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

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

From what I see the left has been letting view points of the minority dictate, in many areas.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

The minority she's speaking about is "that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence"... NOT gun owners in general. This is NOT first amendment territory. Include the entire quote for context:

"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.
...
"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.

Being violent with guns is NOT protected. It seems you're just twisting her words to suit your agenda.

Having said that, anyone should be allowed to hold ANY viewpoint in this country. I'm sure that was an unfortunate choice of words on her part, but that doesn't excuse what she said. I'm also sure she wants to EITHER restrict gun ownership to some degree or instill some form of background checks and make it harder for insane people to buy a gun. I support the latter 100%.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So who is the minority of people prone to violence? And what exactly is their "viewpoint"?

Connecting the two quoted sections as one thought makes her just sound crazy.

If that's how you want it then okay.

So who is the minority group of people prone to violence with automatic weapons?

Clinton said on Tuesday that the United States needs to have "a more thoughtful conversation" on guns and blasted gun rights activists.

"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.

Sounds like she's claiming "gun rights activists" are minority with the terrorizing viewpoint.

If we add in the second section:

"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.

It makes it sound as though she's saying "gun rights activists" are prone to violence with automatic weapons.

Is that how you want it to go?

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
So who is the minority group of people prone to violence with automatic weapons?

I can only assume she means people who are somewhat insane and are prone to shoot up a school or movie theater. For the actual answer, you'd have to ask her.

Read the rest of the article:

Clinton has said during her paid speaking tour over the past six months that the United States needs "to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."

And I agree with her.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You can agree with her on that. Lots of people do. See how I don't let your viewpoint "terrorize" me and how I generously "let" you have it?

Ont he other hand:

"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.

A viewpoint is not a violent action taken by a psycho who shoots up a mall or theater.

So, again, connecting the two quotes doesnt make any sense.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
It makes it sound as though she's saying "gun rights activists" are prone to violence with automatic weapons.

Did you notice that "Blasted gun rights activists" was not included in her quote, but something obviously added by the author?

The actual quote:

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

Source

She's not talking about gun rights activists (of which I am one, by the way). She's talking about VIOLENT gun owners and the people who make a religion out of the idea that ANYONE should be allowed to have ANY gun and carry it ANYWHERE. She's very clear.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere



I agree 100 %..and as for a "A minority" could she tell me exactly what the BATF is ?
Or the Border Patrol ?
Or the U.S, Marshalls ?
Or..

Sounds to me like they LIKE sub-divisions and in-fighting..which works to their advantage, as nobody's going to co-ordinate..

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Did you notice that "Blasted gun rights activists" was not included in her quote, but something obviously added by the author?

Yeah, I did. The author must have picked up on the tone or attitude or pulled it from the more complete context of the interview as a whole.

Or, the author just made it up out of thin air.

I didnt watch the exchange with Amonpour so I don't have the complete picture. I just assume the author has a more complete picture than I do.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Well, a possible viewpoint could be, "I should be able to kill anyone I want, whenever I want." Another viewpoint could be, "women are not worth living because they have rejected me, so I will kill all women I see." Those viewpoints could possibly terrorize a lot of people, couldn't they? Should we allow those viewpoints?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

She's not talking about gun rights activists (of which I am one, by the way). She's talking about VIOLENT gun owners and the people who make a religion out of the idea that ANYONE should be allowed to have ANY gun and carry it ANYWHERE. She's very clear.

You know that's from a completely different talk totally unrelated to the interview this thread is based on, right?

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said "I think we've got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don't believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people."

05/06/14

a reply to: kaylaluv

Those viewpoints don't do anything to anyone. Acting on them however does.

You can see a difference in thought crimes vs. real crimes, right?

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
You know that's from a completely different talk totally unrelated to the interview this thread is based on, right?

It's in your source.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
a reply to: kaylaluv

Those viewpoints don't do anything to anyone. Acting on them however does.

You can see a difference in thought crimes vs. real crimes, right?

But should we let people with those viewpoints have easy access to guns?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
You know that's from a completely different talk totally unrelated to the interview this thread is based on, right?

It's in your source.

Yeah, it is. As a call back to an earlier interview.

Here's the transcript of the "Town Hall" interview the source article is based on: link

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?

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.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
a reply to: kaylaluv

Those viewpoints don't do anything to anyone. Acting on them however does.

You can see a difference in thought crimes vs. real crimes, right?

But should we let people with those viewpoints have easy access to guns?

Okay. Pitch to me a system that prevents people with certain viewpoints from having access to guns that doesnt interfere with those who do not have certain viewpoints from having access to guns.

Regardless, the whole "mental health gun access" thing is not the issue here. She didnt say people with certain viewpoints shouldnt have access to guns. She said people should not be allowed to have certain viewpoints.

Hello?

It appears that a vast number of posters on this thread defending the gritch utterly fail to

understand a shred of her psychology . . .

her attitude

her frame of reference . . .

Who is her "we" . . . REALLY?

What gave her the cheek to PRESUME SHE AND THEY

have any shred of a RIGHT

to prevent ANY particular viewpoint?

Who appointed her god?

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
a reply to: kaylaluv

Those viewpoints don't do anything to anyone. Acting on them however does.

You can see a difference in thought crimes vs. real crimes, right?

But should we let people with those viewpoints have easy access to guns?

Okay. Pitch to me a system that prevents people with certain viewpoints from having access to guns that doesnt interfere with those who do not have certain viewpoints from having access to guns.

I'm not sure. I agree with Clinton when she says we need to have a more thoughtful conversation about it. It can't just be "everyone should be able to have a gun, anytime, anywhere". That's not very thoughtful - that's just stupid.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
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.

so what your saying is that a minority belief should rule over a majority belief...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: kaylaluv

I agree with Clinton when she says we need to have a more thoughtful conversation about it.

Unfortunately that will never happen. The anti side openly admits to having no answers but pushing lies anyway.

“Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

link

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

link

A thoughtful conversation can't start with "you're too stupid to know this won't work but..."

originally posted by: jimmyx

so what your saying is that a minority belief should rule over a majority belief...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Nobody should be ruling over anybody.