Hillary Clinton speech in Pittsburgh, PA on June 14th

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.