.
Trump with his bumbling thoughts.
He's dangerous...
He's not the first to say that body guards of anti-2nd Amendment advocates should then be disarmed. That's been going around for years. Do I think he was calling for violence against Clinton? No. But I do think he was trying to point out that some people think their butts are more important than others.
My family comes from a place where citizens were disarmed and unarmed citizens were massacred by the thousands during a peaceful protest.
I'm a democrat and I do not own a gun but at the same time I am not a supporter of people who say only the police and army and ruling class should be allowed to be armed. Hillary should not be going around with armed guards and saying that normal people are subject to different rules and don't deserve the same protection.
Hello Rosie:
If this nameless pol had NEVER said anything LIKE that, then it probably doesn't mean what it COULD mean.. But, since that nameless pol once suggested that if Clinton won, the 2nd Amendment people could DO something about it, then it looks like it MEANS exactly what you think it means..
excon
Hello IT:
Even though you SAY you're a Democrat, you don't come CLOSE to sounding like one.. Here's an example.. Clinton supports universal background checks before someone buys a gun..
Now, to ME, that doesn't sound like she wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment Doesn't sound like she wants to leave your family vulnerable.. Right wingers are TOLD she does, and they believe it.. Apparently, you do too.
excon
Hillary supports the banning of those on the 'no-fly list' from purchasing guns and ammunition. Unfortunately, people like Robert Kennedy because the a similar name. The no fly list does not has social security numbers, addresses or any other identification, It's just names. If the government identifies a certain "John Smith" as a possible terrorist and puts him on the list, should every other "John Smith" be penalized?
Hello S:
Yeah, I agree.. Government lists SUCK.. But, they CAN be administered better. In this MODERN world, we have a thing called IRIS identification. It can LOOK into your eyes, and POSITIVELY identify you. I dunno WHY we don't do that.. The same technology can be used for voters rolls.. We HAVE the means to IDENTIFY everybody with EXACTITUDE.. Why don't we do it?
If we DID, then people who SHOULDN'T fly (vote) WILL be distinguished from those who SHOULD.. It's NOT hard.
excon
RWNJ's love their "Second Amendment remedies"...;-D...
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/terror-arizona-just-another-isolated
Well, I do agree with you. But I can see the ACLU, most Dems, etc. screaming that it would be discriminatory and would disenfranchise non-whites, as they do with photo identification.
Hello again, S:
As a lib, I don't see HOW that technology discriminates.. I just don't.. Look.. If it did, I'd be the first to complain..
The problem I have with Voter ID, is the inability of SOME people to obtain it.. But, we ALL have eyes. Ok, there's a few who don't.. But, they got fingers..
excon
What possible sense is this POL making? Why would her paid bodyguards ever choose to do that? Is she besmirching body guards? Nope. So, all that sounds like to me is that this POL is hating Hillary and fearing her power to win and just wants to destroy her out of hand by making NO sense at all? He is as effective as Donald the wilted peenie Trump.
Oy vey! :( Thank you for your reply excon. You always make me feel better. I guess the truth is a good weapon to have available in such situations. Pointing fingers at the culprit...outing the perp...denying the lie...all good. That so many people support/endorse/adore/worship such a one as that who lies and lies and lies and lies and lies
I shall never get. :(
The first time I heard it was from the mouth of that hapless Republican pol Sharron Angle. You remember her, right? She would only allow being interviewed by friendly hacks and everyone else saw her but and her back as she scurried away to avoid journalists.
Mahalo for your reply and the link! :)
Well, she is so well loved by all , so why does SHE need protection from aggression when the rest of us shouldn't need similar security? I mean aside from the fact that she wants to destroy the 2nd Amendment and deprive everyone outside the "elite" ruling class the ability to protect themselves. After all, she knows that we won't get onto the box cars willingly.
And no, it won't be done in one fell swoop. That camel is slowly working its way under the tent. But that doesn't change the fact that her goal in that regard is still crystal clear.
I dont know what hillary says because all she says is lies and it does not matter. What I do know is what my party says when they are doing interviews in the paper and sending me emails asking for donations and they don't want people to have guns. I live in NY so maybe it is more obvious to me.
Now even if all she has said is that she wants background checks then you have to understand how people see that. What if she said she wants background checks before someone can express themselves by posting words or video on the internet? That would seem as an attack with the intent to end free speech.
Many of us have cataracts too. The technology is very expensive and does not work for everyone and in time will become easy to defeat.
That's an intrusion of privacy. What's next? Blood samples of everyone born so we can all be DNA tagged? How about forcing the Google chip implant on people.
