come from god(s) over someone who thinks that they are generated by the government. At least the theist would believe that every human has certain rights that cannot be invalidated by the legislature or public opinion.

      2. This site has definitely broken my sarcometer.

        1. Tell me about it.

          *bangs weatherbeaten old analog Sarc-O-Meter 150 on side of desk*

          Damn thing just doesn’t even try anymore.

      3. Ok, explain to us how our rights came from democracy?

        1. C’mon man! Democracy is the thing to invoke whenever you want to win an argument. I mean, how can you be against “the people!” I mean, like, are you some kind of fascist??? If me and a group of my friends vote to steal your bicycle, we’re gonna take it. Duh.

          1. Have you met “the people”?

            The most amazing thing about markets is that they make “the people” behave AS IF they were smart.

            And if you had met “the people”, you’d know that’s the most amazing thing evar!

      4. “Umm, haven’t you ever heard of “we the people”? Outside of bathroom stuff, your rights come from democracy, dude.”

        Assuming this isn’t sarcasm, I’d point out that things like slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation were unacceptable violations of our rights–despite their popularity.

        I know some people get confused with the difference between legal rights and the real thing; suffice it to say, just because the law violates our rights doesn’t mean our rights don’t exist.

        Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus, and when the popular law said she didn’t, it was the law that eventually had to change.

        Assuming your statement was sarcasm, I’m gonna call Poe’s Law. Progressives are so numerous, you can’t mimic them and expect people not to take you as one of them.

        If libertarians advocated taking a vote to send all the progressives to FEMA camps, someone might be expected to know that was sarcasm. But progressives like Tony have seriously argued something like that would be perfectly appropriate–since people’s rights only exist insofar as they are popular.

    2. You forgot

      3) the Democrats are 100% content to go with something that resembles logic only in the most superficial way

      1. Look, it was presented in a chart! Only smart people use charts. Just look at Vox. They use charts all the time. Vox uses charts, and Hillary uses charts, ergo Vox and Hillary are smart. I mean, c’mon on! It wouldn’t be in a chart if it weren’t 100% true and scientific.

        Ugh. I can’t even.

        1. For what it’s worth, I think even Vox just slammed this.

    3. No matter whatever else she meant by that diagram, it leads me to conclude that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be the President of the United States

      You just now determined that? Surely you jest.

      1. I’m saying that’s what people should conclude from the diagram.

        They wouldn’t conclude that–from the diagram–before it existed.

        The people Hillary tweeted that to should put two and two together and get that, yeah.

        1. Hillary voters are too dumb to conclude anything from anything. Just watch a video of them jiggling around in their fat pantsuits waving little American flags.

          But undecided voters, yeah you would think they might conclude that she’s a hack.

          1. “Hillary voters are too dumb to conclude anything from anything.”

            I’ll be happy to mansplain it to them.

            1. They’d be happy to shrilly scream shit about sexism to you.

      2. “No matter whatever else she meant by that diagram, it leads me to conclude that Hillary Clinton is aunfit C.U.N.T.!and unfit to be the President of the United States”


        \’soo-n-‘t\ n : acronym for; Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.

  8. 3) Most gun owners aren’t American?

    Isn’t it obvious?

  9. The Venn diagram I want to see is the intersection of all women rape victims who deserve to be believed, and Bill Clinton’s rape victims who deserve to be believed.

    1. +1nita Broaddrick

    2. That is called a doughnut. Or torus.

      1. So, its got a hole in it?

        Appropriate, for the topic.

    3. Mike M. is killing it today, no sarc.

  10. As demonstrated, this is her, and her supporters, ethic in a nutshell: nothing has any actual meaning, and it never makes any difference if you know what you’re doing or not.

    1. Yep. Someone should have drawn the Venn Diagram with People Who Demand Extensive Gun Control and People Who Understand Logic. The intersection would be very, very small; and they are all beating their heads against their keyboards right now.

  11. If you define “Universal Background Checks” as what is currently in place, these numbers are pretty close to true.

    When you don’t define it at all, then these numbers are as meaningless as the venn diagram.

    #7) 65% of Americans aren’t Gun Owners?

    #8) 65% of Gun Owners aren’t American?

    1. Simply put, all of these loopholes that the Democrats keep screaming about, do not exist. Their plain and simple goal is kill the 2nd amendment and bury it so deep that no one ever finds it again. Anything else they say is lies and deception.

      1. To be fair on any given day you can go to HuffPost and read about how republicans are dumb because no one wants to take their guns as they go on to say the 2A doesn’t protect an individual rights to have arms.

        To also be fair, I imagine militias will become more popular about two seconds after we get another team blue president and the Supremes tilt hard left. Americans killing Americans was our bloodiest war and another round would be worse.

  12. She’s already proven to be recalcitrant. Now she’s showing off her stupidity too? Dilbert dude is looking more prescient every day.

    1. Adams is a smart cookie, but he’s also a wacko loony-bird that believes he can hypnotize people and make them do things. Or write things down every day and that makes the things happen, like magic.

      He is very, very odd.

  13. You can’t quantify feelings. You can’t chart wishes. You can’t bridle a unicorn. Stop trying. Just get this done.

  14. Euler?…Euler?…Euler?

    1. It’s pronounced like “oiler”.

  15. Yeah, OK, so she’s actually trying to say that 90 percent of Americans and 83 percent of gun owners support universal background checks. Probably.

    Its very easy to get 90% of people to support something they already believe is the current law.

    None of these surveys ever define what a “Universal” check is, versus the current system.

    1. None of these surveys ever define what a “Universal” check is, versus the current system

      It’s universally understood that you won’t be getting a gun when I’m queen.

      /Hillary, it was my turn.

      1. Oh, I’m sure the “right” people will have no problem getting a gun.

        1. The right people are surrounded by guys who have guns.

          1. True but I was thinking more along the lines of the “principals not principles” kind of background check that gets you a gun in my area of the country.

  16. Incompetent campaign staff = the intersection of poly sci majors and women’s studies majors.

    1. Intersectionality for the win! But I’m so very confused. Shouldn’t people obsessed over classifying and collectiving people be awesome at diagrams? Perhaps someone can draw me a diagram to explain. Don’t link me to a blog like last time, the word salad makes me retch. I like pictures.

    2. I’m not sure this isn’t more of a union than an intersection.

  17. In the spirit of the “More mush from the wimp” comment about Jimmy Carter, I propose

    “More gibberish from the crook” for Hillary.

    Other suggestions are always welcome.

    1. For the young whipper snappers who may not recognize the quote about Jimmy:


      1. Old people. *smdh*

        I keed. I remember 1980 – barely. Just haven’t heard this story before – I like it.

        1. Back when newspapers were important and headlines had impacts.

      2. Theo Lippman Jr., of The Baltimore Sun, subsequently declared “Mush from the Wimp” the second most famous newspaper headline of the 20th century, behind “Wall St. Lays an Egg” and ahead of “Ford to City: Drop Dead”.

        What? “Headless Body in Topless Bar” didn’t make it to the top 3?

        1. That was my exact thought. I bet they didn’t want to credit the Post for it.

        2. Or “Dewey Beats Truman”?

  18. Oh, we just got trolled, this is an episode of Veep.

  19. She just earned my vote. Well done, Mrs. Clinton!

    1. I think you’re the exception the Democrats would make for voter ID.

  20. By the time this witch is done with her 4 year reign of terror, we’ll all be looking back fondly on the Obama era.

  21. Venn Diagram Thread! Post em if you got em!

    1. this one is at least accurate.

    2. You’re so Venn

    3. And this one made me laugh just because,it had Silvio Berlucsoni on it.

      1. That one is beautiful.

      2. Bill Hicks was a toker, too, though.

        1. And Carlin.

          I suppose, realistically, the “toker” circle would be too big to fit the whole scheme.

  22. I’d counter that with a Venn Diagram of “racists that believe in segregation” and “Democrats” from 1960. I don’t know if Hillary is gonna be too proud of her party if it’s ugly history rears its head.

    1. Oh, they’re still the party of racist segregationists, they’ve just managed to rebrand it so the lessers think they mean well.

    2. Was Spike Lee alive in 1960…?

        1. Yes, he is. He literally says that white people should not live in “his” neighborhood.

    3. Hillary was a Republican in 1960. (At least I presume she was, since she was a Goldwater Girl in 1964.)

  23. This is like a case-study in why Hillary is going to lose the election.

    Even when she tries to play “Softballs” – things that polls say she should be able to make simple, slam-dunk points about which will ring-true with her base? – they’re done in such a hamhanded and retarded way that she simply alienates young people, and feeds her opposition with endless mock-fodder which instantly drowns out whatever point she was trying to make.

    She’s just awful. She’s like concentrated “Worst”-everything. Nikki would be jealous.

    1. I am actually looking forward to the first televised debate between Trump and Clinton. It is going to be a bath of blood.

    2. The phrase “unforced errors” springs to mind.

    3. she simply alienates young people

      Actually, I’m afraid that young people are suckers for this kind of thing. It looks exactly like something the Daily Show might have come up with.

  24. * Technically speaking maybe this was supposed to be a Euler Diagram? Who can even tell?

    Ah, of course. I’ve known all this time that Hil-dog is in the pocket of big Euler.


  25. Hillary is a full on statist authoritarian, war monger, crony, criminal, … am I missing something?


        1. CUNT

          \’soo-n-‘t\ n : acronym for; Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.

    1. I’d say incompetent as well, but hell, she IS the presumptive nominee. But I guess that says more about the voters than it does her.

      1. The D voters never really got much of a choice. It’s Biden’s fault really.

  26. it’s pronounced oy-l?r so that would be an Euler diagram, not “a” Euler diagram.

    1. I am impressed that you managed to out-pendant my pedantry. Well played.

      1. The problem with adapting foreign pronunciations is that there is no end to the pedantry.

        A more correct pronunciation would be ‘o?l?.

        1. ?Ol?! (is written partially in an English script. )

        2. An even more correct pronunciation would be /???l?r/. IPA is the only way to go.

          1. Mine is IPA (minus the slants). The o? I remember from a dictionary I had when I was little and the ? is sort of halfway between “ah” and “uh”. Most importantly, there is no “r” sound.

            1. You think I cannot move the goalposts? Euler was a Russian mathematician. And his last name is pronounced ?????.

              1. Is that the Moscow or St. Petersburg pronunciation?

                1. I’m not sure about the 18th century, but these days the difference in pronunciation is very minor.

              2. Derbyshire in one of his old-man-shouts-at-clouds essays one time was mouthing off about the Red Chinese making us say “Beijing” instead of “Peking”. His point, and it’s a good one, is that if we Americans can’t properly pronounce “Beijing” – English doesn’t even have the sound that required for the “j” – why bother?

                1. if we Americans can’t properly pronounce “Beijing” – English doesn’t even have the sound that required for the “j” – why bother?

                  I came to a similar conclusion when I was learning Arabic in grad school. Even English speakers who’ve studied Arabic for years and years can’t properly pronounce “Iraq,” because the Arabic word is almost entirely made up of sounds we don’t have in English.

                  By the same token, Arabs don’t even try to say “America,” because it, too, just doesn’t fit the rules of Arabic word construction, so they say “‘amrikiyya,” with a consonant on the front we don’t have and mostly can’t hear.

                  It does go both ways – I don’t think foreigners are nearly as offended by our mangling of their names as the American intelligentsia are on their behalf.

  27. Does she really think engaging on guns is a winner?

    She’s already got the places that agree with her in the bag. But PA, OH?

    She’s insane.

    1. She has nothing to worry about, she’s already the projected winner and it’s her turn. The fact that poll averages have seen her go from +40 up on Trump to +3 today is just a great right wing conspiracy. Polls are accurate, until they get the wrong results.

    2. That’s what I was thinking too. These two states with the exception of their major cities, Philadelphia and Cleveland, aren’t too fond of legislators and politicians trying to curb their right to bare arms. And on top of her attacking the coal industry (which is important in PA), she’s making her coronation in January 2017 a lot less likely to happen.

      1. Isn’t it bear arms?

        1. Ursine appendages?

  28. The vast majority want to trample on inalienable rights of the minority? Three cheers for Democracy!

  29. The obvious stupid here is if the vast majority of Americans wanted more gun laws, we would have them. But just the opposite is true. Politicians like Hillary do not give a fuck what most Americans want, period.

    1. ^This. If 90% of Americans wanted UBC Manchin-Toomey would have gone through Congress like a rifle bullet through an apple.

      The anti-gun answer is that the evil super-villain NRA told Senators that the 10% opposed to gun control would vote them out of office, and the Senators believed it.

  30. Note: laughing for 30 seconds straight at bad Venn Diagrams gets you some strange looks from everyone else in the office.

    1. Get back to work, slacker!

    2. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    3. Yep. My laughs led to showing this diagram to several other people. Fortunately, in my office, most people understand how logic works and own guns that HRC would like to control. The laughs and the link spread contagiously.

  31. I’m not getting this as a campaign strategy. Trump, regardless of his sincerity is running as a strong 2nd amendment proponent. Hillary is going to go down the opposite path. I fail to see any way this is a winner for Hillary. Is she stupid, maybe insane? Just exactly what the fuck is wrong with the Hillary campaign? Are they really that insulated from reality?

    1. And also states like Ohio and Pennsylvania were once industrial giants and Donald Trump’s message of protectionism and bringing back jobs from overseas is resonating with voters from that state. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer but even I know that attacking their right to bare arms is a losing strategy in those states.

      1. their right to bare arms

        Suns out = Guns Out

        1. Damn it. I just realized it should have been, “bear arms.”

          1. +1 Twinks Need Hugs

          2. Bears with guns! Are you crazy, they’re dangerous enough with those claws and teeth! Why do you hate the children?

      2. Of course, Trump is deceiving those folks. Those jobs are not coming back because they no longer exist. It’s either automation or cheap labor in some Chinese backwater. He could be honest with them, but I’m not sure he really knows enough about these things to be honest. He’s just making shit up as he goes. Sooner or later, he has got to clarify things. No doubt he has the money to hire the right people for that.

    2. From what i can tell, the Hillary campaign has been spending half of its efforts simply trying to keep EXISTING Democrats within her fold

      They don’t have the bandwidth to even attempt to reach out to “independents”; they’re way too busy simply trying to consolidate their existing base, which is fragmented and disenchanted.

      Between the Bernie voters who actively dislike her, minorities who poll well but are likely to stay home this time .. and the great mass of ‘unmotivated’ lefties… she’s struggling to define any strong-core of supporters other than “Old Women” and media-types.

      She can lash out at Trump sporadically, but the only effect it has is to ‘keep some dems from crossing over’. It does nothing to sustain and rally support for herself.

      1. Because of my libertarian influence, my fiance wasn’t too hot on Bernie because despite being a lifelong Democrat, even she knew that his plans at best unrealistic and at worst devastating. But for some reason she absolutely hates Hillary Clinton and is going to keep her ballot blank when she votes in November.

        1. for some reason she absolutely hates Hillary Clinton

          It is remarkable how many people of all political stripes instinctively dislike her

          Its beyond politics, as far as i’m concerned; people just have extra-sensory perception of her innate ‘character’ and are revolted by it. She’s craven, vindictive, paranoid, grasping, bitter, dishonest, misanthropic, and desires power and authority for its own sake, because she desperately needs to be able to tell everyone else what to do.

          Not to be way overly-misogynistic, but she shares lots in common with lots of older divorcees. The predominant message which seems to resonate with many older women is, “We DESERVE THIS, like we deserve a pint of ice cream and a pedicure, because that bastard cheated on us and no one ever listens”…. etc. Do it for Team Spurned.

          its that same underlying vibe of course which repels almost every heterosexual adult male, and makes them look for the nearest bottle of whiskey.

        2. Maybe you can talk her into voting LP. That is depending who the nominee is, I’m unsure now if I am voting at all.

          1. The odd part is while we can have cordial discussions about almost anything political, the only subject that creates a screaming match is gun control. She’s a bright woman but throws away all of her logic and shuts down her brain when gun control comes up.

            1. I can now, finally talk more about politics with my wife, after nearly 10 years of me wearing her down with my incessant libertarian lectures. It was very difficult at first, and would only result in an argument and less chance for sex that night. Which is bad of course. But I kept subtly chipping away at her wall of socialism. She’s still not a full on libertarian, but she’s no longer a full on socialist true believer either. She’s really come around on guns, capitalism, and the flaws and dangers of socialism. My main problem with her still is the WOD and how it shouldn’t exist. I’m working on it, working on it, mansplaining. I can get away with it now most of the time if she’s not already in a bad mood. This is how you win.

              I still remember, my best moment ever. It was when we were watching Globo TV and Brazil’s corruption scandal and economic woes first started to go into full swing and full media attention. I saw my opening and said ‘You remember what I told you about socialism? Well, this part right here, this is the part where you run out of other people’s money’. It pissed her off, but I saw that she also took what I said very seriously. She now knows I am right about that.

              Keep up the good fight.

              1. Frankly, Venezula should be on the news every night. You want socialism, this is the result, vote your conscious and don’t complain when you get what you deserve.

        3. going to keep her ballot blank


      2. I know a couple of fairly butch lesbians who think Hillary is the greatest woman alive.

        1. Shocking

        2. Well, she popularized pant suits.

          1. She has to conceal that Snuke somehow right?

        3. Not surprised.

          as per my above comment – her essential vibe is one of “vindictive, petty, irrational self-righteousness”

          Older women, lesbians, some gay men, probably all tune-in on some level with that. Or any public-school administrator. Its something like bitterness about being ‘close to power, but never #1″.

          Eric Hoffer – my favorite political psychologist/philosopher – noted in the True Believer that people who believe themselves *most deserving of power* are often not the poorest or the most-disenfranchised…. but rather the “middle-class” who hate the Upper-Middle class most strongly. They are themselves “Close to the Top” of the food chain, but endlessly grate at not being #1 for lack of effort or luck or charisma or whatever.

          When Hillary seems to get her spiel ‘most correct’ is when she taps into this kind of middle-class bitterness of not being “richer” and better off than they already are, pissed off that someone else is taking those vacations in the Caribbean, and not them.

          Its not the genuine socialism of a Sanders – its more of a petty bourgeois bitterness and desire to take Other People’s Toys. The world needs a more intrusive School Marm to make everyone “play fair” and make sure no one gets too many cookies.

          Its a subtle thing, but its the core of much of the Democrat’s key appeal to the middle class, and why Bernie works with Young people but not actual adults.

    3. Just exactly what the fuck is wrong with the Hillary campaign? Are they really that insulated from reality?

      No, but Progressives are.

      She hasn’t left herself many options over the years on this one. To the academic/Progressive crowd the fact that “guns are bad and should be banned” is quite simply axiomatic, and the fact that the unwashed masses don’t also know this is a failure of the education system. She doesn’t have the populist appeal to abandon that crowd and soften her position on guns.

      OTOH, while she may make the occasional comment about getting rid of all guns to drum up support from that sector of her base, she would never in fact take such a firm stand in a context where she would actually have to fight that fight.

      In the end, she just supports the status quo, but tries to package support of the status quo as a pragmatic approach to taking radical action.

      So, she probably knows that a hardline gun control position is a non-starter, but it plays well to her base, and she’s not going to gain anybody by suddenly softening her line on that. But if she expresses the proper outrage, and does enough packaging of the NRA as this unstoppable bully, she’s pre-covered for not actually “accomplishing” anything (which she knows she won’t).

  32. It’s sorta funny to me that Hillary goes on about how we need a woman president, and it should be her because she’s just soooo qualified, but…she’s gonna put Bill in charge of the economy, and then this abortion of a Venn diagram…what’s next, her giggling like a Barbie doll that “math is hard”?

    1. what’s next, her giggling like a Barbie doll that “math is hard”

      She’s need to go into the shop to have that subroutine installed first.

  33. Please please keep banging the gun control war drum Hillary.

  34. ” 90 percent of Americans and 83 percent of gun owners do not support universal background checks.”

    Those of us who don’t believe in universal background checks, should we start calling ourselves 17 percenters or something?

    10% of Americans is probably a larger number than 17% of gun owners.

    I’ve seen statistics that say about a third of American households own a gun.

    10% of 300 million is 30 million people.

    17% of 1/3 of 300 million is 17 million people.

    Assuming the 17 million gun owners who don’t support universal background checks are all accounted for within the 30 million Americans who don’t support universal background checks, that means 13 million people don’t support universal background checks–and don’t own a gun.

    I don’t think gun grabbers can really conceive of Americans who don’t own a gun but support the rights of others who do, yet according to those stats, there are almost as many Americans who don’t own guns and don’t support universal background checks as there are Americans who own guns and don’t support universal background checks.

    It’s basically a meaningless distinction–trying to pit gun owners against every other American.

    1. In fact, I would go so far as to say that those 13 million people who don’t own a gun but are against universal background checks on principle–are hardcore libertarians in the wild.

      And those are just the ones that don’t own guns.

    2. It’s basically a meaningless distinction–trying to pit gun owners against every other American.

      Well, yeah.

  35. Hillary’s new campaign song

    BTY, 35 years ago, Margaret Cox (the brunette) was hotter than Dubai asphalt!

    1. She’s a ginger, not a brunette, and now you’ve got cooties.

      1. I saw the band live many times. She’s a brunette. It just looks red because of the lighting.

  36. Americans who don’t own a gun but support the rights of others who do

    That describes me exactly.

  37. I fail to see how people who don’t/won’t own guns should have any say at all about those of use who do.

    Speaking of… I’ve given up my quest for a DA/SA single stack in 9mm. The ones I’ve looked at were either ridiculously expensive, or I didn’t like the controls.

    Then I tried a Ruger LC9. Striker fired. I really like the trigger. I mean, I really like it. That’s going to be my next purchase.

    1. By “ridiculously expensive” I mean $700 and up. My price point is around $500, including a holster and any accessories, like spare magazines or extenders. So the LC9 is looking good at around $400 for the pistol.

      1. Ruger has several newish polymer frame guns that are really nice and affordable. I got a SR9 this winter and I like it a lot.

        1. Too big. That’s why I’m looking at the LC series. And it’s about a hundred more than I want to spend.

        2. I’m looking for a CC gun, not a range gun. That one does look nice though.

          1. I figured. Just mentioned it because the LC9 looks to be a pretty similar design.

            1. I welcome all suggestions. I don’t necessarily take them, but they are always welcome.

      2. Yeah, SA/DA in single stack is dominated by the 1911 frames, which still cost a lot for a 9mm. With that being said I own a Berreta 92FS, but don’t really prefer having a hammer. It’s more because it’s the gun I use in the military that I bought it.

        To each their own though.

    2. Have you looked at the Walther CCP?
      (striker fired, I believe, but everyone says the walther trigger is worlds better than anything else in its category)

      1. Walther is out of my price range.

        1. Only by a bit, but still it is more than I am willing to spend.

        2. I hear you. Still they’re really only ~$50 bucks difference at retail. ($425 vs $370 first place i looked). Not quite “Kimber Solo”-expensive.

          1. you answered-you before i even answered you 🙂

          2. Hm. I could do $400. I’ll look into it.

          3. I generally go here to get a price reference.

          4. The more I look into it, the more I like it. Dang you. I may have to spend another fifty bucks.

  38. Hillary really is a spectacularly stupid cunt. I’m suprisedd that the gravity of her stupidity and those stupid enough to vote for her doesn’t crush the local universe into some kind of stupid singularity.

  39. RE: Hillary Clinton Just Tweeted This Godawful Venn Diagram About Gun Control

    Heil Hitlery wants gun control so she can take control.
    What Amerika really needs is Heil Hitlery control.

  40. That response could be re-purposed to just about any subject re Hillary’s campaign.

  41. LIE……………………………

  42. Claims of 90% support for Universal background checks is a lie..Media fails to make correction..

  43. Gun Control advocates are compulsive liars..

  44. Anyone with a brain should realize that these statistics were fraudulent based solely on the fact that there is almost nothing that 90% of Americans agree on.

    I’m not talking about simple distortions or cases of “my statistics are better than your statistics,” these are intentional, calculated, bald-faced deceptions, foisted on the American public by ideologically motivated zealots trying to force an agenda of citizen disarmament and government control. That’s not to say that everyone who supports gun control is driven by the same ideology, or that there are no honest, passionate, idealistic, true believers among the ranks of gun control advocates. There are some very good, honest, sincere people who promote gun control, but unfortunately these misguided souls are steeped in emotion and inculcated with the never ending lies of the professional gun haters.
    Let’s dissect some of the lies:

  45. 1. Over 90% (almost 90%, close to 90%) of Americans support “universal background checks,” as do various large percentages of gun owners and NRA members.

    Anyone with a brain should realize that these statistics were fraudulent based solely on the fact that there is almost nothing that 90% of Americans agree on. But this lie has gotten bigger as time has gone by. More recent polls place support for any gun control at less than 50%, and approval of the Senate’s rejection of expanded background checks at almost 40% ? yet gun control advocates and politicians continue to declare that 90% of Americans support universal background checks. It is a lie.

    2. Almost 40% of firearms sales occur without a background check.

    That lie was a stretch when it was presented in late December, and it was soon declared to be a distortion by the fact check column in the Washington Post ? garnering “2 Pinocchios.” The bogus statistic was then called out by several other watchdog centers, but Obama and company have continued to preach it as Gospel, right up to this very day. That earned Mr. Obama an extra “Pinocchio” from the Post. When you say something that’s not true, even after you know it’s not true, that’s called a lie.

    1. 3. Gun control is needed to “make our children and our communities safer.

      This presumes that guns serve only evil purposes, and that passing laws prevents criminal violence. There has never been a supportable study proving, or even strongly suggesting, that gun control does anything to reduce criminal violence or even suicide. Reviews of existing literature going back to the 1970s have consistently found no positive connection between gun control and crime. On the other hand, there are several peer-reviewed studies which show that guns in private hands are used to stop crimes much more often than they are used to commit crimes, and that the prevalence of guns appears to result in reduced violent crime. Claims of improved safety with gun control are lies.

      4. About 30,000 lives are lost to “gun violence” each year in the US, and; “Thirteen children a day are killed in gun violence.”

      The 30,000 number is based predominantly on suicides. Suicide is not “gun violence” and gun control doesn’t reduce suicide. Guns are much more prevalent in the US than Canada, and are used more frequently in suicides here than there, yet the suicide rate in the US is only slightly higher. Reducing guns doesn’t reduce suicide ? saying it does is a lie.

      1. The easiest way to reduce deaths from guns is to make a suicide pill available over the counter.

  46. The “13 a day” statistic includes “children” up to 24. The peak age range for criminal activity is 16 to 27. That is also a peak age range for suicide. Virtually all of the guns used by these young people are obtained illegally. The 30,000 and 13 a day claims are intentional lies.

    5. There is an epidemic of violent crime and mass murder sweeping the nation.

    No there isn’t. Crime is at its lowest rate in decades. It has gone down as gun ownership and concealed carry have gone up. Atrocities like Sandy Hook and the Batman movie massacre tend to run in copycat cycles based largely on media play. There is no growing epidemic. Claims otherwise are lies.

    Gun control groups are based in lies. They call themselves “violence prevention” and “gun safety” groups even though the only violence prevention and gun safety policies they espouse are restrictions on legal access to firearms. They lie about who they are, what they stand for, and what they want. They use lies to press their agenda, and they lie about what that agenda is and what impact it would have. They are liars through and through, and it is ridiculous that the media and politicians promote and parrot the lies.

    The truth is, Gun Control Doesn’t.


      1. I for one feel like we need to stop all useless deaths. More automobile control!

        No one really needs two cars or cars that go fast! Think of all the lives we would save of the evil cars didn’t cause people to drive distracted or drive drunk! Think how much better our society would be if you could sue the automobile manufacturer for designing a vehicle that didn’t stop you from being negligent with their product!

    2. Preach it brother!

      /the choir

  47. Pure, unadulterated propaganda. Whats next? Will she tweet a pie chart showing 117% of Americans wish to end Free Speech?

  48. (1/2)

    The “90% of Americans” figure is BS for several reasons:

    1. It’s a vague question. Look at the poll and see for yourself. It’s question 31. Notice that it just says, “do you favor or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” It doesn’t say, “do you support the bill currently going through Congress for universal background checks?” What’s even worse is that Obama and other politicians have dishonestly applied this 90% figure to the entire post-Newtown gun control package, which included magazine limits and an “assault weapons” ban.

    2. Many Americans seem to think that we have no background checks at all. This belief is made clear by anti-gun op-ed writers who lament that “someone can walk into Wal-Mart and buy an assault weapon as easily as dinnerware”. People believe that a gun show is a free-for-all where anyone can just buy military-grade weaponry without so much as showing ID. The results of that poll would have been much different if the questionnaire had a brief rundown of all the gun restrictions that we currently have in this country.

    1. (2/2)

      3. Look at question number 35 on the poll results: “Who do you think better reflects your views on guns, President Obama or the National Rifle Association?” Notice that after excluding the both/neither/dunno answers, you end up with an almost 50/50 split. This stands in opposition to the leftist claims that gun owners are just a small minority of extremists and that most Americans want strict gun control.

      4. Even if 90% of Americans wholeheartedly supported mandatory background checks for any firearm transfer, that still wouldn’t make it OK. I’m sure that in the year 1800, the majority of Americans supported slavery. I’m sure that in 1944, most Americans supported locking up Japanese people based on their race. I’m sure in 1950, the majority of Americans thought that homosexuality was a mental illness that should be treated in an asylum. As many commenters have already said, rights are not subject to a popularity contest.

  49. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  50. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  51. The response diagram may be one of the best posts on the Internet this year.

  52. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  53. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.