You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

5
2

[–] laikaislost 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I know I will get the shit downvoted out of me, but CCP are for loosers:

Hillary wants to take away your guns

Source?

ban them from sale in the USA

Source?

give them to those guys in exchange for donations

Source?

It behooves no one to lie through hyperbole. All it does it create a bigger rift between people. If Hillary is so awful, you shouldn't need to reach beyond exactly what she says to discredit her.

EDIT: heh, -4 and still no sources. If you are downvoating, you must have sources to show how Hillary wants to take everyone's guns... Or do you just not want people to know that your rhetoric is nothing but hyperbole and fear mongering.

0
2

[–] zugz1m0reday 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Hillary is a dirty whore of a politician, whom I don't support, but I like what you're doing here.

0
1

[–] filthycasual 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

'Hillary wants to take your guns.':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T7rXaeCTos&t=11m48s

"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets." in reference to 'assault weapons like those used in orlando and san bernardino'.

'ban them from sale in the USA' I would argue that the first example supports this as well. But both examples point towards the idea that Hillary supports taking guns away and banning them from sale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJo5XIG3LbA&t=33m12s

'give them to those guys in exchange for donations'

i'm not sure if this site is biased, but you can just do some searches on 'hillary clinton arms deals' to find the same information elsewhere, they also link to US government sources in the article:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

I didn't up, or down vote you, but all this information wasn't hard to find. Normally, I wouldn't bat an eye at a request for a source, but Hillary no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. I've found that if I hear about some scummy thing she's done, it's usually true. I've also noticed that if there's some scummy thing any of her opponents are accused of doing, she's probably done those too.

1
-1

[–] laikaislost 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

It took 7 hours to get someone to give a source for their fear mongering.

I wouldn't bat an eye at a request for a source, but Hillary no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. When you assume everything negative about someone, you are just eating someone else's shit straight from the source. The moment you stop needing facts is the day that reason and logic die for you. Always question everything. Don't be a sheep. Conservative sheep and Liberal sheep are still just sheep.


Now, on to your sources:

I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets." in reference to 'assault weapons like those used in orlando and san bernardino'.

That is not 'Taking away your guns' That is banning the sale of certain types of guns. Did you know that Fully Automatic Weapons are already illegal for civilians to posses? This is why I call it hyperbole. If you don't want the sale of semi-automatic weapons banned, then say that. Don't say Hillary is going to "Take Your Guns" because that is not true.

But both examples point towards the idea that Hillary supports taking guns away and banning them from sale.

That is not 100% true though. I understand why you post her buy-back comments in response to 'taking guns away' and there is no denying that she is for banning the sale of many types of Guns (whatever the hell 'Assult-style weapons' are). However, there have been several Q&A sessions and past policy stances that show she is not for the 100% ban of all guns, and just wants stronger control measures.

This is where people hate me on this site. I want nuance in discussion. So I would give your source 6/10. She does want to take some guns, but she doesn't want to take ALL guns. And she most likely doesn't want to take ALL YOUR guns (unless you would fail another background check, or if all of you own are 'Military-style assault weapons' (her words, not my own)).

hillary clinton arms deals

But those guns weren't seized weapons from american citizens. There is a big difference between shady in-kind arms deals with government perks, and seizing citizens weapons to give to people who want to do us harm. That's why I ask for source and whine about hyperbole. One is bad enough, so why make shit up to make it seem worse?