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

And Yeah people if being investigated is enough to make someone a 'criminal'.

Then that makes Clinton one.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So do you disagree with her statement or are you just highlighting her hypocrisy?

The statement when taken by itself makes alot of sense

being "under scrutiny" is different that being accused/convicted of a crime
following that logic, all us citizens would be "under scrutiny" and there would be no guns.

that's a slippery slope there...

a reply to: onequestion

NO! Gritchy traitorous pathological liar,

Those under FBI investigation shouldn't be able to run for President! . . . particularly about every time you open your mouth.

And particularly without coming clean about the body count.

And particularly without coming clean about the corruption; pay to play by foreign 'donors;' . . .

And particularly without coming clean about Treason with China . . .

And particularly without coming clean about Treason with Benghazi . . .

And particularly without coming clean about the witch/occult seances once a month in L.A. . . .

. . .
. . .

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

How does it matter who denied these people the right of reasonable self-defense? I really don't know and I really don't care.

As atomish so aptly stated, the right to self-defense implies the right to respond with reasonably adequate force to the attack one is defending themselves from. If someone is attacking you with a drinking straw, it is not reasonable to whip out a bazooka. If someone is attacking with a firearm, however, it is reasonable to pull out a firearm for defense.

From your response, I can only assume you have never faced an attacker. The illogic needed to make the kind of statement you have made, i.e. defending with a barstool against a firearm, is hard for me to fathom. Again, that is desperation, not self-defense.

I am glad we agree on the abject lunacy that has led to 'gun-free' zones. Recent history has proven that such are no more effective than flashing neon signs that say, "Attention criminals! Helpless victims inside!" Perhaps with the 'adequate security' you mention, the crime rates in these areas would dwindle. But what constitutes adequate security? One armed guard? Two? Twenty? Five hundred?

Would it not be easier to allow the citizens themselves to assist effectively in their own defense? I'm not calling for Wild West versions of justice, just that the fundamental right to self-defense be honored by allowing honest, upright citizens to own and carry the same level of weaponry as the vast bulk of attackers use.

49 people died, all while waiting on the police. I do not say this to disparage the police; they cannot be everywhere, and they came into this without knowing all the details of what was happening. The fastest response would have been from a patron, who was already there. The most knowledge of the situation would have belonged to a patron, who was witnessing it. If 10% of those in the club had been armed, I seriously doubt the body count would have exceeded 5 before the terrorist was dispatched to another world.

That's 44 souls, 44 lives, 44 dreams and hopes and loves and futures forever gone to us. A very high price to test out an agenda, and especially an agenda whose supporters will not accept the failures and tragedies from it staring them in the face.

Also, I am not arguing for a right. I have the right to keep and bear arms already. I am arguing against the illegal abolishment of that right without proper due process. You are the one arguing for change. All you need to do to realize your agenda is to amend the U.S. Constitution. I will vehemently disagree with such an attempt, but you have every right to try to convince enough people to make it happen.

I personally think you'll have better luck without the dead bodies lining the gun-free zones, but, hey! I could be wrong.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Kryties

Neither were all guns. They are also used to kill animals for food or self-defense.

I'm curious: do you really think your opinion on the intended purpose of a device is relevant to someone who died from its (mis)use?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Kryties

Neither were all guns. They are also used to kill animals for food or self-defense.

Really? I mean really???

ALL guns are designed for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of killing, whether it be hunting animals or self defense or any other use they have. Cars, on the other hand, were designed to TRANSPORT people from Point A to Point B. Deaths that result from cars are NOT because they were designed to kill, whereas deaths by guns IS because they were designed to kill.

I cannot believe that you would even attempt to compare the two. It reaks of desperation from the pro-gun crowd when they resort to such easily disprovable comparisons.

a reply to: Kryties

Really.

You seem to be in a hurry: you completely missed my question. No matter. We all get in a rush sometimes, so I'll ask again: do you think the 'intended purpose' of an instrument (mis)used to kill someone matters to the victim?

TheRedneck

a reply to: onequestion

Right

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Kryties

You seem to be in a hurry: you completely missed my question. No matter. We all get in a rush sometimes, so I'll ask again: do you think the 'intended purpose' of an instrument (mis)used to kill someone matters to the victim?

I deliberately didn't answer it as it is a trick question intended to detract from the fact that cars were not specifically designed to kill whereas guns were.

I know it may be confusing to you, as is evidenced by the fact you think "hunting animals" apparently doesn't comprise of killing them (do you think they are just in a deep coma or something?) and "self-defence" apparently doesn't involve killing or attempting to kill the person whom which you feel the need to enact self-defense. Are you suggesting the flying bullets are actually neon signs saying "don't attack me"? Or is this another coma situation where the person is not dead just "sleeping"?

a reply to: Kryties

We appear to have differing opinions on what constitutes a 'trick question.' I tend to believe such is a question which cannot be answered in a way that reflects one's true feelings. Apparently, you believe it is one which points out an inconsistently.

Your refusal to answer is in itself an answer, however. It is obvious you believe that a death caused by a gun is more horrific than one caused by anything else. Ergo, your position is not about saving lives or preventing death, but rather is about outlawing guns. You're not alone; I'm curious as to why you are so angry with an inanimate object as so many others apparently are. I have to assume, however, that you won't answer that question either, for similar reasons.

I will happily state my position. I am against violent death or injury to any person who does not initiate an attack on others. I really don't care whether such death or injury comes from a gun, a knife, a car, a stick, or being hit in the head with a plastic frog. Death is death, injury is injury.

I also believe that someone who is attacked is in the best possible position to effectively stop the attack. They are already present at the scene and are already aware of the details of the situation (who is attacking, where in the building they are, a general description, etc.) Thus, logic demands that such potential victim should be allowed to be armed with whatever tools are needed and desired for self-defense.

I must say I find your next paragraph amusing and telling at the same time. Do you really think I don't realize an animal dies when I take it? Do you really think the fact that I eat an animal I hunted means I have less respect for animals than you? I am well aware of what I am doing when I hunt: I am taking the life of an animal to sustain my own. The difference between us is that I accept that which is necessary and have the fortitude to carry out the task myself, as opposed to living in a fantasy world where ground beef magically shows up in the meat aisle without a single cow being harmed. In the process, I take care to take only what I need from nature and to ensure I cause as little suffering as possible. I doubt any slaughterhouses can make that claim.

Similarly, in the act of self-defense, I don't hold any misconceptions about my activities. My purpose is to stop the attack by whatever means necessary. If that means killing the attacker, so be it. I will defend myself with whatever I have at my disposal, and based on the degree of danger I perceive. If I am attacked with a stick, my first impulse is to likely be to disarm my attacker and beat him into submission with his own stick. There is no reason to immediately pull a gun. If attacked with a gun, that's a different story; I will pull a gun immediately and fire at the first opportunity. If that action kills my attacker, they made the choice to engage and the responsibility for that choice is theirs.

I believe those are reasonable positions when living in a world where violent crime is a reality. Apparently you do not. I suppose in your world attackers stop attacking people who are peaceful, food comes without the cost of taking lower life, and people who are killed by things other than guns do not mind the fact they are killed. Nice world. I wish I could join you. I really wish 49 people from the Purge nightclub could join you.

We are stuck in reality.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So do you disagree with her statement or are you just highlighting her hypocrisy?

The statement when taken by itself makes alot of sense

It doesn't make any sense at all. It would only make sense if the status and detail of the investigation were properly defined.
For example, the FBI have opened investigations for online comments. Who draws the line on which comments are subject to triggering an investigation? It's the same BS regarding the no fly list. How do you get on that? Who decides? What is the process?

You can't make a broad criteria the basis for the removal of rights.