At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don’t like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gum chewer or cell phone user by shooting.
Hillary Clinton
May 6, 2014
Hillary Clinton pushes gun control, Obamacare
[I find it very telling that her concern is about the number of people with guns. Does she also worry about the number of people exercising their First Amendment rights? And does she think it would be appropriate to license and “validate” people that exercise their First Amendment rights?
And since she used the example of a movie theater does she also worry that if people don’t have their mouths locked shut before they enter a theater that they might yell “FIRE!” when there is no fire?
With bigotry and prejudice this severe Ms. Clinton is unfit to serve in public office. She doesn’t want to be a public servant. She wants to be a tyrant.—Joe]
Interesting that she’s not even bothering with the “we only want background checks” or the “It’s just registration and licenses.”
Here she’s openly admiting that NY, NJ style May issue is her goal.
And for an added bonus, note how the actions of a retired cop are being used to smear the rest of us.
And funny how for all the similarity to “lawless states” the examples she cites are where there have been police investigations and court procedings. All of which aren’t enough for her.
“Does she also worry about the number of people exercising their First Amendment rights? And does she think it would be appropriate to license and “validate” people that exercise their First Amendment rights? ”
Yes, yes she does.
Don’t forget the retired Police chief that murdered a man for texting during movie previews in Florida back in January…. “only the police can be trusted with concealed carry”….
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” – Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
“The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth.” – Bill Clinton in 1995
“The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” – Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” – Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today
“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” – Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia
“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.” – Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.
“I have said that I’m not running and I’m having a great time being pres – being a first-term senator.” – Hillary Clinton
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” – Hillary Clinton
And now, from Neal Boortz – Who said the following?
1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few … and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) “(We) … can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
What Rick T said. Don’t you think Hillary Clinton said “movie theater” because it already happened once (over texting) in a movie theater?
Bad things happen every day, committed by people exercising some right or other while violating other people’s rights, or by accident. That is precisely why rights need to be jealously protected– it’s always easy for the power-hungry to blame bad things on freedom, so as to take it away.
One of the “Tenets of Socialism” I and my brother wrote fifteen years ago goes something like this;
“When socialism (authoritarianism) causes problems, freedom is to blame, and the solution is more socialism.”
But I don’t have to tell you. You know the game, which is why you’re playing it.
Yeah, that movie theater shooting over texting was done by one of the people they’d never disarm — a cop.
“I find it very telling that her concern is about the number of people with guns. Does she also worry about the number of people exercising their First Amendment rights? And does she think it would be appropriate to license and “validate” people that exercise their First Amendment rights?”
You know, this is such an imperfect analogy. EVERYONE already exercises their First Amendment rights. It’s almost impossible not to. This isn’t true with the Second Amendment. A lot of people don’t own guns.
The courts are starting to come around to the idea of applying First Amendment jurisprudence to Second Amendment issues. Both Amendments are written as restrictions on government actions, so they should be interpreted largely the same way.
Not everyone exercises ALL their First Amendment rights. I’d even go so far to say that very few people use all of them. Remember, there are four: freedom of religion, freedom of speech/press, freedom of assembly (including association), and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Whether to exercise any or all of those rights is an individual choice, but the government cannot make the availability of that right contingent on the number of people who exercise it.
What else is a personal choice? Gun ownership. The rights of the ~30% of people who admit to owning guns cannot be curtailed because they’re a minority, any more than the right of a journalist to publish a critique of government can be curtailed because 99% of the population aren’t journalists, or the right of Shannon Watts to assemble in counter-protest to the NRA can be restricted because she “only” had ~100 people show up to protest 76,000.
Rights are rights specifically because they apply to everyone, especially minorities.
“…this is such an imperfect analogy.”
That would depend on what you WANT to believe. Joe is attempting to get people to realize that a relatively popular, protected right shares the exact same status as an often maligned one.
They’re both right there, sharing equal status in the Bill of Rights. As we keep saying; it is when a right becomes unpopular that its protection is needed. The Founders knew for certain that the right to keep and bear arms would come under attack. It always does, and therefore they sought to have it protected. We have the Oath of Office for that reason also, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who takes that Oath and then sets out to undermine its purpose is a criminal, an enemy of humanity, and should be treated as such. You would think no different if your own right(s) that you personally hold dear were attacked.
The purpose here is to get people to understand that their own rights (even currently popular and “safe” rights) are at risk. Unless you stand up for the rights of others, you stand to lose your own.
Hillary is making a purely emotional, and rather insane, plea to scare the more easily suggestible within the population. Such emotional pleas (usually directed at groups of people) have a history of being successful, and they have been used successfully at other times and places against all human rights. It is a very dangerous game, and it is entirely evil.
Alan Dershowitz would probably call you a “foolish liberal” (see my QOTD here).
I’m all for quartering troops in YOUR house ubu52. After all everyone is exercising that right to be from government force occupation.
So, stop being such a totalitarian-in-training and realize that the Bill of Rights is not an “a la carte” menu that the politicians pick and choose from for those rights that they will respect. The BOR is there to inhibit the bastards from their natural inclination to be despots and HC is certainly one.
The fact that the 2A is a linchpin is why it is under special attack and why smart people will never budge nor compromise on it.
Never Again!
Molon Labe!
I will not comply! (…my newest battle cry)
“…smart people will never budge nor compromise on it.”
Except that it’s been seriously compromised for over 100 years on the federal level (NFA ’34) and compromised at the state level all along (Jim Crow, Sullivan Act, etc., etc.)
“Never budge” is overly strong language then, given all that– We have rather a lot to take back before any talk of never budging.
Good point. Yes, we have compromised and so my statement says that we are not the smartest people because we have done so. Well, my eyes are finally open.
Hopefully, it is not too late to take it back. Wouldn’t our Founding Fathers have already been shooting by now?
Read the Declaration. I say “not yet”.
“A lot of people don’t own guns.”
A lot of people don’t have homes or personal papers. Should we scrap the requirement for a search warrant?
As mentioned above, Hillary is no happier about the First Amendment either.