You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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?

1
0

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

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

I'm sorry I wasn't on call to google things for you sooner.

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.

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.

There is video of Hillary taking both sides of a lot of positions, so it hardly seems fair to reference one such instance in refutation to another. You are asking me to sword fight a fart when you ask for sources and then use the fact that she changes what she says based on what room she's in to refute said sources.

Also, I never stated my position on which firearms I think should be banned, if any. I am merely posting her words, at your request. I find it a bit disingenuous to claim that democrats don't want to take away guns from citizens when their position on the 2nd amendment is that it refers only to the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms, and does not guarantee that right to all citizens.

she most likely doesn't want to take ALL YOUR guns

In other words, you don't know that. Your only source is the same as mine. The fact that politicians, especially Hillary, carefully choose their language in order to obfuscate their position, and create plausible deniability, means that nobody will likely ever know her position on many issues. The impression I get from many politicians, especially Hillary, is that she is for whatever issue she got a pile of cash or some cheap political points for most recently. I don't think it's unfair for a 2nd amendment rights advocate to be wary of such a person, or think that they are a threat to those rights.

But those guns weren't seized weapons from american citizens.

Firstly, I didn't make the original post, or consult on the wording of said post. Next, the fact that you would split hairs like this, even if that is exactly how he meant it, is pretty silly. If a gun is taken from a US citizen, and a gun is sold to a foreign donor to the Clinton foundation, what exactly is the difference if it isn't the exact same gun?

Also, your wording suggests that he said she wanted to seize guns from a US citizen and ship that gun overseas to be sold. When, in fact, his wording was:

Hillary wants to take away your guns, ban them from sale in the USA and give them to those guys in exchange for donations to the clinton foundation?

While the wording is a bit ambiguous, I would argue that could easily be taken to mean he thinks she wants to 'take way your guns, ban guns from sale in the USA, and give guns to those guys in exchange.......' etc etc.

For someone that is so up in arms about only listening to exactly what Hillary says, and exactly what she meant by it....you don't seem to be giving your fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt.