The Narrative Hillary Agrees With "Gun Owners Are Terrorists"

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's happening though.

I know and it's nuts.

Just to illustrate how nuts it is that she is even pushing such a crazy idea as that. Bill Maher was talking about it with his panel a while back and him and everyone on his panel also agreed that she's out of her mind pushing some BS like suing the manufacturer of a gun which is totally legal for them to make based on what someone else does with it.

Which should be obvious to anyone and I'm glad both Bill and his left leaning panel guests agreed that it was a stupid idea.

Which is why I don't know why she's pushing that idea now of all times when it could actually hurt her the most. What's behind her motivation of trying to sell such a stupid idea???

There's got to be a reason for the increased anti gun stuff to such a degree. I honestly think all the trouble the establishment is having now on both sides has them worried that things might pop off a little sooner than expected and they still have a very heavily armed populace that they'll have to deal with. Maybe things are getting unstable a little too soon or something.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: vethumanbeing

But, but... how did the bad guys get explosives, a highly regulated, illegal to own item?

They go to youtube and lean how to make them.

Before that 'bad' guys were buying the 'Anarchist CookBook'.

But I forgot in the 21st century people no longer have to commit crimes to be held accountable for someone else's.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: vethumanbeing

But, but... how did the bad guys get explosives, a highly regulated, illegal to own item?

They made them. The Weather underground had highly educated chemists and engineers within their ranks. Chemicals were not regulated. The materials could be bought at rural feed stores then; dynamite as one example (used to blow up tree stumps when clearing fields). Laws changed in the mid 70s.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: windword

I'm more threatened by the US government than I am by any fellow citizen.

Smart.

Considering they arm drug dealers, and terrorists with 'things' they say we can't own.

And yet 'we' are the 'terrorists'.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well that's not what the lady said. She said, "The gun and ammunition manufacturers are making terrorists out of our citizens.", while Hillary nodded. Not that all "gun owners are terrorists".

That's not to say that I agree, but it's not what your hyperbolic title says. But, all terrorists ARE gun owners.

There is no doubt that Americans are being terrorized by their own citizens, what with all these shooting and threats.

Answer me this.

Between the average gun owner, and people like CLinton meaning the US government.

Which one has killed MORE people ?

Careful now.

Besides going around shooting someone else is verboten under US law.

Well that is for the little people.

Droning them, and giving two bit 'terrorists' around the middle east ak's and rpgs is perfectly hunky dory.

a reply to: neo96

WU used mostly dynamite in their bombs, meaning they were in violation of the law before they ever set a single one off. The 1968 Gun Control Act laid serious restrictions on "destructive devices," which specifically included dynamite. It doesn't really matter, except to prove, without a doubt, that stricter regulations against something are completely ignored by criminals and only negatively impact the law abiding.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: neo96

WU used mostly dynamite in their bombs, meaning they were in violation of the law before they ever set a single one off. The 1968 Gun Control Act laid serious restrictions on "destructive devices," which specifically included dynamite. It doesn't really matter, except to prove, without a doubt, that stricter regulations against something are completely ignored by criminals and only negatively impact the law abiding.

Yep.

And thanks to all that 'common sense' regulation.

Smoke 'grenades' were banned by the BATFE.

They get to make snip up as they go along.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: neo96

WU used mostly dynamite in their bombs, meaning they were in violation of the law before they ever set a single one off. The 1968 Gun Control Act laid serious restrictions on "destructive devices," which specifically included dynamite. It doesn't really matter, except to prove, without a doubt, that stricter regulations against something are completely ignored by criminals and only negatively impact the law abiding.

Thank you; I accept your apology.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

The people that need an apology were the farmers that could no longer clear their land because dynamite was taken from their tool shed.

A stick of dynamite was a hell of a lot cheaper than spending thousands of dollars paying someone else using heavy machinery to clear a tree stump.

originally posted by: mOjOm
So is this possibly the establishments "disarm the people" move that we've heard so much chatter about???

Who knows? I'm not all that paranoid. I'm not going to voluntarily give up my guns. So, we'll have to see if they want to push it, and if so, how far.

If a bunch of people start shooting, it'll set off a panic ... and maybe even a revolution. Hillary will be Nobody in such event.

Get out to a gun show. You can feel people seething as they buy thousands of rounds of ammo. I saw at least a hundred thousand (i'd guess it was more like two or three) drive out past the tables I was working last weekend. That's a lot of 'readiness' if you ask me.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: windword

I'm more threatened by the US government than I am by any fellow citizen.

Smart.
Considering they arm drug dealers, and terrorists with 'things' they say we can't own.
And yet 'we' are the 'terrorists'.

The "Fast and Furious" (arm drug dealers with 1500 *most of which were* fully auto assault rifles and track these firearms) was a failed operation. All documents held by the 'Executive Branch' MUST be turned over to the Department of Justice because a Judge ruled they did NOT HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE to withhold this information. Another black eye delivered to Obama's administration.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: vethumanbeing
The people that need an apology were the farmers that could no longer clear their land because dynamite was taken from their tool shed.A stick of dynamite was a hell of a lot cheaper than spending thousands of dollars paying someone else using heavy machinery to clear a tree stump.

What the farmers had to do after taking away their (God given right to legally buy) dynamite was to drill holes in the tree stump; then soak it with diesel fuel several times, then light the thing on fire. One could imagine a very long process compared to just blowing it up.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Does anyone know what is behind Hillary's obsession with Anti Gun stuff lately??? ....

She figures if most Democrats don't like guns and Bernie is not so against guns then she can use the issue to gain some votes on Bernie.
She personally couldn't care less, but anything to gain a vote or two... If she thought more Dems were gun advocates she'd be filmed at range target shooting. That's just Hillary....

a reply to: windword

In China, they use knives, cleavers, and machetes.

On the same day as Sandy Hook, a kindergarten was attacked by a knife wielding terrorist/mass attacker.

Subway and train station attacks carried out by Muslim Uyghurs used knives.

Didn't the UK consider banning knives after the gun ban led to more knives being used? I saw that somewhere.

The only thing that will protect humans from other humans is death itself. Preferably a peaceful one on their own terms.

No wait, humans then wait many years, then dig them back up and disturb their eternal rest. I guess you never can get away from human interference. Maybe cremation.

Of course Hilary and her ilk want the general public unarmed because then their security forces can quell any opposition to her ideas and demands. All the elite want the people disarmed and probably are behind many of the gun outrages in order to achieve their aims.

After all, all they care about is themselves and their wealthy lifestyles.

a reply to: UKTruth

And the next president could possibly be appointing three to four Supreme court nominees. Could get pretty ugly in the next ten years.

I've stated this many times and I will say it again, the largest terrorist organisation on this planet is the United States Government/Military. The second largest is its police force.

The second amendment is stupid (for various reasons, one of which is that its meaning can be completely warped to have it say and mean essentially whatever you want it to say and mean), but this discussion is even more stupid. Owning a gun does not make someone a terrorist.

Talk about a misleading thread title. Take things out of context much?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

And exactly why does it matter if they owned guns "Back home"? They did not have them with them, did not use firearms of any kind and if they did just happen to have a few back home, again, exactly why does it matter?
Or is this part of the "anti gun derail the topic" crap you guys are so known for?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well that's not what the lady said. She said, "The gun and ammunition manufacturers are making terrorists out of our citizens.", while Hillary nodded. Not that all "gun owners are terrorists".

Maybe I am just a little tired... but can you explain how gun and ammo manufacturers are making terrorists out of our citizens?

Cause I am not seeing the logical connection... so maybe if you explain your point I can actually respond to it in a logical manner.