Mrs. Clinton has the typical Progressive view of the 2nd Amendment… she hates it, and she thinks gun owners are all short-tempered lunatics just one annoyance away from shooting up a movie theater.
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday offered her most detailed comments on domestic policy in months, calling for tighter gun restrictions while also going to bat for Obamacare and warning that rising economic inequality is contributing to “social collapse.”
… “We have to rein in what has become [an] almost article of faith, that anybody can own a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that,” she said.
Clinton, who argued it was possible to hold her position and still support the right to gun ownership, warned that unfettered access to guns could have dangerous consequences.
She painted a dark picture, warning that, “At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don’t like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gum chewer or cell phone user by shooting.”
Bear in mind, when Hillary or any Progressive talks about “commonsense gun laws” — they mean that laws in place in Washington DC (Criminal prosecutions for owning fake antique bullets), New York and California (Police allowed to confiscate guns without due process), and Chuck Schumer’s National Gun Law (Federal offense for a father to loan his daughter a gun to defend herself from an abusive boyfriend) don’t go quite far enough in their opinion.
Eventually, their goal is confiscation (which is why they constantly cite Britain and Australia as examples). Every measure they propose is intended as an incremental step in that direction.
She sounds like a child in that statement. Her argument is immature and not reasoned.
Fully licensed gun ownership = shootouts due to annoyance.
And then the gum chewer, or perhaps the people sitting behind the shooter, could use their guns to defend the gum chewer. Oh yeah, and people who are that unstable can already get guns. Even in places like Chicago, where the gun control laws are strict, because prohibition doesn’t work… just like it didn’t work for alcohol, it’s not working for drugs, and it’s not going to work for guns (particularly not in the US, where people love their guns and aren’t about to give them up).
Whenever someone like Shrillary says this, the immediate reverse should be, “So you need to be prevented from owning a gun because you are so incompetent and mentally unstable that you would shoot someone for chewing their gum too loudly or talking on their cell phone.”
And when she balks, punch again: “That’s what you said. You said if you were allowed to own a gun you would shoot people who chewed their gum loudly or talked on their cell phones. Read back the transcript.”
Then when she tries to protest: “Well, who, then? Are you going to claim that all Democrat voters who own guns want to shoot people who chew gum? Are you going to claim that all black people who own guns want to shoot people who talk on their cell phones? Who?”
By then she will be a blubbering mess, because she cannot comprehend being talked back to. If anything, she’ll have a violent screaming tantrum and meltdown, which is even more perfect.
As opposed to her being a short-tempered harpy who attacked women her dog mate molested?
What difference, at this point, does it make, Hillary, if every man, woman, and child has a gun strapped to each leg? It might protect them from some protester with an offensive video.
Based on recent news, I’m more afraid of government employees with guns than civilians who legally carry firearms.
http://www.steynonline.com/6317/gun-control
I’ve no problem with a cop defending himself – no one is paid enough to be a sitting duck. But I also have to observe that George Zimmerman demonstrated far more restraint than a lot of coppers – and he was put through the wringer for it whereas the officers who massacred Miriam Casey in DC last year were feted as heroes by our congress-critters (she was shot five times; no telling how many rounds were fired).
I’ve noted previously that cops should not be allowed to carry semi-auto pistols unless they can demonstrate the ability to not “empty the gun” under stress. It’s harder to pump several rounds into someone with a revolver than it is with a Glock.
NDT,
I take your point ….. but
According to the Bloomberg, Shrillery, Pelosi harpies we are well beyond the point of gun sanity NOW !!!!
So, I would ask Cankles Clintoon to comb the stats and show how many people blast gum chewers with a gun as opposed to busting their chops with a fist or taking a razor to their necks in the here and now.
Frankly, when Shrillery rasped and shrieked “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” I would have been thrilled if some old grandma had repeatedly beaten her about the head and shoulders with her knitting bag.
I thought the whole #banbossy was to get that shrew to shut up. Since the gay left plays the victim card every chance they get, gays should be issued free automatic weapons.
Funny Asian shopkeepers on rooftops with rifles ,that Sterling provided housing for, managed to keep the peace during the “too high on crack to be affected by a police stun gun”Rodney King riots, but in London UK when a swat team had a shootout with an illegal alien drug dealer (with his illegal handgun) the race riot of 2011 destroyed many buildings that survived WWII.
Says the woman with armed protection…
” If you take advantage of her, you’re going to burn in a special level of hell. A level reserved for child molesters and people who talk in the theater.”
Our Mrs. Reynolds
Firefly
Apparently the sole discoverer of the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ believes that most people have as little self-control as she does.
Hillary Rodman
Clinton; just another gun-grabber from Chicago.