BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Calls Gun Rights Advocates Terrorists

[Cebu_4_2]

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Calls Gun Rights Advocates Terrorists, Calls for “Assault Weapons” Ban http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121218173046/future/images/4/4a/Old_hillary.jpg

By Robert Farago (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/author/robert-farago/) on June 17, 2014

Speaking at CNN’s town hall meeting tonight (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/politics/clinton-town-hall-what-to-watch/), presidential candidate Hillary Clinton lambasted American gun right advocates. “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” While she was at it, Ms. Clinton called for an “assault weapons ban,” conflating semi-automatic weapons with fully-automatic weapons as she went . . .

We’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before.
I don’t think it needs saying but if Hillary is our next President gun rights will be under threat like never before. And this is coming from a guy who publicly declared that President Obama considering gun control the third rail in American politics. I was wrong before. I hope I’m wrong now.

[h=3]You may also like -

Pew Poll: Gun Control Losing Steam, Money and Popularity (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/foghorn/pew-poll-gun-control-losing-steam-money-and-popularity/)
Question of the Day: Are You An Insurrectionist? (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/robert-farago/question-day-insurrectionist/)
Gun Control: What Next? (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/gun-control-what-next/)
Breaking: NRA Veep Addresses U.N. on Arms Trade Treaty (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/breaking-nra-veep-addresses-u-n-on-arms-trade-treaty/)
Incendiary Image of the Day: Starbucks Backlash Edition (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/incendiary-image-day-starbucks-backlash-edition/)

[Celtic Rogue]

First of all people do not have assault weapons. They are illegal. People have a semiautomatic rifles that mimic the look of an assault weapon but are in fact not a good choice to fight a battle with against automatic weapons or make an assault on anything. This is a set(IMHO) up to the next BIG PUSH to take our weapons as they have done in Australia. Obummer has praised what they have done and many other lefty politicians are chiming in with the talking points! Obummer isnt able to be elected again so he will be used to push this crap through. On another note... this may be their way to cause a major revolt by where he can declare marshal law. Which is one of their end goals as well!

[Ponce]

She needs plastic surgery......big time.

V

[Hatha Sunahara]

Apparently she doesn't want to get elected. Or she hasn't done her math. I'd bet that the people who own guns outnumber the anti gun group by a hefty margin.

Hatha

[palani]

the people who own guns outnumber the anti gun group by a hefty margin.

When it comes to election time the votes of unarmed people are of no account.

[Publico]

Apparently she doesn't want to get elected. Or she hasn't done her math. I'd bet that the people who own guns outnumber the anti gun group by a hefty margin.

Hatha

See the photo I just posted here. (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?77908-Gun-Control-Advocate-Snowden-Obamacare-Hurt-Our-Cause&p=714235#post714235)

[Twisted Titan]

She can say whatever she wants.

Pass whatever law she likes.

Wont change a dam thing.

I got mines.

Im not giving it up for shit.

If you try to take what is legally and lawfully mines...you are going to have a severe problem that might become permenant in nature

[Jerrylynnb]

Ponce said:

"She needs plastic surgery......big time."

I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't have the nerve - you said it for me Ponce, thanks.

On 2nd thought, that kind of plastic surgery don't exist - we're stuck with what we see.

I sure wish she'd retire - for good this time!

I admit that firearms are dangerous, especially in untrained hands - more so than a novice might realize. But that is also true of so many things in this modern world - if you don't think so just grab a bare live wire, you'll find out right quick about not being stupid with dangerous things in an all grown up world.

If I were running things, I'd have firearms training as a requirement in junior high school and taught by top-notch shooters with steady temperaments. And I'd expect the trainers to write up their impressions of their students that would be part of their school record. You can find out a lot about a person's psychology by how they handle light firearms as a youth - and the students can learn a lot about being responsible that wouldn't otherwise be learnt.

A nation of shooters, if need be - now that is something to write home about.

[EE_]

Apparently she doesn't want to get elected. Or she hasn't done her math. I'd bet that the people who own guns outnumber the anti gun group by a hefty margin.

Hatha

I'm not sure you've figured this right. Many of the people that own guns are liberal anti-gun people.
You see, these liberal anti-gun gun owner's believe they are entitled to their guns, but not you...but they're not going to tell to that.
Add these to the anti-gun, I love Hillary group and start preparing to say the words --> "President Hillary Rodham Clinton"

[iOWNme]

I admit that firearms are dangerous, especially in untrained hands - more so than a novice might realize. But that is also true of so many things in this modern world - if you don't think so just grab a bare live wire, you'll find out right quick about not being stupid with dangerous things in an all grown up world.

I disagree with you. I think the 'Why' is FAR more important than the 'How'. I bet you there would be a hell of alot more innocent people alive all throughout history if more people had understood the 'Why' before the 'How'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y62vnS0Qr6g



If I were running things, I'd have firearms training as a requirement in junior high school and taught by top-notch shooters with steady temperaments. And I'd expect the trainers to write up their impressions of their students that would be part of their school record. You can find out a lot about a person's psychology by how they handle light firearms as a youth - and the students can learn a lot about being responsible that wouldn't otherwise be learnt.

Again i disagree with you here. How is you FORCING me to have a gun any different than you FORCING me to not have one? What exactly is the moral principle behind your statement?

So you want to be King?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U

[Jerrylynnb]

Why vs. how: Yes, if a person has already made up his twisted mind to use firearms malevolently, then all the training in the world won't help. But, by learning about firearms (and firecrackers, too), at a young age when we are so impressionable, it just might stop us before we embrace that notion (using firearms for profit or revenge). And it would cut way down on accidents or foolish handling by those who just don't realize how immediately deadly it is.

As far as junior high school, I "HAD" to take PE (physical education), which I didn't want to take. The equipment wasn't mine (pole vaults, jump sticks, shot puts, javelins, baseballs and bats, footballs, basketballs, volleyballs, etc.), but I was "FORCED" to learn how to handle these things - I was better for it, as the last thing you want is to let 12 year-olds choose for themselves what they won't study. To be free to choose, you first have to earn that right by growing up straight with a good head on your shoulders and not apt to do something really stupid (like playing around with a firearm as if it were a mere toy).

Nobody is talking about forcing anyone to OWN a firearm, just learn how to handle them as part of your education to be a responsible part of this all grown up world.

You don't have to agree but surely you didn't choose all by yourself what you would or wouldn't study when you were a pre-teen? You had little choice and I hope you see the wisdom in that by now - right? Even if you don't, the rest of us do because it makes sense.

[EE_]

Gun Clubs at School: Not so long ago, they were common — and safe.
National Review ^ | 01/21/2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 8:47:45 AM by SeekAndFind


Once upon a time, it was common for an American child to be packed off to school with a rifle on his back and for him to come home smiling and safe in the evening. Shooting clubs, now quietly withering away, were once such a mainstay of American high-school life that in the first half of the 20th century they were regularly installed in the basements of new educational buildings. Now, they are in their death throes, victims of political correctness, a willful misunderstanding of what constitutes “gun safety,” and our deplorable tendency toward litigiousness.

In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. In 1984, that had dropped to 65. By 1999 there were just 26. The state’s annual riflery championship was shut down in 1986 for lack of demand. This, sadly, is a familiar story across the country. The clubs are fading from memory, too. A Chicago Tribune report from 2007 notes the astonishment of a Wisconsin mother who discovered that her children’s school had a range on site. “I was surprised, because I never would have suspected to have something like that in my child’s school,” she told the Tribune. The district’s superintendent admitted that it was now a rarity, confessing that he “often gets raised eyebrows” if he mentions the range to other educators. The astonished mother raised her eyebrows, too — and then led a fight to have the range closed. “Guns and school don’t mix,” she averred. “If you have guns in school, that does away with the whole zero-tolerance policy.”

But how wise is that “zero-tolerance policy”? Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” As George Mason University economist Walter E. Williams has observed, for most of American history “private transfers of guns to juveniles were unrestricted. Often a youngster’s 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.” This was a right of passage, conventional and uncontroversial across the country. “Gee, Dad . . . A Winchester!” read one particularly famous ad. “In Virginia,” Williams writes, “rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school, and sometimes storing their guns in the trunk of their cars during the school day, parked on the school grounds.” Many of these guns they could buy at almost any hardware store or gas station — or even by mail order. The 1968 Gun Control Act, supported happily by major gun manufacturers who wished to push out their competition, put a stop to this.

Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s are packed full of gun advertisements aimed at children or parents. “What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun,” one proclaims, next to a picture of a young boy and his sister excitedly presenting a “Rifle Catalog.” “Get This Cowboy Carbine with Your Christmas Money,” suggests another. It was placed widely in boys’ magazines by the Daisy Manufacturing Company of Plymouth, Mich. All a teenager needed do to be sent a rifle was send a money order for $2.50 and tick a box confirming they were old enough.

In one cartoon from the 1950s, two boys discuss a rifle in front of their father. “It’s safe for him to use, isn’t it, Dad?” the first boy asks. “Sure,” Dad responds. “Pete knows the code of the junior rifleman.” Back then, Pete almost certainly did. As John Lott Jr. has noted, once upon a time,

it was common for schools to have shooting clubs. Even in New York City, virtually every public high school had a shooting club up until 1969. It was common for high school students to take their guns with them to school on the subways in the morning and turn them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach so the heavy guns would simply be out of the way. After school, students would pick up their guns when it was time for practice.

That is, if they handed them in at all. Up until the ’70s, especially in rural areas, it was commonplace to see kids entering and leaving their school campuses with rifle bags slung lazily over their backs. Guns were left in school lockers, and rifles and shotguns were routinely seen in high-school parking lots, hanging in the rear windows of pickup trucks. A good friend of mine is from North Dakota. His father was telling me recently that in the late 1960s he would hunt before school and then take his rifle — and his bloodstained kills — to school to show his teachers. He and his friends would compare their shooting techniques in the school grounds. Nobody batted an eyelid. In North Dakota, school shootings were non-existent; in the country at large, they were extremely rare.

Despite my having been to school in England, this is not too strange a scene to me. Had you come through my school’s gates on a Thursday afternoon, you might have been horrified to see me, along with a motley collection of boys and girls, 16 to 18 years old, dressed in the camouflage of the Combined Cadet Force and carrying SA-80s around. An SA-80 is the standard-issue rifle used by the British army. It would be accurately described as an “assault rifle,” and it is a sufficiently serious piece of equipment to have been given to British soldiers fighting in both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland. We had to learn strict gun safety. We had to disassemble and reassemble our guns under timed conditions. We had to shoot them at targets that were shaped like men. Once, at the school’s firing range, we even fired a machine gun.

The clay-pigeon shooting group was one of my school’s strongest sports teams, and its members would walk nonchalantly around with their shotguns in bags. Sometimes, they would even take their locked guns to lessons and prop them up against the wall. All of our teachers survived the ordeal.

The notion that guns should form a part of education has a rich pedigree in our republic. In 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his 15-year-old nephew Peter Carr with some scholarly advice. Having instructed him to read “antient history in detail” and expounded a little on which works of “Roman history” and “Greek and Latin poetry” were the most profitable, Jefferson counseled that

a strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

Such attitudes would no doubt be regarded as alarming today, as unthinkable as the old — and true — slogan that “America grew up with a rifle in its hand.” So widespread has been the shift in educators’ attitudes that in 1990 Congress legislated to render all schools “gun-free zones.” The law made reasonable exceptions for weapons that were taken to school “for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone” and, regardless, it was struck down on grounds of federal overreach in 1997. Still, that such an exception needed carving out at all would have astonished many a few years earlier, not to mention inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of harmless students who, in the process of going about their business, innocently and safely kept rifles in their cars.

— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.

[Norweger]

"Nowadays it is more important to disarm the peoples than to lead them into war: more important to use for our advantage the passions which have burst into flames than to quench their fire: more important to eradicate them. " -Protocols of the learned elders of zion.

[StreetsOfGold]

"Calls for “Assault Weapons” Ban"

You LEAD by example!
Disarm ALL politicians and government agencies and maybe we'll take it seriously. ........ Maybe

[Neuro]

She needs plastic surgery......big time.

V
Evil people does become very ugly when aging, grotesque often. It is very interesting, as you age, your face starts reflecting the predominant emotion you have carried in your life

[iOWNme]

Why vs. how: Yes, if a person has already made up his twisted mind to use firearms malevolently, then all the training in the world won't help. But, by learning about firearms (and firecrackers, too), at a young age when we are so impressionable, it just might stop us before we embrace that notion (using firearms for profit or revenge). And it would cut way down on accidents or foolish handling by those who just don't realize how immediately deadly it is.

Seeing as how most of the violence destruction theft and death have been caused by good natured well intentioned individuals carrying out various 'Laws' and not greedy evil individual bad guys, i dont see how knowing 'how' to use armaments is going to stop them from 'obeying orders'.


As far as junior high school, I "HAD" to take PE (physical education), which I didn't want to take. The equipment wasn't mine (pole vaults, jump sticks, shot puts, javelins, baseballs and bats, footballs, basketballs, volleyballs, etc.), but I was "FORCED" to learn how to handle these things - I was better for it, as the last thing you want is to let 12 year-olds choose for themselves what they won't study. To be free to choose, you first have to earn that right by growing up straight with a good head on your shoulders and not apt to do something really stupid (like playing around with a firearm as if it were a mere toy).

Holy smokes Mr. Marx, i think you may be confused as to what 'Rights' are. 'Rights' are not 'earned' they are inherent in all humans as a direct result of Self Ownership. Just WHO is the person to decide if you have 'earned' your Rights?


Nobody is talking about forcing anyone to OWN a firearm, just learn how to handle them as part of your education to be a responsible part of this all grown up world.

Again, i asked you what your moral principle was behind your statement. There is not a lick of difference between you FORCING me to 'own' a gun or you FORCING me to know how to 'use' a gun.

Lets see if your moral principle holds water: I think YOU should have to learn how to play the fiddle. You may have no interest, but I think it would be a wise decision for you. Please show up at my house everyday at 6am for 'training'. If you fail to show up, or try and resist i will take that as you are breaking my 'Law' and i will use whatever level of violence it takes to get you to comply.

Now you tell me in this scenario am I in the right by FORCING you to comply to my will, or would you be in the right to defend yourself against me?


You don't have to agree but surely you didn't choose all by yourself what you would or wouldn't study when you were a pre-teen? You had little choice and I hope you see the wisdom in that by now - right? Even if you don't, the rest of us do because it makes sense.

Im actually speechless. We live under the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, and you are cheering on the last remaining destruction of the individual.

Again im going to try and find your moral principle: Are 'pre-teenagers' a different species than 'post teenagers'? Your individual Rights do not come from a certain age, unless you are a Statist who thinks 'Government' chooses and decides what rights you have, when you get to use them, and when you get to defend them.

[Jerrylynnb]

So, Mr. IOwnMe, when you were first born, what if your mother had adopted your attitude and decided that "He Owns Him", and just hit the road. Then we wouldn't have to be putting up with your nonsensical super-individualistic contrariness.

Just how primitive to you really expect the rest of us to let you get away with? We have rules and regulations, some good and some terrible, that the rest of us expect the rest of us to follow, irregardless of how much you may resent it. Just try making it all by yourself in a strange place with dangers all around - we humans are a tribal species, and, it is folly to keep denying even the most primitive aspects of tribalism. We have succeeded over the eons because of our tribal nature, not in spite of it.

Join in with the spirit of things - you are probably very intelligent and can add interesting aspects to any discussion, but, please, slack off this ridiculous super-individualistic bent. Would you mind someone upstream of you dumping their shit into your drinking water - why not? TheyOwnThem?

[Neuro]

I don't think Iownme has any children. Children need to be trained to do things they sometimes don't want to do, for their own good. Cause they don't have the experience to determine what in the long term is good for themselves. And it has nothing to do with what Karl Marx or whatever his name was wrote.

[gunDriller]

she needs brain surgery - or soul surgery - a lot more than she needs face surgery.


perhaps some enterprising socially-minded veterinarian could offer her and Pelosi a special deal on 2 lobotomy's.

[iOWNme]

So, Mr. IOwnMe, when you were first born, what if your mother had adopted your attitude and decided that "He Owns Him", and just hit the road. Then we wouldn't have to be putting up with your nonsensical super-individualistic contrariness.

Nice try. Your trying to compare the 'Government' FORCING people to do something, and a mother doing what she thinks is right for a new born. This is called a Strawman argument, and it is usualy used by people who cannot debate the topic using reason and logic.


Just how primitive to you really expect the rest of us to let you get away with?

LOL. Do i have to ask YOU and everyone else how to live my life? Who the fuck are you? You seem to hold some sort of grudge against individual people running their own lives. What species do you think we should 'elect' to 'Government'?


We have rules and regulations, some good and some terrible, that the rest of us expect the rest of us to follow, irregardless of how much you may resent it. Just try making it all by yourself in a strange place with dangers all around - we humans are a tribal species, and, it is folly to keep denying even the most primitive aspects of tribalism. We have succeeded over the eons because of our tribal nature, not in spite of it.

Ummmm. The NAZI's had 'rules and regulations' that the German people expected everyone else to follow. Some of them resisted. Were they the good guys or the bad guys? The Soviet Communist had 'rules and regulations' that all Russian people expected them to follow. Some of them resisted. Were they the good guys or the bad guys? The Chinese Communist had 'rules and regulations' that the Chinese people expected them to follow. Some of them resisted. Were they the good guys or the bad guys?

The Founding Fathers had 'rules and regulations' that the British people expected them to follow. Some of them resisted. Were the Founders the good guys or the bad guys?

Your 'rules and regulations' are nothing mre than euphemisims to hide the true nature of 'Government'. I can see through all of the euphemisims and contradicitions that it takes to IMAGINE 'Government' to be legitimate. Why cant you?

Good natured well intentioned people following the 'Rules and regulations' have murdered, raped, plundered and destroyed BILLIONS of lives throughout history. If you IMAGINE that individual criminals like Charles Manson and Jeffery Dahmer would be able to do this type of damage on their own if we didnt have these 'rules and regulations' than you are the victim of MIND CONTROL.



Join in with the spirit of things - you are probably very intelligent and can add interesting aspects to any discussion, but, please, slack off this ridiculous super-individualistic bent. Would you mind someone upstream of you dumping their shit into your drinking water - why not? TheyOwnThem?

So you think the individual should succomb to the needs and wants of the group. And others asked why i called you Mr. Marx. Tell me, what species are inside this 'group' that you speak of?

There is NOTHING on this planet without the individual. NOTHING.

[Horn]

It is very interesting, as you age, your face starts reflecting the predominant emotion you have carried in your life

6444

[Cebu_4_2]

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5225/5619546248_43df6e69a5_z.jpg