It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
You do see that these occurred at different times in different places and though are both related to her view on gun ownership they are not part of the same interview, don't you?


Yes. The only reason I brought up the other interview is to show that she didn't mention "gun rights activists". That's the work of the author. You have to be careful about that.



Besides, even if they were one does not cancel out the other or make it okay for her to believe certain viewpoints shouldnt be allowed.


I'm not making that point whatsoever. I already said that any viewpoint should be permitted. But I also agree that those with certain viewpoints should not have easy access to guns, as kayla pointed out. How will that be accomplished? I don't know. But a background check wouldn't hurt a bit. The unfettered and easy access to guns by just about anyone who wants them is causing some problems that could be prevented. It won't prevent them all, but it would help. Every little bit helps, you know?




posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Every little bit helps, you know?


Fundamental difference in philosophy. I'd rather let 100 murderers free than lock up one innocent man.

All a background check ever can accomplish is to say that the name the person at the desk is using at that moment has no reported felonies attached to it up and to that point in time.

That information is worth nothing for the purpose of crime prevention.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
Fundamental difference in philosophy. I'd rather let 100 murderers free than lock up one innocent man.


Dude? Where are you getting this? No one is talking about locking anyone up. I agree 100% with your philosophy, by the way.

I'm not going to get into a background check argument with you, but if the country had a decent system of checks and cross-checks, I do believe it would help to prevent guns falling in the wrong hands (those being the hands of violent, unstable, or otherwise potentially dangerous and bat-poop crazy activists, who think everyone should be able to brandish a gun in the bank, grocery store, any school and at work.)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
Fundamental difference in philosophy. I'd rather let 100 murderers free than lock up one innocent man.


Dude? Where are you getting this? No one is talking about locking anyone up. I agree 100% with your philosophy, by the way.


The UBC proposal punishes everyone in a weak effort to catch a few.

Consistent with locking an innocent man up to prevent letting a criminal go.

Wait a minute. So it is the gun-rights activists who shouldnt be allowed to have their viewpoints?
edit on 18-6-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
The UBC proposal punishes everyone in a weak effort to catch a few.


A background check is NOT a punishment, any more than a driving test, a security clearance or voter registration.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
Wait a minute. So it is the gun-rights activists who shouldnt be allowed to have their viewpoints?


For the third time, I support the right of the people to hold any and all viewpoints. You're grasping at straws now.

Have a nice day.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


She doesn't believe a certain group should be allowed hold a viewpoint - anti-first amendment.

She doesn't believe guns should be allowed - anti-second amendment.

I wonder what other parts of the constitution she is against.


Let's forget that the ones who are "terrorizing" the "majority" are really a handful of looneys on prescription antidepressants (who may or may not even exist) who are terrorizing a FEW people, not everyone. BUT, in true liberal fashion, she is trying to associate those few crazies with ALL gun owners, trying to demonize those whom with she does not agree. Oh, a nutter shot some people with a gun : guns are bad : all gun owners are crazy.

300 million people in the US - 300 million guns. That doesn't sounds like a "minority" to me.

On a personal note to HRC: Molon Labe, you worthless [redacted][redacted][redacted]. I had to self-censor that one



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit


300 million people in the US - 300 million guns. That doesn't sounds like a "minority" to me.



Why do you gun advocates always BS when it comes to facts. Not all 300 million people own a gun, which is what you are trying to say or lie about.

Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns


A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.


A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear




37% More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun.



You are the minority and should deal with it. Maybe if gun advocates would stop lying or spreading gun propaganda, there could be serious talk.

Fact is, you guys don't care who gets killed or how many, just as long as you get yours.
edit on 18-6-2014 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

That post was about the title of the thread which the OP later edited. Read the rest of my posts in this thread please.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Fact is, you guys don't care who gets killed or how many, just as long as you get yours.

Fact is, you guys don't care how many law abiding citizens can't protect themselves, as long as you get your anti-gun laws pushed on everyone. Your statement is absurd. Law abiding citizens who own guns SAVE LIVES. They save their own and they save the lives of their family members. Stricter gun laws won't save lives. The criminals will still get their hands on illegal guns and at the same time law abiding citizens will have a harder time protecting themselves.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   


We're going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before," Clinton said.


How the hell is that ?

'Automatic weapons' aka 'machine guns' are the MOST HEAVILY REGULATED firearm in this country.

According to FBI's own statistics handguns is the number one weapon of choice in 'minority' violence.

That is already against the law that says we can't murder each other.

Why Hillary that is mighty fascist of you.

Zieg heil..



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
All anyone has to do is look at Chicago to see how full of snip Clinton, and those that push that 'progressive' ideology of gun control are.

Because if it WORKED Chicago would be Mayberry, and it is not even close to be.

Well it is ran by Barney Fife, but that a close as it gets.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996




Fact is, you guys don't care who gets killed or how many, just as long as you get yours.


You should wonder why your posts get removed in so many threads.

Fictitious babble.

You DONT speak for me. Got that?

Now I'm off to go "terrorizing" I suppose...



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996




Fact is, you guys don't care who gets killed or how many, just as long as you get yours. edit on 18-6-2014 by Onslau


Fact is I am responsible for my own actions, not of what someone else does.

Neither are millions of other gun owners.

Fact is we have never been responsible for what someone else does.

Thank ya kindly to stop trying to make it that way.
edit on 18-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The truth of the matter is this: A 'minority viewpoint' IS terrorizing the majority, has been for a very long time, and does so with the complete backing and complicity of the government. That minority is widely referred to as the 'One Percent'. They control the economy to their benefit and our detriment. They buy politicians and control the political landscape and the legislation it produces. They decide to wage wars paid for by the blood and treasure of the majority to further their power and assets grabs. They fully control the media and thereby the thinking of the masses --- they are able to 'control' the truth. And the fact that Hillary is one of them makes it that much more despicable to make such a statement. Once again people, we need to purge government of ALL politicians for the political establishment and replace them with people from outside the corruption breeding ground. We need to break the standing linkages. No ore Reps... no more Dems.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
She thinks that gun owners are a minority??? If that's what she means then boy is she stupid and arrogant.

But I agree that no minority should rule the masses, own and control the federal reserve, own the banking systems, own and control news medias.......yep! She's right!!



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Don't worry. "Minority" supporters of the constitution just need to apply more pressure to Hillary so she can "evolve" like she did on gay marriage.




Like President Obama, Clinton has long been "evolving" on this issue, under pressure from gay rights activists. A look back at that evolution:

* In 1999, running for Senate in New York, Clinton told a group of gay contributors that she considered her husband's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy a failure. "I don't believe 'don't ask, don't tell' has worked," she said. She also voiced support for gay domestic partnership benefits.

Clinton said in January 2000 that marriage does not include gay unions: "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."


www.washingtonpost.com...

edit on 18-6-2014 by Deny Arrogance because: Bold



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

The majority of US citizens support the 2A. HRC is trying to turn ownership statistics into some sort of "mandate". Believe me when I tell you that libscum like HRC are well within the minority on 2A issues.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
"HRC: "We cannot let a minority of people... hold a viewpoint....""

>.... unless of course it serves the political Cloward-Piven agenda.



edit on Jun-18-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
"We cannot let a minority of people... hold a viewpoint...."

Why not...the Senate holds a viewpoint all the time..





top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join