Skip to comments.Hillary Clinton Endorses ‘Ban’ on ‘Assault Weapons’ and High-Capacity Magazines, Seemingly Confuses
Posted on 06/22/2014 8:59:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Speaking at a CNN town hall event Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton argued a ban on semi-automatic rifles or so-called assault rifles as well as high-capacity magazines would help reduce gun violence in the United States.
Whats been happening with these school shootings should cause everybody to just think hard, she said. I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shooting at Sandy Hook and now weve had more in the time since.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
People with brain damage are frequently confused.
“...but what difference does it make?”
How ‘bout we ban clueless, over-the-hill, criminal, constitution trashing, left-wing, emotional idiots from seeking elected office?
You think she would know after dodging those sniper’s bullets, where was that? Bosnia? Of course, what difference does it make?
“...at this point”?
Lefties like Hillary, Stephen King and Babs Feinstein discussing firearms is a lot like Irish Setters communicating telepathically, sharing their thoughts on French ‘Impressionist’ painting.
The difference is the dogs are talking nonsense quietly.
“Clinton added. We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”
The *&#/@ is the minority.
Universal background checks?
One suspects that Universal background checks might be a nice requirement for running for POTUS.
For example, consider every academic class and credential (and senior thesis), every potential scandal, every job (including commodities investor), every investment, every claim (spelled L.I.E.) and accusation (and denial), every ghost writer, any influence on legislation and pardons, and every potential health issue (from cosmetic surgery to drug use to brain injury), just for starters. Eh?
I would like to know exactly, and I mean in detail backed up by research and statistics and evidence, how anyone believes that eliminating so-called “high capacity” magazines would reduce gun violence. It is a dumb idea that has no, and I mean zero connection to reality.
This is a dead horse semantics and jargon argument, and does us -no good- whatsoever. They state an intent to ban “high capacity clips”, and “automatic rifles assault rifles”.
We smugly point out how our ARs and AKs only use magazines, not clips. And we say we do not own a BAR, or anything with a select fire feature that would define an “assault rifle”.
We skip away thinking we are somehow winning. Automatic is at best, a term of art that often means “semi auto”. Colt automatics come to mind. They used that term widely.
In any case, they are trying to ban anything that feeds ammunition, and anything that fires repeatedly with only another trigger pull required. THAT is what they are attacking. Instead of wasting time with pointless arguments about proper terminology, and thinking that’s a win, we should argue the merits of “assault rifles” or military pattern rifles.
Otherwise, we convince someone that Hillary doesn’t know gun terms of art, and she laughs, and continues on to convince soccer moms that ALL guns outside of an expensive upland shotgun should be banned. That’s not a win for us.
Obama made the same plea recently, for us to follow Australia's example to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
They're not stupid. They're doing this on purpose, and they know exactly what they're doing and who they're dealing with.
They have their goals and they know who they need to pander to in order to achieve those goals.
Wouldn’t have saved Vince Foster or Ron Brown now would it Hitlary? Always amazing how those that have armed protection are so eager to eliminate the same for others.
Interesting. When “they” were governor of Arkansas gun control was not even considered.
When “THEY” became President, (remember her words, “WE are the President”) then they tried to fost of on us an assault rifle ban, something politicians had said they would NEVER DO!(They were really after handguns) but were trying to see if anything stuck.
Remember the words of Nelson “Pete” Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc,(now the Brady Center)
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal total control of handguns in the United States is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”
-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview
HCI, around 1984, came out in favor of a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
In other words, IF you cannot ban handguns BAN WHAT YOU CAN!
Tell the average low information type that at Sandy Hook, or in the Aurora Theater, that they are being lied to, that it wasn’t an automatic AR15 being used, that it was actually a semi-auto.
They’ll shrug and think you have a screw loose. It’s not like if they realize that no actual select fire rifles were used, that they’ll suddenly see things our way. They know EXACTLY what they are trying to ban. We need to fight the actual fight, not a hobbyists wonk fight.
That tactic might make more sense for us if they were saying everyone had a right to a semi auto rifle, and were pretending that the mass murders were all select fire. But that’s simply not the case.
Remember that Connecticut law rushed through after Sandy Hook, requiring owners of ‘high capacity’ magazines to register them with the state?
Last I heard, the estimate was there were about a million such owners, but only 40,000 had registered. So over 900,000 gun owners are thumbing their noses at the law.
Dayum! What makes Hillary and other grabbers think the majority of Americans wouldn’t just ignore them?
Any Bay staters (Bay state, is that right?) know what the current status is? Still DOA?
As I stated, the lefties know exactly what they are doing.
They pander to the ignorant by design.
Our goal is to educate the ignorant on not only semantics and the actual meanings of what is being proposed, but also the precise reasons and meanings encompassed by the Second Amendment.
I constantly hear the left proclaim that they support “Hunters and Sportsmen” as far as firearms and the Second Amendment, but that is not what the Second Amendment is all about.
It needs to be hammered home to the ignorant that the Second Amendment is all about insuring that American Citizens will always be able to keep and bear arms, not simple flintlocks or muzzle loaders that were available when the Second Amendment was “created”, as the primary tool that will be used to combat tyranny both from without and from within.
Particularly from within.
The Founding Fathers spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, and for any who refuse to believe the reality of the meaning of the Second Amendment, those disbelievers must be made to understand exactly what the Founding Fathers meant and any “wiggle room” must be eliminated. Otherwise, we simply allow the left to continue to dilute and pervert the true meaning of the Second Amendment, which will lead to eventual disaster for this country, IMO.
She really is brain damaged
As a former Bostonian, I told my family if they tried that here in VA I would be living in “The breakaway republic of Virginia”.
Buy AR 15s, Glocks, and Mossbergs
Wonder if the Hilldebeast would be in favor of banning clandestine shipments of shoulder launched missiles to rebels attempting to overthrow a government.
Shouldn’t she lead by example and ban her bodyguards from having such things first.
Don’t buy foreign made guns. S&W M&P series is superior to glocks, cheaper, and made in America.
"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." -- Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.
More fear mongering by Hillary and the libs. I saw an interview with Michelle Bachman recently and she was asked about Hillary for President. Representative Bachman said that it would be like another 8 years of Barak Obama if Hillary got elected. That says it all for me!
Of course the Sandy HOok shooter stole his Mom’s weapons so the universal background check would have made no difference. Well what difference does it make?
I have no problem with a universal background check as long as there is no place for serial numbers or calibers on the page. The weapon is not being checked, the buyer is so why have serial numbers or calibers on the page?
I’m agains’t the universal background check. What goes on between me and a private party is a private matter. I personally am agains’t any kind of background checks whatsoever. But that’s just me.
The universal background check should clear a person to buy full auto, silencers and just about any weapon they wish. There’s no reason for the Feds to enter into the picture other than verifying that we aren’t criminals or treasonous. What we own is none of their business.
If Universal Background Checks were in place during the founding of this nation, the Founding Fathers would have been hung with that information.
Naw, wannabe dictators like Hitlery fully know the difference between the two.
They’re hoping their supporters and useful idiots don’t.
My brother lives there in Ashburn.
If anyone tried something like that in our India-no place statehouse, everyone would have a good laugh.
The tiny states sure are queer, hmmmm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.