Clinton unveils plan for tighter gun control including executive action, expanded background checks

Take a look at Hilary jumping on the latest anti gun bandwagon. Usual political scum move. Turn tragedy in to a campaign slogan and use people's misery to boost your own popularity. She not only proposes tighter control, she pretty openly threatens executive action, if she doesn't get her way. Hmmm, wonder where she learned that ? She also wants to repeal laws that shield gun manufacturers, dealers and distributors. How does that make sense? How do the gun makers have control over how a gun is used? That's like suing Ford when you're the victim of a drunk driver, who just happens to be driving an F150. That is a move solely designed to intimidate. Nothing else. Hilary may have finally realized she's lost before she even got started and is desperate to make herself more visible, but I think it's too late. Too many have seen how she treats national security and her opinion of the average citizen is less than stellar. I certainly don't want her deciding what Rights I have or has any say in to what degree I can practice those Rights.



www.foxnews.com...

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton on Monday proposed tighter gun-control measures, including expanded background checks, and suggested that if elected she would use executive powers to achieve her goals.

“I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Today” show. “I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president.”

She called for expanded background checks for firearms sales online and at gun shows. Clinton also called for closing loopholes in federal laws that allow for gun-sale transactions to be completed if the buyer’s background check is not finished within three days.

Clinton will unveil more details about her plans Monday during a campaign swing through New Hampshire.

Her campaign says her proposals also include a repeal of legislation shielding gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from most liability suits, even in the case of mass shootings like the one that killed nine students and teachers at an Oregon community college on Thursday.

And, as if she hadn't done enough damage to her campaign already, with this, I'm pretty sure she just wrote her political obituary.

“I’m going to try in every way,” Clinton said Monday. “I am going to get those guns out of people’s hands.”

originally posted by: DAVID64

Her campaign says her proposals also include a repeal of legislation shielding gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from most liability suits, even in the case of mass shootings like the one that killed nine students and teachers at an Oregon community college on Thursday.

With a Republican controlled Congress that legislation would never pass. Nor should it.

What agendas are ok to push with an event like this?

a reply to: DAVID64

yup, she just hammered the final nail in her coffin. I agree, she is acting out of desperation. Shame on her for using tragedy as a political chess move.... Shame shame shame the Hilary

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DAVID64

Her campaign says her proposals also include a repeal of legislation shielding gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from most liability suits, even in the case of mass shootings like the one that killed nine students and teachers at an Oregon community college on Thursday.

With a Republican controlled Congress that legislation would never pass. Nor should it.

Sounds like America needs a bigger tragedy.

Hillary thinking outloud:

"never let a good crisis go to waste"



day late.dollar short

originally posted by: Tucket

Sounds like America needs a bigger tragedy.

Why? Does suing manufactures prevent end users from breaking the law?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not sure.

Im simply saying that bigger, more sensational tragedies might sway congress..

..And hasnt Obama bypassed congressed before? Couldnt Hillary theoretically do the same?

originally posted by: Tucket

Not sure.

Im simply saying that bigger, more sensational tragedies might sway congress..

You are 'not sure' yet you felt the need to comment? Let me ask you, how does a 'more sensational tragedy' and the subsequent revocation of laws which would then enable people to sue manufacturers prevent end users from breaking the law?

Using this demented logic victims of drunk drivers should have sued both alcohol and automobile manufacturers since they are somehow responsible for the cretins that committed the crimes. Right?

..And hasnt Obama bypassed congressed before? Couldnt Hillary theoretically do the same?

Just what we need; more imperial Presidential mandates.

a reply to: Sremmos80

None.
She had/has a total disregard for national security, runs her office by her own set of rules, not those laid out for all government employee to follow, will give a lecture, saying pretty much anything you like, as long as you "contribute" to her foundation, puts your contract at the head of the bidding line for money and now, she wants to look good by jumping on the "tragedy bandwagon", like she actually gives a sh** as long as it gains her votes.

Yet asking somebody for a photo ID to vote is unreasonable.

a reply to: Tucket

The ends justifies the means? If 20 doesn't work, kill 100? Never mind that it's innocent lives as long as it gets those laws passed?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
What agendas are ok to push with an event like this?

Here's an agenda for you. Why don't all the parents who have a young man (16-30), who lives in the basement, has few friends, only a part time job, plays video games all day , is on anti- depression drugs , shows symptoms of ant-social behavior....please walk down those steps....tell your son you love him.....invite him up stairs to eat dinner with you ........try to engage him in something that might instill a positive attitude , for a change.......just be a loving concerned parent !!!!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tucket

Sounds like America needs a bigger tragedy.

Why? Does suing manufactures prevent end users from breaking the law?

I don't know, but by that logic people should be able to sue Ford if they get in an auto accident.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tucket

Not sure.

Im simply saying that bigger, more sensational tragedies might sway congress..

You are 'not sure' yet you felt the need to comment? Let me ask you, how does a 'more sensational tragedy' and the subsequent revocation of laws which would then enable people to sue manufacturers prevent end users from breaking the law?

Using this demented logic victims of drunk drivers should have sued both alcohol and automobile manufacturers since they are somehow responsible for the cretins that committed the crimes. Right?

..And hasnt Obama bypassed congressed before? Couldnt Hillary theoretically do the same?

Just what we need; more imperial Presidential mandates.

“I’m going to try in every way,” Clinton said Monday. “I am going to get those guns out of people’s hands.”

sounds like gun confiscation is a priority for the govt. Tragedies help move that priority along.

Thats all. Nothing about suing, drunk drivers, manufacturers etc..

black and white...like the pics my pyschologist shows me.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Tucket

The ends justifies the means? If 20 doesn't work, kill 100? Never mind that it's innocent lives as long as it gets those laws passed?

Hell, no. The ends do not justify the means. I was just suggesting what might happen. Im all for people keeping their guns.

If I lived in America, I assume that I would have one/some too.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

I don't know, but by that logic people should be able to sue Ford if they get in an auto accident.

They can if there is a defect but not if the accident is solely from their own stupidity.

originally posted by: Tucket

Nothing about suing, drunk drivers, manufacturers etc..

Yeah, there is, it is in the Original Post.

Why does everyone run to politicians when someone breaks the law? Why do politicians think laws, more laws, will stop criminal activity?
If the criminals weren't following the laws to begin with, what makes them think that MORE laws will do anything?
Laws punish bad actions and restrict freedoms. Aren't there already laws in place to punish people who use a gun illegally?

You know who else hates an armed populace?
ALIENS, that's who.
Makes planetary takeover a bit more difficult.