HRC: "We cannot let a minority of people... hold a viewpoint...."

The full quote is:

"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," she said.

CNN

It's in context to guns but since we all know where HRC stands on that subject I'll move on.

She's blatantly crossed into anti-1st Amendment territory here. Moreso it's blatantly anti-America. Regardless of the "viewpoint" or even the potential of that viewpoint to "terrorize" it is protected. If we shot down every terrorizing minority viewpoint blacks would still be picking cotton and women voters would be the punchline to every joke. More recently gay marriage. America is here because of a minority viewpoint for minority viewpoints.

So much is wrong with her statement from the "minority" actually being a minority to this crap here

... with automatic weapons

highlighting yet again another anti-2nd politician who doesnt know what she's talking about.

But this "minority viewpoint" nonsense should bother everyone from ALF activists to Pro-choice activists to open carry advocates.

A perfect quote for an oligarch.

This:
"We can't let a minority ... hold a viewpoint...."
and this:
"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,"
do not mean the same thing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether or not the viewpoint "terrorizes" is irrelevant.

Anyone can have any viewpoint they want. That's the whole point of this country. Or at least it used to be.

Acting on a viewpoint in such a way that harm is caused to person or property is a problem and then it is the act that is a crime not the viewpoint.

They are very much the same thing because "terrorize" is meaningless here. It's just a qualifier thrown in to convince people that it's okay to marginalize a population however "minority" they may or may not be.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

I didn't say that HRC was correct or not, just pointing out that your thread title is pitching a story that the thread itself doesn't deliver on. The thread title clearly reads like Hillary is discriminating against minorities, but when you look at the actual quote, she is just saying that a minority opinion about guns (debatable) in the country is holding favor over the majority opinion, which is a legit concern if that was really occurring. This whole thread is a bait and switch.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

the key word here would be "terrorizes".

I failed to notice how would granting homosexuals equal rights...be in any way terrorizing the majority ? Are the majority's rights in any way endangered by granting those with less rights...equal ones ?

I just don't see it.

Why would my rights be in any way endangered if I'm straight...? I find this fear of homosexuals and the demise of the civilization they would supposedly bring about extremely ridiculous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I tried to make it clear

Regardless of the "viewpoint" or even the potential of that viewpoint to "terrorize" it is protected.

I don't know what I could say to make it more clear. Either in context or out of context what she said is the essence of tyranny.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

the key word here would be "terrorizes".

It's a relative term. What "terrorizes" one does not terrorize all.

Even if it did "terrorize" all it would still be covered by the BOR in a free society. Or are we not to be free?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

The thread title clearly reads like Hillary is discriminating against minorities

Was not the intent. I edited the title to be clearer. A "minority" is not always a people or a race for future reference.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

I understand that, but you have to understand with how racially fueled the country is, using that word as you did WILL be taken like I did. I appreciate you fixing the title.

By the way, she is just wrong. She's just spewing standard Democratic talking points that are incorrect (automatic weapons being a problem in this country when they are already HIGHLY regulated for one).

I think Hillary is capable and qualified to be POTUS. She's corrupt as hell and scary as the devil himself, but she's capable and qualified. That being said, she is seriously wrong in her statement. She got it backwards.

The majority of people favor second amendment rights and the right to self protection. And if the minority of people are 'terrorized' over the thought of law abiding US citizens being able to protect themselves with guns, then those minority of people need to better educate themselves and face their silly fears of guns.


SIDE NOTE - It is obvious to me that the thread title wasn't talking about racial minorities ... there are lots of different kinds of minority groups and alleged minority groups in this country. Not everything has to do with race.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I failed to notice how would granting homosexuals equal rights...be in any way terrorizing the majority ?

Lol I wouldn't be so sure about that. If ATS is anything to go by there's a lot of Americans who would in some way be "terrorized" just by knowing homosexuals had equal rights.

Look, the old biddy fell down the stairs and bumped her noggin... she hasn't been quite right since.

At least she does have an excuse for her apparent lunacy.

ETA:
I know... She wasn't right before the fall.

All I see is somebody talking about not letting a certain group of people hold a viewpoint.

I don't really care what the viewpoint is or what it's about. If this person wants to think that the moon is made of cheese or that thinks some of the most racist hogwash I've ever heard, then it's none of my nevermind so long as they don't act on it.

I'm not the thought police, I acknowledge that I live in a democratic republic with a guarantee to freedom of expression, but I suppose that some folks look at the way that the Soviets or the Chinese of today handle their minorities and political dissenters and think it sounds kinda nice.

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
All I see is somebody talking about not letting a certain group of people hold a viewpoint.

I don't really care what the viewpoint is or what it's about. If this person wants to think that the moon is made of cheese or that thinks some of the most racist hogwash I've ever heard, then it's none of my nevermind so long as they don't act on it.

And that right there is what everyone should be taking away from her statement.

The "terrorize" nonsense is irrelevant. Gun owners or not is irrelevant. This is a person vying for the highest office in the nation and one of the most powerful seats in the world who went on record saying a group should not have a viewpoint. Not just that they shouldn't have a viewpoint but that we (read: the state) cannot let them have this viewpoint.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

It is impossible to hold a viewpoint, minority or otherwise that TERRORIZES the majority. It is a logical impossibility. If the majority is letting themselves get worked into hysteria by another groups opinion about a constitutional right I suggest that they need deep psychological counseling.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

I didn't say that HRC was correct or not, just pointing out that your thread title is pitching a story that the thread itself doesn't deliver on. The thread title clearly reads like Hillary is discriminating against minorities, but when you look at the actual quote, she is just saying that a minority opinion about guns (debatable) in the country is holding favor over the majority opinion, which is a legit concern if that was really occurring. This whole thread is a bait and switch.

I disagree. Minorities are not entirely about race--a "minority" can be a philosophical or religion or belief system. She wants the will of the "majority" (or what she claims is a majority) to be imposed on the minority. Too bad for her the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

The 1st amendment issue is sobering and crucial.

HOWEVER, FAR WORSE is her glib and easy supremely extreme arrogance to presume

that

her unroyal lowness, her hideous heinous, bw*tch shrillery Antoinette de Fosterizer, de Machiavelli, de Marx, de Stalin, de Pol Pot, de Mao, . . .

CAN DICTATE WHAT ALL THE "LITTLE PEOPLE" ARE TO THINK.

THAT'S the MORE frightful part of this outrage.

. . . and . . . that the entire globalist machine is salivating, itching to install her and back her ruthless meanness and tyranny up to the hilt.

It seems to me that the only hope is . . . patriotic citizens of every flavor . . . convincingly expressing their viewpoint that they are outraged that she dare show her face in public.

If the "little people" [those not in the 1%] want to avoid being squashed into oblivion, they'd best stand up while they still have a chance and capacity to stand up and be counted.

The day is fast approaching when the oligarchy will only tolerate viewpoints and postures of totally kowtowing--prostrate before them, face in the dirt.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

the key word here would be "terrorizes".

I failed to notice how would granting homosexuals equal rights...be in any way terrorizing the majority ? Are the majority's rights in any way endangered by granting those with less rights...equal ones ?

And I fail to see how anyone could think my owning a gun terrorizes them. You fail to see how homosexual rights could terrorize anyone. Different issues different viewpoints. Surely you can see where this is headed?

a reply to: jjkenobi

And I fail to see how anyone could think my owning a gun terrorizes them.

Well, owning a gun is a matter of choice.

Being gay just isn't. Not more than you can choose to be straight. You just are.


And no..I don't see your point.


edit: I just got your point...sorry...I'm a bit slow. I take it you fear that an average homosexual might fire one sperm bullet off in your direction, thus accidentally making you die a gruesome gay death, and by proxy infecting your entire family with gayness.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I failed to notice how would granting homosexuals equal rights...be in any way terrorizing the majority ?

Lol I wouldn't be so sure about that. If ATS is anything to go by there's a lot of Americans who would in some way be "terrorized" just by knowing homosexuals had equal rights.

Indeed I'm aware of that.

I feel terrorized by the fact that they would be terrorized.