Hillary Clinton: Those Under FBI Scrutiny ‘Shouldn’t Be Able to Just Go Buy a Gun’

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Self defense is a fundamental human right.

A person cannot be stripped of a right based on suspicion of a crime or because they exhibited "questionable" behavior.

Especially when you consider the history of the FBI (or other LE agencies for that matter).

They began as Hoover's personal goon squad. They "investigated" MLK as well as anti-war protesters.

Then they really turned up their spying activities with COINTELPRO.

I'll forego the other instances but doesnt seem like anything has changed:

Government agents 'directly involved' in most high-profile US terror plots.

Why let due process or the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" get in the way of her obsession with confiscating guns.

For all we know, the FBI could have everyone on ATS "under investigation".

There is a reason why Clinton hasn't held a press conference in over 180 days. Every time she opens her mouth she contradicts herself.

originally posted by: Konduit
There is a reason why Clinton hasn't held a press conference in over 180 days. Every time she opens her mouth she contradicts herself.

To be fair with amount of BS she has spewed over the years it would be impossible not to.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: intrptr


They investigated dude before, more than once, right?

Or they were just checking on his 'progress', whatever.

`
The FBI held this POS under scrutiny twice . For months. And from what I read , the FBI was told to "stand down" twice.Hmm. Who wields that type of power that could back off the FBI on a matter of National Security ?

You're implying government within government, I was speculating the FBI was 'conditioning' him.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: onequestion

this is the same trump who has been bailed out by the saudi royal family several times, by virtue of his numerous bankruptcies?

pot something, a kettle, something black.

Was he a presidential nominee back then?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Liquesence

How the hell would someone under investigation know they are under investigation?

I would just like to point out how illogical this is.

Also, I would just like to say that some of you have probably been under investigation and didn't know it because of close contacts you may have with someone who may have done something or been involved in something stupid. Think about it... Think about how many millions and millions of people this would affect.

So Hillary doesn't know she is under investigation? The rest of the western world knows it.

The shooter was interviewed twice by the FBI. He didn't know he was under investigation?

So what I have taken away from this thread is that people who are under investigation for, or suspected of terrorism or other serious criminal activity should still be allowed to buy whatever guns they want.

Seriously????

And you Americans wonder why you have mass murders very few months.

Has common sense completely gone out the window? Did I miss the meeting where everyone inhaled funny gas?

a reply to: Kryties

I can, legally, file a complaint against you for murdering my brother, in an hour or so. Now, when the fact that I don't have a brother, that you are (probably) nowhere near me, etc., etc., etc. comes out in the investigation, there's a good chance I'll be the one with the legal problem.

In the meantime, you, sir, will be "under investigation."

According to your post, that means you should never be allowed to purchase any kind of weapon. For all that, let's remove your right to vote too, since we don't want 'criminals' to vote. Not just during the investigation, mind you, but for the rest of your life. That is what you are advocating: punishment based solely on suspicion.

A successful FBI investigation results in criminal charges. A criminal (felony) conviction results in the loss of the right to possess a firearm. An ongoing investigation does red flag attempts to purchase a firearm (if my information is correct).

There were no ongoing FBI investigations on the Orlando terrorist. There were no felonies on his record. There were no differences, from a legal perspective, between him and millions of innocent citizens.

In contrast, Hilliary Clinton is presently undergoing an active FBI investigation herself, and some reports indicate she could be in serious danger of an indictment. Conviction under that indictment would make her a felon and unable to vote or own firearms for the rest of her life. Yet the position she is aspiring to includes the de facto possession of long-range nuclear weapons. That is the hypocrisy.

Orlando? Sometimes bad things happen. It is tragic, but it is true... and sad. I pray for those affected, that they find peace.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck


Orlando? Sometimes bad things happen. It is tragic, but it is true... and sad. I pray for those affected, that they find peace.

Sometimes?

How many mass shootings have occurred in the last 5 years in America?

It's a sad day when people would rather have their right to own assault weapons than to help preserve lives.

I repeat my previous thought:

a reply to: Kryties

The number of deaths from automobiles exceeds the number of deaths from firearms by orders of magnitude. Do you support removing the right to own a car from anyone ever suspected of committing a crime?

You have completely missed the point. An FBI investigation is not, NOT, NOT a conviction. It is not even necessarily a realistic suspicion. It is only a closer look at an individual. An indictment is a suspicion with evidence sufficient to hold a trial or make an arrest. A conviction is where things change... the plaintiff is found to be guilty of a felony only, ONLY, ONLY after a conviction, and can no longer possess a firearm or vote.

I think I'm going to become a psychic: I predicted this right here, one page ago. Please read it, then try to explain to me what an 'assault rifle' is.

TheRedneck

Self defense is a fundamental human right, not guns.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Two nights ago, 49 people were denied that fundamental human right because they were prohibited from possessing similar tools as their attacker.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you have proof that all 49 people had attempted to obtain a firearm but were denied? Somehow, I'm rather skeptical of that.

Also, they were not denied that right regardless, because self defense is not equivalent with owning a deadly weapon.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

That request for proof is irrelevant. Just as in all previous mass shootings, it occurred in a 'gun-free' area. There was no ability for anyone there to legally possess a firearm, whether or not they tried to.

Your next statement is simply ludicrous. I suppose they could have exercised their 'fundamental human right' by throwing drinks at the guy firing bullets at them, but that's not exactly self-defense as much as it is desperation.

Tell me, in the situation where an unarmed person is trapped in a club and confronted by a person firing a firearm at them, what is your reasonable definition of this 'fundamental human right' to self-defense?

TheRedneck

ETA: I'll have to read the replies when I get back from work. Please think them through so I can look forward to more good laughs after a hard days work.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would agree that gun free areas are pointless in the United States unless they have adequate security. It would seem that this place did not. However, was that a federally mandated law, or the policy of the night club in particular?

They could have done that, or tried hitting him with a stool, or thrown boiling water, or any infinite other sort of permutation of action. Their right to self-defense wasn't denied because they were not able to defend themselves successfully. Otherwise you could argue that it was denied because someone with a pistol was killed by someone with a knife, as they didn't have a submachine gun instead. Or a fully automatic rifle. Or a mortar. Or an ICBM. Where is the line drawn?

The legality to respond with deadly force. The difference in this matter between a gun or a shovel is irrelevant, they are simply tools.

The right you are arguing for is the "US Right to Bear Arms" not the "Human Right to Self Defense". They are independent, though you seem to have become confused and think they are equivalent.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
The legality to respond with deadly force. The difference in this matter between a gun or a shovel is irrelevant, they are simply tools.

Tools they may be, I really hope you don't ever bring a shovel to a gun fight.

Legality of deadly force aside, the poster you are responding to is likely talking about people having the ability to defend themselves using tools of the same caliber they may be attacked by.

As Redneck stated, barstools and boiling water is desperation and likely to get you killed by a shooter. A bullet however could stop that shooter dead.

Not that I totally disagree with you but to say disarmed individuals can still defend themselves is true but kind of disingenuous. Who is likely to survive bringing a shovel to a gun fight?

a reply to: atomish

I really hope I don't ever have to bring anything to a gun fight if I'm honest.

Right, but the point I am trying to make is that having access to the same caliber of tools you might be attacked isn't included in the fundamental right to self defense.

Yep and yep, not really arguing with that.

I'm not actually arguing that gun-free zones without adequate security should exist in America, truthfully I think they're stupid and pointless. However, I disagree with the notion that the right to self defense includes access to any tools you may potentially be attacked with. It's too arbitrary. Self defense is responding with force to any threat to yourself or those around you with whatever tools may be at hand, whether there are actually any tools there is irrelevant.

I am fine if someone wants to say that restricting access to guns is bad because it makes self defense unrealistically difficult, but I am not fine with someone saying that restricting access to guns is a violation of the right to self defense. Do you understand the differentiation between those statements that I am making?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: atomish

I really hope I don't ever have to bring anything to a gun fight if I'm honest.

Right, but the point I am trying to make is that having access to the same caliber of tools you might be attacked isn't included in the fundamental right to self defense.

Yep and yep, not really arguing with that.

I'm not actually arguing that gun-free zones without adequate security should exist in America, truthfully I think they're stupid and pointless. However, I disagree with the notion that the right to self defense includes access to any tools you may potentially be attacked with. It's too arbitrary. Self defense is responding with force to any threat to yourself or those around you with whatever tools may be at hand, whether there are actually any tools there is irrelevant.

I am fine if someone wants to say that restricting access to guns is bad because it makes self defense unrealistically difficult, but I am not fine with someone saying that restricting access to guns is a violation of the right to self defense. Do you understand the differentiation between those statements that I am making?

Yes I do and I appreciate the clarification of your position.

Like I said, I wasn't necesarilly in disagreement, just trying to get to the meat of the argument which I felt was disingenuous when speaking of peoples lives and not just the cold hard facts of the legality in these situations.

But I apologize for that accusation as I DO see your point and agree with it wholeheartedly. Technically speaking, the right to self defense is inherent and can never be taken from someone short of putting them in chains.

Banning all firearms would not necesarilly infringe in that right to self defense but it would certainly make defending oneself against firearms quite difficult. This is why it is hard to separate the two in this discussion.

I appreciate the thoughtful and well-reasoned response as it is rare on these boards, I'm finding.

Happy to engage you in discussion anytime!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Kryties

The number of deaths from automobiles exceeds the number of deaths from firearms by orders of magnitude. Do you support removing the right to own a car from anyone ever suspected of committing a crime?

Automobiles were not specifically designed to kill people. Therein lies the fault in your argument.

“We may have our disagreements about gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few essential things,” Clinton said, speaking to a crowd gathered at the Cleveland Industrial Innovation Center. “If the FBI is watching you for a suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.”

Hillary is LYING out her snip.

Lots of questions are asked when purchasing a firearm.

By LAW.

Federal background check, and ATF form 4473 has to be filled out.

HRC

ZEIG HEIL!

ZEIG HEIL!