Hillary Clinton speech in Pittsburgh, PA on June 14th
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:57:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Hillary Clinton speech in Pittsburgh, PA on June 14th
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Hillary Clinton speech in Pittsburgh, PA on June 14th  (Read 572 times)
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 15, 2016, 10:18:04 AM »

Per Hillary Clinton's comments in Pittsburgh, PA yesterday:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If by "definition of 'the wrong hands'" Mrs. Clinton means that a gun in the hands of someone who shoots innocent people, she's correct but she's really not saying very much. By all indications, the Orlando shooter had weapon licenses, had a security guard license, and didn't have a criminal background; the only indication that the weapons he possessed were in "the wrong hands" came when he shot people in this nightclub.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does Hillary Clinton have to show for all her emphasis on working with Muslim communities, for all her meetings with homeland security officials and Muslim community leaders, and for all the many ideas she's been given for building stronger partnerships? The voices of moderation and tolerance are being attacked, and rather than talk about the attackers or addressing our dysfunctional immigration system, Secretary Clinton wants to regulate our ability to possess a gun, to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone should really clue Hillary Clinton in that, per the FactCheck entry of November 2008, quote: Of all the nutty rumors, baseless conspiracy theories and sheer disinformation that we’ve dealt with at FactCheck.org during campaign 2008, perhaps the goofiest is the claim that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” and therefore not eligible to be president under the constitution. This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls. Endquote.

Yes, Donald Trump picked up and ran with the birther garbage, but it didn't originate within Republican ranks.

As to the question of the judge, while I disagree with Trump's claim, I see no reason to treat it differently from those claims made by people on the left that an African American defendant can't receive a just verdict at the hands of a white judge and/or white jury. Same errant argument.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Americans are still waiting to hear your leadership positions, common sense, and concrete plans, Madame Secretary.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2016, 10:27:58 AM »

Ok, dude.

Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2016, 10:29:15 AM »

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?
Logged
jollyschwa
Rookie
**
Posts: 111


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -9.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2016, 10:31:04 AM »


As to the question of the judge, while I disagree with Trump's claim, I see no reason to treat it differently from those claims made by people on the left that an African American defendant can't receive a just verdict at the hands of a white judge and/or white jury. Same errant argument.


Two completely different situations.  Trump is being a racist prick to save himself some money in a civil suit.  And it's been proven time and time again through multiple credible sources that whites and minorities are not treated the same in criminal courts. 
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2016, 11:08:38 AM »

Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?

Perhaps we need a law which says that people on terror watch lists aren't allowed to buy guns? That would probably be helpful, because people like this are not "law-abiding" citizens.

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?

No, clearly her plans involve trying to restrict gun ownership. My problem is that instead of using this tragedy as an opportunity to spell out specifics about what she'd do, she instead finds it more important to bash Trump and tell the American people that they need to be more tolerant and understanding. Sorry, but the garbage in this speech is not worth the time it took to listen to it.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2016, 12:58:28 PM »

Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?

Perhaps we need a law which says that people on terror watch lists aren't allowed to buy guns? That would probably be helpful, because people like this are not "law-abiding" citizens.

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?

No, clearly her plans involve trying to restrict gun ownership. My problem is that instead of using this tragedy as an opportunity to spell out specifics about what she'd do, she instead finds it more important to bash Trump and tell the American people that they need to be more tolerant and understanding. Sorry, but the garbage in this speech is not worth the time it took to listen to it.

So, if the government, without a trial, decides someone is a threat to them they can take away their weapons. I guess you don't actually care about your precious 2nd amendment all that much after all.
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2016, 01:50:26 PM »
« Edited: June 15, 2016, 01:55:20 PM by SillyAmerican »

Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?

Perhaps we need a law which says that people on terror watch lists aren't allowed to buy guns? That would probably be helpful, because people like this are not "law-abiding" citizens.

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?

No, clearly her plans involve trying to restrict gun ownership. My problem is that instead of using this tragedy as an opportunity to spell out specifics about what she'd do, she instead finds it more important to bash Trump and tell the American people that they need to be more tolerant and understanding. Sorry, but the garbage in this speech is not worth the time it took to listen to it.

So, if the government, without a trial, decides someone is a threat to them they can take away their weapons. I guess you don't actually care about your precious 2nd amendment all that much after all.

First, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rights granted us in the Constitution are not absolute, and I have never, nor would I ever, say that they are. Although you are correct in saying that I believe those rights to be precious.

Second, if it's proper for the government to say that a person who has psychological problems can't purchase a gun (and I don't think anyone argues against this), why wouldn't it be proper for the government to say that a person who has been placed on a terror watch list can't purchase a gun? Are you saying that rather than defining a new class of people that we don't want to have guns and looking to prevent those folks from obtaining a gun, that you think it would be better to prevent everyone from obtaining a gun? Because (a) that's an overreach, and (b) that's never going to happen.

Third, it sounds like you'd prefer to keep the focus on gun control, rather than on practical things that can be done against terrorists and/or potential terrorists. The sad fact of the matter is that gun controls will not prevent people like this from doing things like this; if you think it can, you should really look again at what happened in France, a country with very tight gun laws. In addition, when our government dismantles tools that would help law enforcement identify and go after terrorists, it should not be surprising when things like this occur. Hopefully you and Hillary can come up with better ways of addressing the problem of Islamic terrorism, because having us stick our head in the sand and blame ourselves, that's simply not working very well.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2016, 05:48:01 PM »

Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?

Perhaps we need a law which says that people on terror watch lists aren't allowed to buy guns? That would probably be helpful, because people like this are not "law-abiding" citizens.

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?

No, clearly her plans involve trying to restrict gun ownership. My problem is that instead of using this tragedy as an opportunity to spell out specifics about what she'd do, she instead finds it more important to bash Trump and tell the American people that they need to be more tolerant and understanding. Sorry, but the garbage in this speech is not worth the time it took to listen to it.

So, if the government, without a trial, decides someone is a threat to them they can take away their weapons. I guess you don't actually care about your precious 2nd amendment all that much after all.

First, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rights granted us in the Constitution are not absolute, and I have never, nor would I ever, say that they are. Although you are correct in saying that I believe those rights to be precious.

Second, if it's proper for the government to say that a person who has psychological problems can't purchase a gun (and I don't think anyone argues against this), why wouldn't it be proper for the government to say that a person who has been placed on a terror watch list can't purchase a gun? Are you saying that rather than defining a new class of people that we don't want to have guns and looking to prevent those folks from obtaining a gun, that you think it would be better to prevent everyone from obtaining a gun? Because (a) that's an overreach, and (b) that's never going to happen.

Third, it sounds like you'd prefer to keep the focus on gun control, rather than on practical things that can be done against terrorists and/or potential terrorists. The sad fact of the matter is that gun controls will not prevent people like this from doing things like this; if you think it can, you should really look again at what happened in France, a country with very tight gun laws. In addition, when our government dismantles tools that would help law enforcement identify and go after terrorists, it should not be surprising when things like this occur. Hopefully you and Hillary can come up with better ways of addressing the problem of Islamic terrorism, because having us stick our head in the sand and blame ourselves, that's simply not working very well.

If you think the government is entitled to just remove guns from people they decide are threats, then you clearly don't think the 2nd amendment idea of the peoples' right to bear arms so as to prevent oppressive government is actually valid. Which is fine, plenty of liberal Democrats would agree with you.

But then what is your argument for why tons of people in the US should have the right to bear arms? Especially automatic rifles and such.

If you do believe, as you say, that gun control can't stop terrorism, then why do you want to prevent people on watch lists from having them?

You seem as incoherent in your ideas as your candidate.
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2016, 06:26:50 PM »

Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?

Perhaps we need a law which says that people on terror watch lists aren't allowed to buy guns? That would probably be helpful, because people like this are not "law-abiding" citizens.

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?

No, clearly her plans involve trying to restrict gun ownership. My problem is that instead of using this tragedy as an opportunity to spell out specifics about what she'd do, she instead finds it more important to bash Trump and tell the American people that they need to be more tolerant and understanding. Sorry, but the garbage in this speech is not worth the time it took to listen to it.

So, if the government, without a trial, decides someone is a threat to them they can take away their weapons. I guess you don't actually care about your precious 2nd amendment all that much after all.

First, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rights granted us in the Constitution are not absolute, and I have never, nor would I ever, say that they are. Although you are correct in saying that I believe those rights to be precious.

Second, if it's proper for the government to say that a person who has psychological problems can't purchase a gun (and I don't think anyone argues against this), why wouldn't it be proper for the government to say that a person who has been placed on a terror watch list can't purchase a gun? Are you saying that rather than defining a new class of people that we don't want to have guns and looking to prevent those folks from obtaining a gun, that you think it would be better to prevent everyone from obtaining a gun? Because (a) that's an overreach, and (b) that's never going to happen.

Third, it sounds like you'd prefer to keep the focus on gun control, rather than on practical things that can be done against terrorists and/or potential terrorists. The sad fact of the matter is that gun controls will not prevent people like this from doing things like this; if you think it can, you should really look again at what happened in France, a country with very tight gun laws. In addition, when our government dismantles tools that would help law enforcement identify and go after terrorists, it should not be surprising when things like this occur. Hopefully you and Hillary can come up with better ways of addressing the problem of Islamic terrorism, because having us stick our head in the sand and blame ourselves, that's simply not working very well.

If you think the government is entitled to just remove guns from people they decide are threats, then you clearly don't think the 2nd amendment idea of the peoples' right to bear arms so as to prevent oppressive government is actually valid. Which is fine, plenty of liberal Democrats would agree with you.

But then what is your argument for why tons of people in the US should have the right to bear arms? Especially automatic rifles and such.

If you do believe, as you say, that gun control can't stop terrorism, then why do you want to prevent people on watch lists from having them?

You seem as incoherent in your ideas as your candidate.

Some info, in case you're actually interested.

Why is it that people like you are so interested in painting my ideas as inconsistent? Somehow, you think that supporting the 2nd amendment is at odds with wanting to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or other people. (You do recognize that it's perfectly reasonable to be for freedom of speech while against unjustified screams of "fire" in a crowded theater, do you not?)

My argument for why people in the U.S. should have the right to bear arms is exactly the same as my argument for why we have the right to speak freely, the right to meet up with whomever we choose, the right to worship (or not) in a way of our choosing, the right to secure our homes/papers/effects from unreasonable searches/seizures, etc. etc. -- it's what we as Americans are guaranteed through our Constitution. It's what being an American (silly or not) is all about.

Finally, you say my ideas are as incoherent as those of "my candidate". Uh, which candidate is that, exactly? (I assume you've decided who I should be voting for, in your vast all-knowingness, so please clue me in on who that is).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 13 queries.