Hillary Clinton: 'I'm Not Here to Take Away Your Guns'

Cybercast News Service ^ | July 29, 2016 | 4:58 AM EDT | Susan Jones

[Olog-hai]

Hillary Clinton devoted part of her speech Thursday night to guns, telling the Democrat National Convention, “If we’re serious about keeping our country safe, we…can’t afford to have a president who's in the pocket of the gun lobby.”

“I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place,” Clinton said.

She once again called for “common-sense reforms” to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all other who would do us harm,” but she did not offer specifics. …

[Kickass Conservative]

At the moment too many Family obligations.

We have Family here and in CO, MS and FL.

[baltimorepoet]

The fusion centers they would use are likely the ones that already exist with Homeland Security. They would probably equate gun ownership with owning explosives.

An unannounced raid at 2am, where you wake up with lights in your face and a dozen guys in body armor pointing rifles at your, there probably won’t be much of an opportunity for a bullet to fly in the other direction. (Unless you have some kind of compound like Osama bin Laden)

Also, its hard to imagine the scenario where gun owners go pro-actively on the offense against police stations, etc. The Fed gov doesn’t need to dominate 50 states. California, New Jersey, New York and other blue states are already pretty pro-active with their anti-gun policies and seizing weapons.

The Fed gov would allocate resources to those states where there is less compliance and rely on the states that are more compliant to do their dirty work for them.

There wouldn’t be mass confiscation and they wouldn’t raid all gun owners simultaneously. They would try to defeat gun owners “in detail”, which is the military term.

[elcid1970]

“The Fed gov doesn’t need to dominate 50 states. California, New Jersey, New York and other blue states are already pretty pro-active with their anti-gun policies and seizing weapons.”

Hmm...add Connecticut, Hawaii, & Massachusetts & my math says that leaves forty-four states not actively seizing weapons. And in the six listed ones home invasion gun raids would be big news. This isn’t Nazi Germany.

The VA tried to seize a vet’s guns because he could no longer balance his checkbook, and the agent was met by the sheriff & a hundred others. News of gun raids would be tweeted like wildfire; those not raided would be prepared. Word got around when the British marched on Lexington & Concord with no internet.

Not quite sure about the Fed’s Gestapo-like efficiency & ruthlessness. Their agents can be googled, too. Jackbooted thugs aren’t Superman and their logistical tail is long & vulnerable.

[RWB Patriot]

“I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place,”

The problem is that you and yours leave the definition of that very open-ended. You retards just tried to use a list you can get on without committing an actual crime as a reason for someone to fall under that definition.