http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/politics/clinton-town-hall-what-to-watch/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

An audience member asked Clinton if she thinks a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would help curb gun violence in the U.S. Clinton responded: "Yes, I do."

"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."

Shes such a Douche....Narrow minded politician trying to control the "Minority"

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/politics/clinton-town-hall-what-to-watch/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

An audience member asked Clinton if she thinks a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would help curb gun violence in the U.S. Clinton responded: "Yes, I do."

"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."

Listen to what she is saying.  She is calling anyone who supports and defends the second amendment "terrorists."

No discussion, no statistics, and no supporting facts.  A purely emotional attack on people who disagree with her point of view.

Nothing new.  Reid called the House Republicans and the Tea Party terrorists, too.

If she's afraid of legal gun owners, maybe it's because the 2nd amendment is designed to prevent the government from becoming an oppressive tyrannical monster.  She believes in a massive government.  Opposing views which cannot coexist.

Clinton's State Department LOST $6 Billion during her time as Secretary. 

Maybe she could tell us where that went before she tries to tell anyone else how do do pretty much anything!!

"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," Clinton said.

1. OMG!?    How can a person be in her position of so many years of political life with firearms being a constant issue in one way or another all those years and still be this astoundingly ignorant? I mean, really?! 

2. The statists are working on many ways to get people advocating for their Second Amendment rights to be classified "dangerous" in one way or another, whether as "domestic terrorists", or designated as having "mental health issues" (obviously if you want to own a gun you have a mental health issue, according to them) or via increasing the number and scope of illegal activities that result in being placed on the "prohibited" list (e.g. such as a misdemeanor arrest for holding a demonstration or speaking outside the designated "free speech zone", etc.).

3. We don't live in a "democracy", but in a constitutional republic. So even if there is only one gun owner in 312 million citizens, the natural civil right of that one citizen has a Constitutional protection against government interference no matter what the "majority" believes. If it's a big enough majority, go ahead and amend the Constitution and do away with the Second Amendment entirely, or make current military service a requirement for gun ownership, or whatever. Please tell us the plan as to how you are going to collect all the guns after you change the Constitution, especially from the criminals who have unregistered untraceable guns.

 

Of course, I suspect that whoever the "other choice" is for president in 2016 will not have a very significantly different position on Second Amendment rights. Even the libertarian candidate might be "weak" on the Second Amendment, though undoubtedly stronger than what the two totally corrupt parties have to offer.

"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," Clinton said.

1. OMG!?    How can a person be in her position of so many years of political life with firearms being a constant issue in one way or another all those years and still be this astoundingly ignorant? I mean, really?! 

2. The statists are working on many ways to get people advocating for their Second Amendment rights to be classified "dangerous" in one way or another, whether as "domestic terrorists", or designated as having "mental health issues" (obviously if you want to own a gun you have a mental health issue, according to them) or via increasing the number and scope of illegal activities that result in being placed on the "prohibited" list (e.g. such as a misdemeanor arrest for holding a demonstration or speaking outside the designated "free speech zone", etc.).

3. We don't live in a "democracy", but in a constitutional republic. So even if there is only one gun owner in 312 million citizens, the natural civil right of that one citizen has a Constitutional protection against government interference no matter what the "majority" believes. If it's a big enough majority, go ahead and amend the Constitution and do away with the Second Amendment entirely, or make current military service a requirement for gun ownership, or whatever. Please tell us the plan as to how you are going to collect all the guns after you change the Constitution, especially from the criminals who have unregistered untraceable guns.

 

Of course, I suspect that whoever the "other choice" is for president in 2016 will not have a very significantly different position on Second Amendment rights. Even the libertarian candidate might be "weak" on the Second Amendment, though undoubtedly stronger than what the two totally corrupt parties have to offer.

I like the way you think! 

Maybe we need to start cracking down on the number of news people in the country?  After all, they are a very,very,very small minority, and they terrorize us daily with all the bad news, deaths, tragedies, and other scary stuff they say, write, and broadcast -- especially the scary videos and photos!

Kids are especially vulnerable, so it's our duty to protect them from these people.

I'm all for the first amendment, but when people use it for extreme purposes just so greedy corporations can get higher ratings, or to support some extreme political views of a smaller minority like gays and veterans, it's time the majority stood up and cried, "No more!" 

 

She's Barack Obama in a pant suit. I bet some of members here would still vote for this rat face piece of shit.

Politicians are by nature, or training, lying scum.

I'm tired of being given the choice to vote for the Green turd or the Brown turd.

We need to get back to a Constitutional government and flush the status quo.

Politicians are by nature, or training, lying scum.

I'm tired of being given the choice to vote for the Green turd or the Brown turd.

We need to get back to a Constitutional government and flush the status quo.

I'm in 100% agreement with you assessment, but I can't seem to locate the handle to flush! I have only one vote, and I honestly can't remember the last time I voted for someone who "won". Even some of the libertarian candidates in Hawaii are totally lame. 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton – You Are Not Allowed to Support Gun Rights; If You Do, You’re a Terrorist

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/18/video-hillary-clinton-you-are-not-allowed-to-support-gun-rights-if-you-do-youre-a-terrorist/

If this Biatch becomes president there is going to be a civil war....

If Clinton is the next president, she will have a way out of a charge of treason for violating the Constitution, just like Obama. There's always a loophole:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Her "best" will be, like Obama, incompetence at best, cunning subversion of the Constitution and treason at worst. But that's her at the "best of [her] ability". 

I wanted to impeach most the state legislators and officials (see list below of government agents who must take the oath) based upon their violations of the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, but same deal in the Hawaii state oath of office:

Section 4 - Article 16 - Oath of Office

All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as _____________ to best of my ability."
As used in this section, "eligible public officers" means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate.

So these people can repeatedly violate the Constitution and it's perfectly okay, since they are doing it according to the "best of their ability".  I have an extremely intense dislike for these people. They get to screw me and my natural civil fundamental individual Constitutionally-protected rights over while they accumulate wealth and power, and some of them literally laugh at questions and comments you express to them asking for their rationale/logic and evidence as to why they support an incoherent law that will have no effect whatsoever on "public safety". 

She's Barack Obama in a pant suit. I bet some of members here would still vote for this rat face piece of shit.

You can count on the same 2AHawaii members that voted for Obutthole to vote for Cankles.

One or more of them stated here that the 2A was not all that important to their world view. 

They seem to prefer the treasonous goals of ultra-leftists like those two.

I vote for punaperson. People like hillary make me wanna use profanity. over and over. 2 things her and obama have in common. Ideaology and a vagina.

Both parties could do a LOT better with offering candidates that are real. I haven't see one get close to the nomination in either party for many a moon. As far as I'm concerned the only difference between the two parties is which orifice it tends to get shoved into more often.

Clinton II is NOT a good choice. Depending on who the GOP pukes up for consideration she may be what the DNC pukes up with the most chance to win. I'd rather see something like Ron Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. Whatever else it might be that race would not be more of the same.

Won't matter though. Congress will likely still be as totally dysfunctional as it is now. We'll see what things look like at the end of the year but I'm really not holding out much hope that D.C. is going to suddenly be disease free in December.

Better to spend your energy locally if you only have a little to spend.

Both parties could do a LOT better with offering candidates that are real. I haven't see one get close to the nomination in either party for many a moon. As far as I'm concerned the only difference between the two parties is which orifice it tends to get shoved into more often.

Clinton II is NOT a good choice. Depending on who the GOP pukes up for consideration she may be what the DNC pukes up with the most chance to win. I'd rather see something like Ron Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. Whatever else it might be that race would not be more of the same.

Won't matter though. Congress will likely still be as totally dysfunctional as it is now. We'll see what things look like at the end of the year but I'm really not holding out much hope that D.C. is going to suddenly be disease free in December.

Better to spend your energy locally if you only have a little to spend.

[soapbox]
The number one problem is we allow the media to choose the parties' candidates, and as a result, the winners of the elections.  Look at how the media (FOX News excluded) covered for Obama and the other Dems while going to great lengths, even fabricating audio and video, to smear the Conservative opponents.

Most people who haven't become news junkies don't spend hours every week scouring the Net for the real news, or at least balanced reports.  They get the 10 second sound bites at the top of the hour on radio, and maybe a few video clips with the evening news.  That's IT!  They form their opinions based on biased reporting of the main media outlets who absolutely see themselves as entertainers, not journalists.  They use whatever controversy or conflict they can to grab ratings ... period.  Everything else is about them helping "change the world" according to the Liberal ideals they learned in college.

We are in a battle for ideas, and the Liberals have a lock on the general public's minds and the delivery systems used to propagate their messages: schools, movies, TV, ...   It's much more entertaining to think about the utopian ideals of a unified world living in harmony and sharing with each other than the realistic troubles and dangers that require adult actions like lower taxes, secured borders, limitations on welfare, foreign and domestic threats, and reduced government spending.  That's what being an adult means ... making choices that are what's best in the long run, not just what keeps you getting reelected!!

[/soapbox]

Unfortunately, it's just human psychology.

The same mechanism that makes us crave high carbo foods (sugars) makes us intellectual lazy and prefer the spoon-fed sound-bite mainstream media.

People are also too busy to pay attention to things like the US Constitution, etc.

I talked to many anti's. Some of them know I have guns (which confuses them, because surely a civilized person would not need such barbaric things, in their minds).

I think the key to awareness is to connect gun rights to quality of life (i.e., liberty). Or perhaps connect loss of gun rights to loss of quality of life. (Obvious example is communist North Korea, or even China, where the "security apparatus" shoots citizens for whatever, or just takes the land from villagers, etc.). But it's much harder to point this out to people in the US, etc. where they do not see how loss of the 2A can affect them (it will, eventually, just not right now). They also can look to the UK and Australia, etc. and say people don't have guns and they are doing fine there. (They do not buy the argument that, if you lose a right, you can't exercise it in the future if you should need it, even if you do not seem to need it right now).

Using history as an example seems not to be useful to these people. They think history (of guns confiscation, etc.) is just for another time and we live in a new age where this stuff doesn't apply anymore because we are "better" now (as if our ancestors were all barbaric idiots).

I often say, if a certain thing A kills more people than a thing B, which is more important to try to stop? They of course say A. Then I tell them automobile accidents cause way more deaths than gun violence. But they say cars are too important to ban. But guns are not. (This is actually a great starting point to explore the discussion, but it depends on who you talk to; again they do not seem to want to bother with thinking through the implications).

This is wandering somewhat afield, but its something I've been chewing on for a while.

Connecting the 2nd with quality of life is impossible when talking to someone who sees guns as threatening children in schools. It is using an argument from one perspective to communicate to someone from an entirely different perspective. Apples and oranges. Anti-gunners have the same problem: they can't understand why we keep harping on a poorly worded and largely invalidated amendment (from their perspective) when people are being killed. To them that looks as crazy as their attempt to make the world safer by putting all the sharp things in a govt. lock box looks to us.

Said differently, this is a "preaching to the choir" argument. While its true, its probably not a message that is going to spread much farther than it has already.

To actually convince someone of something you need to understand their perspective ~from their perspective~ and fit what you are saying into it. No one seems willing to do that because you have to understand what is reasonable about their position and assume they are reasonable people. Way easier, more fun (and more divisive, dis-empowering, etc.) to focus on what is wrong about their position, call them idiots and worry about how the country is going to hell.

It strikes me that both sides of the issue have a common interest: safety. If the issue were framed as "how can we make people safer" instead of "what do we do about gun violence" we might actually get the best thinking from both sides. Instead of what we appear to have now which is the worst thinking from both sides.