Philly.com
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the nation’s gun culture had gotten “way out of balance” and that the United States needed to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”
The former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said the idea that anyone could have a gun was not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people.” She said that approach did not conflict with the rights of people to own firearms.
Clinton waded into the polarizing issue of gun politics during an appearance at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference in Oxon Hill, Md., pointing to recent shootings that involved teens who had been playing loud music and chewing gum and a separate incident involving the typing of text messages in a movie theater.
“I think again we’re way out of balance. I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” Clinton said. “And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”
various polls show 73-83% that a strong majority of Americans support the individual citizen’s right to bear arms, (including 56-65% of Democrats). What’s more, 53% of voters who identify themselves as Democrats disagree with any law that would ban the possession of handguns, and the same percentage agree that self-defense with a firearm is a fundamental right.
I guess Hillary doesn’t want to be president after all.
Hillary has a problem with people being killed with guns, but is okay with abortion. So her real problem is the method and tools someone uses to kill with, not the fact that someone ends up dead.
Well, let’s examine what the Bill of Rights has to say.
I’m afraid that Mrs. Clinton has no place in enforcing her feelings on the nation.
I suppose Hillary had to backtrack on the comment claiming she knew how to handle a firearm. And, backtrack the comment she made versus Obama in 2008, she, too, supports the Second Amendment.
When I go elk hunting, there are thousands of hunters in a big game area here in Colorado. Most have camps with thousands of dollars of gear unsecured. What secures this gear is that anyone wanting to steal something has no idea if the man sitting on the far hill with a high powered rifle with a scope may be the owner of the gear. So, there is little or no robberies of hunting camps.
In the little town I live in, a good many of the people are armed with concealed carry weapons or legal weapons stored in their homes. There is occasional robberies, but thieves are concerned because anyone in the neighborhood may have a weapon. So, there is very infrequent robberies.
In the city, there are millions of homes that are secured with doors and locks. There are many people in and about those homes, but in places like Chicago, everyone knows it is highly unlikely any of those people have a gun. There fore, the incidence of robbery is highest.
“…anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime…”
Another straw man from the Hill. (She can’t be that ignorant, so you must infer…)
Just how many people have bill and hillary killed?
While the NRA says citizens shouldn’t have the right to purchase a “smart gun,” backs legislation to keep them off the market, and 2nd Amendment supporters are threatened with death for stating they’ll make them available to law abiding consumers who wish to purchase them.
Go figure.
@Greg: Smart guns are not that smart. If it is programed for me and my wife needs to use it, then what?
@Randy, #9:
If that’s a concern, I suppose you wouldn’t be a potential customer. As Andy Raymond points out, however, there could be people who would consider a smart gun a perfect choice. I can think of such situations. Perhaps a security guard, who works in crowded settings where losing control of a service weapon might be a legitimate concern. Perhaps a single parent, who wants a weapon handy that is essentially child proof. Or anyone who lives alone. They would certainly be less useful to anyone who might steal one. I don’t see why a owner-usable-only firearm shouldn’t be an available choice for anyone who wants to make it.
@Greg:
Bull. The NRA doesn’t support smart guns because they are stupid for a family’s self defense, and because idiots like you will (through typical leftist incrementation) next to require all guns be “smart guns.”
The only sensible use of “smart guns” is for law enforcement.
@Ditto, #11:
If I were a single parent with small children in the home, and wanted a totally childproof firearm that I could instantly lay my hand on as a means of protecting my family, I think I might strongly disagree with you.
I might also ask what gives the NRA or anyone else the right to dictate that such a choice will not be available to me if I want to make it. I might point out that it’s not the NRA’s business to decide what option makes sense for me or my family.
At which point, if I were Andy Raymond, I might begin getting death threats over the telephone and on my Facebook page.
It’s not just that the NRA doesn’t support them. It’s that the NRA doesn’t want people who wish to do so to have the right to buy them. There’s a big difference.
@Greg:
More bullcrap. You lefties are the ones who keep demanding mandatory gun locks, are you now telling us that you wouldn’t put them on your guns? Are you so clueless about responsible gun security around your family that you leave a fully loaded weapon in reach of young children who have not be taught about gun safety? As the NRA has made perfectly clear, the reason why they oppose “Smart guns” is precisely because they know full well you leftist loons will try to mandate that all guns be required to be “Smart guns.” Are you also so foolish that you don’t know that if your “smart-gun” technology fails to recognize it’s owner it wont work for them either? A “Smart gun” is only as smart as it’s programming and sensitivity let’s it be, and. If you are naive as to buy a “smart gun” and expect it to recognize you without fail each and every time you pick it up no matter what happens to your finger prints, and you don’t have a back-up plan if it fails when you need it the most, what does that say about you? What happens if your “Smart gun” memory fails for whatever reason? All you will have in your hand is a heavy piece of metal. (Hint don’t let someone get too close to your “Smart gun” with a hand taser.) Some of the same people pushing “Smart guns” also want them to be imbedded with a remote “disable code” for law enforcement use. Should State governments or the Fed mandate “Smart guns” to be required have remote “disable codes”, it wont be long until a hacker learns the codes and sell it to criminals.
Radicals nut jobs from all over the political spectrum (including Democrats, community organizers, SEIU thugs, occupy idiots, gang bangers, neo-nazis, et. ad nausium,) stupidly send death threats to people and it can often be tracked back to them. Why do they do it? because they are nut cases. You can be assured the NRA isn’t dumb enough to make any of the death threats.
@Ditto, #13:
I think it might have been better if you’d followed the word bullcrap with a colon rather than a period. Not everything is a right/left issue.
Are you unable to grasp the idea that a handgun hidden away in a place where the children could never find it, that’s safely secured with a trigger lock that must be removed—possibly in the dark—either by combination or with a key that must also be kept safely hidden, does not really qualify as a handy or readily available means of self or family defense in an immediate threat situation?
There’s something to be said for the safety of a weapon that could be fired only if it’s in its owners hand, which would also be ready to fire the instant that it is. If such a weapon were out of it’s owner’s hand , it might as well be a paperweight.
You can really imagine no household, personal, or professional situations where such a firearm would be a perfect fit?
Such electronic technology could be made every bit as reliable as the physical mechanics of the firearm itself. Probably more so.
Yeah, right. Maybe they will also be able to turn off your automobile ignition by remote control. People who worry about such things might want to save some of the aluminum foil they line their hats with to wrap around their smart guns, so the government can’t shut them off.
@Greg:
There’s a reason that the Greatest Generation called you people dopes; you are.
Totally childproof firearms do not exist. They’re a fantasy, like Utopian socialist societies.
@Greg:
It’s almost as though you’ve never heard of EMP weapons or hackers. Or maybe you’re still living in the flatulent 1960s.
@Kraken, #15:
Which would be safer, if discovered by a child? A handgun that can be fired by anyone who can pull the trigger, or a handgun that can only be fired when it’s in the hand of its owner?
If you think the technology does not presently exist to create the second alternative, and make it highly reliable, you’ve got to be totally clueless about the state of modern technology.
The only reason you can’t choose to have such a firearm now is because some people don’t want you to have such an option, and have used their money and power to prevent you from having that choice.
They’re preventing you from owning the firearm you might want, in the name of a 2nd Amendment freedom. It’s another instance of people who claim to support Constitutional rights wanting to deprive you of the freedom to choose what they don’t approve of themselves.
@Kraken, #17:
I used to work with a guy who assumed that no one else knew about anything he’d just found out about himself.
Decades ago it was thought that Soviet jet fighters might have an advantage over our own fighters, owing to the fact that the Soviets had been slower to adopt solid state electronics. They were using miniaturized vacuum tubes instead of transistors. The discussion centered around the fact that solid state circuits were thought to be more vulnerable to EMPs associated with nuclear detonations. It was also thought that the Soviet military’s entire electronic infrastructure could be more robust in the event of a nuclear exchange because of their reliance on vacuum tubes. I guess you missed that discussion.
The Russians still make some really nice vacuum tubes. So far as I know they don’t put them in military equipment. Musicians and audiophiles appreciate them, however.
@Greg:
Which might be safer for a child to find wasn’t the proclamation issued. Rather, the fantasy based concept of a totally childproof firearm was.
It’s like Collective drones who hold up AR-15s at press conferences and hyperventilate about assault weapons, without having the slightest clue what an AR-15 actually is. They’re hysterical morons that force me to rethink the wisdom of the 1st Amendment.
@Greg: And during the 10 to 30 seconds while the computer is determining you are the rightful owner, how many bullets can the bad guy shoot at you? The issue here is the left wants to make this mandatory. Many of the home defense articles are about people who are either sleeping or involved in a very relaxing activity. Some may even be attempting to procreate. So we should wear the bracelet to bed, in the shower, while cooking dinner, doing house hold chores so we are able to reduce the reaction time for protecting ourselves within a few seconds? I do not even wear rings and rarely wear a watch while at home.
You liberals want everyone to do what you think is a great idea, but you never pay for the unintended consequences. Within 20 years as the average temperature of the earth has not increased a fraction of a degree within the last 40+ years, are you liberals going to reimburse all of the people you “regulated” out of the money they earned? Doubt it! You always use other people’s money to fund your fantasies.
@Greg:
I wasn’t assuming it, rather your statements indicated it. I mean, it’s painfully clear that you don’t have the even the slightest knowledge of firearms ownership and usage. So what in the hell are you doing engaging in this conversation?
@Randy, #20:
The instant you picked up such a gun, it would be activated. It’s activated by proximity of a controller the owner would wear on his or her person. The demo models have a device that’s worn on the shooting hand wrist. There’s probably no reason why it couldn’t be reduced to the size of a watch, a ring, or a neck pendant. (Except for the fact that manufacturers have been pressured to discontinue development.) No remote computer connection is involved. All the controller really does is work as an electronically coded proximity switch.
@Kraken, #21:
Perhaps you need to fine tune your special powers of deduction and remote viewing. I spent all of 1970 in Vietnam. There’s presently a firearm around 8 feet away from where I’m sitting.
@Greg:
Yes, and McIntosh still produces stereo components with them. What is the point of this blather?
@Greg:
Then why on Earth, would you put forth the concept of a totally childproof firearm? Oh wait, I know.
@Kraken, #25:
Your logic would seem to suggest that there would be no difference between allowing a toddler to handle a butter knife or a straight razor. Or, more accurately, that having either of these items in the home poses an equal level of danger if children somehow find them.
The actual issue is one of relative safety. In an environment with children, the presence of a smart gun could be safer than the presence of a conventional firearm. My position is that prospective firearm owners should be allowed to make that choice themselves. For some reason you disagree. I don’t understand the logic of that.
@Greg:
Except, that’s not the actual issue that you put forth. The actual issue you port forth was the concept of totally childproof firearms, which is totally preposterous.
I never even addressed any of the issues you’re babbling about in your backpedaling, so I have no idea how you could interpret my logic as disagreeing with any of that. Oh wait, yes I do. Maybe you should walk 8 feet and put that firearm away before opening any more doors today.
@Kraken, #27:
No, that’s what you’ve chosen to fixate on, in an effort to divert the discussion away from the position that I’ve actually taken.
Basically, this is because your apparent support for the banning of “smart gun” sales is inconsistent with support for the 2nd Amendment. You’re supporting the suppression of a particular type of firearm that you happen to dislike. Not to mention ignoring the principle that a free market allows consumers to decide for themselves what they do or don’t want.
I’ve said what I think. I’ve really got nothing more to add at the moment.
@Greg:
No? What do you mean, no? That you didn’t put forth the concept of a totally childproof firearm?
Or, in an effort to once again reveal the inherent idiocy in your ideology.
Where did I express support for the banning of smart guns? Where did I say any of this? Who are you talking to? What are these voices you’re hearing saying to you?
So can we safely pat you on the head, and put you in the corner now?
The problem you’re having here is that anyone can read back over the posts and see for themselves what is actually under discussion. Maybe you jumped in without first figuring that out.
@Greg:
lol. I’m not sure that that’s a problem for me. But hey, I don’t expect you to realize that.
@Greg:
I actually never supported the trigger locks, that came from your Gun Control Inc friends. I was just tossing that leftist nonsense back at you to get your take. In past discussions you supported trigger locks, but now you suddenly agree with the rest of us pro second amendment folks that trigger locks are a definite obstacle to using a gun in self defense.
I am a military trained electronics and computer technician, and I worked in high security shops. There are quite a few ways to disrupt electronics and computers to make them ineffectual. The recoil of a gun, over and over for a period of time could create the weakening of solder joints can render your “Smart gun’s” circuitry to be faulty. Excess moisture build-up, EMP, jamming, a continual series of high power radio frequency pulses, zapping them with a high voltage charge (stung guns work that way) or static electricity can “fry” semiconductor devices, high magnetic fields, built-in “back door” wireless hacks, extremes of heat and cold, poor maintenance and low batteries, impact damage, anything that can cause problems with the electronics of a “Smart phone” can damage your “Smart gun” and that’s even assuming that the biometric circuit of the “Smart Gun” successfully recognizes it’s owner every time. Biometric sensors can be tricky, finicky things and even the most advanced biometric recognition systems, (which are too complex to fit in a gun’s handle,) don’t always correctly recognize a person the first time, every time.
Not likely. Electronic components are much more sensitive to physical impact and various environmental conditions than metal alone. The more complex you make a device, the more prone to failure it is.
Except I’ve heard exactly that plan floated by pro gun control fanatics on your side, so it’s not as far fetched a scenario as you would have us believe.
It’s safest to keep weapons out of reach of young children, and to teach older children and teenagers a proper respect for weapons and wise safety and handling protocols for all weapons. Teaching them only fear of weapons will only cause them mental anguish and a hesitation to use them for self preservation, making them more highly likely to be victimized.
I personally have no opposition to your buying, and placing your life and that of your family members in the false trust of an overly complicated, little tested, low reliability “Smart gun.” In your hypothetical situation, if you are attacked in your home and are rendered unable to defend yourself because your “Smart Gun” for whatever reason, didn’t recognize you when you really needed it to, your child and you will both be at the mercy of your attacker. We both however know full well that that is not why the Pro Gun Control Inc crowd really want “Smart guns” on the store shelves. What they really want to do is to introduce “smart guns” first, then add additional gun control regulations requiring all guns sold to have “Smart gun” technology. We are not novices to the continual bureaucratic trickeries of those on the left. You aren’t fooling any of us with the typical and false compassion (“be reasonable”) talking points of gun grabbers.
@Greg:
It was thought? No Greg, it is a well known fact. Solid state electronics are without question much more vulnerable to EMP damage, because an EMP discharge destroys the P-positive & N-negative semiconductor junctions. There is no “if” “and” or “But” about it. The only way to positively secure semiconductor based solid-state electronics from EMP is for the device to be completely encased in a Faraday cage (grounded metal box) with no openings or wires entering and leaving the box. Any non-ground-shielded wire entering the box will pass the EMP pulse into the Faraday cage, making it worthless as protection. any opening will allow EMP energy to enter and do it’s damage. Our military is quite well aware of electronic warfare and effective countermeasures. I attended semi annual classes on these subjects. Your “Smart gun” doesn’t have a chance in hell of surviving an EMP attack unless you keep it stored in a Faraday cage.