Posted on 05/07/2014 6:48:21 AM PDT by Cheerio
During a May 6th speech at a National Council for Behavioral Health conference, while making the case that gun laws are far too lenient and need to be "reined in," Hillary Clinton asserted, "We're way out of balance" on guns.
According to the National Journal, "Clinton said she supports Second Amendment rights, [but] she added that there needs to be a proper trade-off between safety and freedom."
Clinton stated that the idea "that almost anyone can have a gun anywhere at any time" has "become almost an article of faith." She went on to say that this does not serve to the betterment of most people.
Furthermore, Clinton reportedly criticized laws similar to Georgia's new Safe Carry Protection Act, which expands concealed carry into churches, certain government buildings, schools, and unsecured portions of airports. She believes expanding the places where law-abiding citizens can carry guns will only lead to "more deadly violence that could otherwise be avoided."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Hillary, how will all this have saved those lives in Benghazi?
Why is it that all of the most rabid anti-gunners always start off by saying that they support the second amendment when they obviously don't? Is it that they're stupid or more likely that they think their audience is stupid?
This detestable woman really has a shot for POTUS? If that happens I might seriously start considering an exit strategy, especially after eight long years of Il Douche.
Hillary: The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy without one.
and Hillary’s statement that Gov’t can’t be responsible for “every under-capitalized business”, with regard to employers paying for mandated healthcare.
Pure Communism!
It’s just difficult to impose while the citizens are armed.
A very good shot. She will be the democrat presidential nominee. The republicans will nominate a statist RINO who has as much chance of winning as the last statist RINO they nominated.
TRANSLATION: “The government (democrats) can’t take over completely when the citizenry is armed!”
Does that make them butheads?
Seriously, all they're saying is, "I'm making noises to make it LOOK LIKE I support your rights, BUT I really don't."
If HilLIARy is the answer, it must be a really stupid question.
Sorry Hillary. Settled law.
One word. Waco. Two more. F—k off.
...there needs to be a proper trade-off between safety and freedom.
And THIS is the telling phrase.
Benghazillary would like low info peeps to believe that it's safety or freedom, and that if you let her seize your freedom, she gives you safety.
(We, however, happen to know that 2A freedom and safety are linked on the same side of the equation, n'est ce pas?)
.
Proper trade-off between safety and freedom.
WE ARE GOING TO TALE THINGS AWAY FROM YOU FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
HILLARY CLINTON
I’m pleased to hear her start in with this... Whatever PIAPS does to dispel the grossly mistaken notion she’s some kind of a “moderate” is a good thing.
Imagine if Hillary had a gun when she heard about Monica Lewinsky?
Of course she knew. She was upset he was so brazen and so easily caught.
Question: what are the substantive differences between Georgia’s new gun law, and Vermont’s existing one(s)?
Old Stalin couldn't have said it better himself!
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.