Hillary Clinton: Oregon mass shooting is ‘just beyond my comprehension’

[Riveroaks]

Oh, he agreed with Oregon when they said they are one of the toughest with gun laws in the Nation? I wonder what Hillary thought was in adequate about their gun laws.

Did she happen to say.....yet?

Oregun is about the same in their gun laws as Florida and Texas. Maybe that's what Jeb meant.

(I like that ... Oregun ... it rhymes !!)

 

[DDD]

Is an fMRI scan (that technology in particular seemed to pique your interest) infallible? Is the person interpreting the scan infallible?

Compared to the present background checks, it should be a better solution, but far from perfect which would require a "Minority Report" like prediction (some would argue against this too, since the gifted ones may perhaps make mistakes sometimes).

What is the cost of an fMRI scan? Is it pragmatic to input an fMRI background scan?

It is pragmatic to sit for 10 minutes in a machine and move on with the background check proceedings. The cost is Hillary's problem. She should employ one of her economic geniuses into the plot.

Is it constitutional since legislation may use it to bypass due process (a key element of American law for taking rights away from citizens)?

The brain scan is a voluntarily issued information, so there should not be a problem with that.

You deem yourself a man in search for the truth, of science. Answer me those questions.

Enjoy.

It's all great in theory, look at background checks. Someone commits a felony, they are a felon. That trait about them sticks with them forever. They try to buy a gun, the seller sees it and denies them and reports them to the police for the attempt.

But then the real world smacks you straight in the face.

They steal someone else's gun.

They smuggle weaponry.

They falsify information.

The would be offender cannot falsify the neural networks of their own brain. Getting guns illegally would be more expensive as well as riskier to get. Thereby the would be killer may be captured by the police for trying to purchase a gun illegally instead.

They do anything and everything within their power with incredible determination in order to make those laws ineffective. And as we have seen time and time throughout history, they ultimately find a way.

If new technology was so great, crime would cease to exist at a certain point. But crime was around back in 2000 BCE and it still lurks in huge numbers today.

Thereby we cannot fall behind in this. We will always try to single out 2A abusers from the 2A users and deal with them and only them. This is a constant battle if you will.

What do you propose we do when someone takes an fMRI scan, fails it, but turns around and buys the gun illegally without a care in the world for the fMRI scan that ONLY barred them from LEGALLY buying a gun?

See above.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Just don't wait for mass shootings after mass shootings to happen and then put on your thinking caps.



Hillary Clinton: Oregon mass shooting is 'just beyond my comprehension' - Business Insider

Many things are beyond HRC's comprehension including the fact that the Oregon shooter passed those very BG checks that she wants made universal. She also does not comprehend that rights, obtained only after taking classes, passing tests and paying fees, are then mere privileges. What I do not comprehend is how HRC could want even more of what did not work.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

It is pragmatic to sit for 10 minutes in a machine and move on with the background check proceedings. The cost is Hillary's problem. She should employ one of her economic geniuses into the plot.

Stop it.

Hillary has said NOTHING other than "I have a plan!"

She hasn't said ANYTHING! She hasn't talked about possible costs, she didn't talk about what her plan was, what it employed, the scale to which it would be employed, the estimated effects it would have on crime, she literally has NOTHING. She hasn't shared a single freaking about this mystical plan that she has.

You're simply falling head over heels for her over this issue even though you're just as ignorant as she. How can you possibly support a plan that you have NO CLUE in regards to what it entails? You really trust her that much?

You know, my favorite candidate out of them all is Rand Paul, but I'd never ****ing trust him. The whole idea behind a politician in the United States is that the general public be skeptical of him/her and maybe even outright antagonistic towards. That is how you keep politicians as honest as possible.

I don't really like Obama, but man has he done a lot for those who voted for him, because everyone else gave that man ****ing hell. Just look at his photos when he first got into office and look at him now.

 

[MMC]

Oregun is about the same in their gun laws as Florida and Texas. Maybe that's what Jeb meant.

(I like that ... Oregun ... it rhymes !!)

Well, Hillary was the one that thought something was inadequate with Oregon's gun laws. Both her and BO peep did.

Its amusing that they can't say what was inadequate about what Oregon enacted last year. Or the last few years. They should have to answer that question. So at least Oregon people know why what they did was in adequate.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Just don't wait for mass shootings after mass shootings to happen and then put on your thinking caps.



Hillary Clinton: Oregon mass shooting is 'just beyond my comprehension' - Business Insider

Hilary is doing no more than what Hilary and the rest of the Democratic Party have been doing, and that is exploiting every tragedy they possibly can. Even the president has to get his face on every white kills black story like a two bit preacher.

This is politics 1, not 101.

But she seems to be slipping. In the past I am sure she would have worked in a shot at at least one of the Republican candidates, or brought up race.

She must be distracted with the slipping campaign

 

[DDD]

Stop it.

Hillary has said NOTHING other than "I have a plan!"

She hasn't said ANYTHING! She hasn't talked about possible costs, she didn't talk about what her plan was, what it employed, the scale to which it would be employed, the estimated effects it would have on crime, she literally has NOTHING. She hasn't shared a single freaking about this mystical plan that she has.

You're simply falling head over heels for her over this issue even though you're just as ignorant as she. How can you possibly support a plan that you have NO CLUE in regards to what it entails? You really trust her that much?

You know, my favorite candidate out of them all is Rand Paul, but I'd never ****ing trust him. The whole idea behind a politician in the United States is that the general public be skeptical of him/her and maybe even outright antagonistic towards. That is how you keep politicians as honest as possible.

I don't really like Obama, but man has he done a lot for those who voted for him, because everyone else gave that man ****ing hell. Just look at his photos when he first got into office and look at him now.

Say, what are the odds that she is having ideas from political sites such as these?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Say, what are the odds that she is having ideas from political sites such as these?

Say, why are you deflecting? I accept your concession, we're done here.

 

[DDD]

Say, why are you deflecting? I accept your concession, we're done here.

In the meantime I hope she does gets ideas from DP and brain scans are put in background checks. That would be the solution both to your gun problems as well as her solution to be the first female POTUS.

 

[Crimefree]

Not with this latest technology you have not.

And the latest technology does what that has not already been addressed and you cannot get beyond that?

You still do not have fubctional crystal ball

I cannot speak in behalf of her.

Ban guns. That is gun controls goal.

 

[DDD]

And the latest technology does what that has not already been addressed and you cannot get beyond that?

Have you read what I have addressed that the latest technology of brain scans does?

You still do not have fubctional crystal ball

Gibberish.

Ban guns. That is gun controls goal.

Yes ban guns to 2A abusers.

 

[Crimefree]

Have you read what I have addressed that the latest technology of brain scans does?

I have read what you have claimed and you still have not answered the questions you have been asked. Do you not understand English.

Now explain how the latest technology can tell what somebody will do, now or in the future.

Explain why you want to punish innocent people.

Explain what gives you the right to punish innocent people.

Make the claim you have never been asked these questions before and avoided answering them.

Gibberish.

Apparently not because a simple spelling mistake has you completely fooled or you saw an opportunity to deflect and avoid. Something all gun control advocates do when faced with questions that show how wrong they are.

Yes ban guns to 2A abusers.

What is a 2A abuser and explain what banning guns will do? Now that is gibberish or has such obvious examples of 100% failure that any educated person could not possibly believe a ban will solve anything unless they were completely misguided or delusional.

 

[Crimefree]

In the meantime I hope she does gets ideas from DP and brain scans are put in background checks. That would be the solution both to your gun problems as well as her solution to be the first female POTUS.

You ave failed completely to explain where you have obtained a functional crystal ball, how it works and how much it costs. Nor have you explained what one should do with such people who show positive for your proposed test. It is quite obvious only a complete idiot would suggest that denial of legal purchase a gun will stop them.

 

[tech30528]

This is no different than the $18T Sanders wants to spend over the next 10 years on social programs. Never mind his tax plan would only pay for a 1/3 of it and have other far reaching negative affects, he's buying votes with spending that is not sustainable and he does not have the power to deliver. Likewise Hillary will suggest "reasonable gun control" that she will not be able to pass and/ or will be ineffective in stopping crime. But let's wait and see what she proposes and how it would have prevented this shooting.

 

[DDD]

I have read what you have claimed and you still have not answered the questions you have been asked. Do you not understand English.

Now explain how the latest technology can tell what somebody will do, now or in the future.

Explain why you want to punish innocent people.

Explain what gives you the right to punish innocent people.

Make the claim you have never been asked these questions before and avoided answering them.

So you have not read them, okay.

Apparently not because a simple spelling mistake has you completely fooled or you saw an opportunity to deflect and avoid. Something all gun control advocates do when faced with questions that show how wrong they are.

What is a 2A abuser and explain what banning guns will do? Now that is gibberish or has such obvious examples of 100% failure that any educated person could not possibly believe a ban will solve anything unless they were completely misguided or delusional.

One who abuses their 2A rights is the one who uses guns to offend rather than defend.

 

[Crimefree]

So you have not read them, okay.

No I have read them and like a good gun gun grabber your solution is to whip them and tie them up in chains IN CASE they might do something. There was no surprise there. I was just checking to see if you had thought about what you ask for. It is confirmed your fear is sufficient that you don't care about peoples innocence. To you they may be sacrificed if you perceive yourself safe. Insignificant, ants, not worthy of your sympathy or consideration, not human. Not much different to people who had all the good jobs, had the nicest houses, had good food, had flashy cars, had all the money but just happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time - Germany, Russia, China, Turkey........

One who abuses their 2A rights is the one who uses guns to offend rather than defend.

WTF is a 2A rights abuser? How many do you know? Do you know if any laws exist to punish them? How many of these so-called rights abusers are punished per year.

 

[DDD]

No I have read them and like a good gun gun grabber your solution is to whip them and tie them up in chains IN CASE they might do something. There was no surprise there. I was just checking to see if you had thought about what you ask for. It is confirmed your fear is sufficient that you don't care about peoples innocence. To you they may be sacrificed if you perceive yourself safe. Insignificant, ants, not worthy of your sympathy or consideration, not human. Not much different to people who had all the good jobs, had the nicest houses, had good food, had flashy cars, had all the money but just happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time - Germany, Russia, China, Turkey........

Ad hominem.

I am not the subject of this thread. But the projections and transference are staggering :shock:

WTF is a 2A rights abuser? How many do you know? Do you know if any laws exist to punish them? How many of these so-called rights abusers are punished per year.

Its just a name.

I call 2A abusers people who use guns to offend. Compared to 2A users whom are people that use guns to defend.

 

[Crimefree]

Ad hominem.

I am not the subject of this thread. But the projections and transference are staggering :shock:

I'm willing to listen to your proof of that statement. :lamo

You cannot deny what you are. You cannot hide behind smoke screens. You promote OPPRESSION. It is a statement of fact and relevant to the discussion. I really don't care if you like it or not as you have earned it.

Its just a name.

I call 2A abusers people who use guns to offend. Compared to 2A users whom are people that use guns to defend.

Why do you need it?

To offend what? You are labelling things in a derogatory way and that points to a problem. There are correct terms use them or expect response in kind.

 

[Crimefree]

So you have not read them, okay.

Then you will have no problem pointing me to the exact page and post in which each is answered.

Avoidance noted you have not answered one of them. I await your response

Now explain how the latest technology can tell what somebody will do, now or in the future.

Explain why you want to punish innocent people.

Explain what gives you the right to punish innocent people.

 

[MMC]

Hillary: Hey, I’ll Totally Bypass Congress On Gun Control If Necessary .....

We all knew this was coming. Hillary Clinton unveiling her new gun control policies, which included the holy grail of liberal proposals–expanding background checks. Yet, she isn’t just going to throw policies out there for progressives to munch on; she’s threatening to use executive action to get some of them enacted (via AP):

Don’t take the bait; it’s just another chance for them to inject a war on women talking point. Since liberals still don’t get that all FFL (federal firearm license) dealers have to conduct a background check on all sales, let’s revisit yet another absurd claim about the gun show loophole. First, gun shows aren’t the problem. As mentioned prior, gun dealers with FFLs must conduct background checks on all sales; this includes gun shows, my progressive friends. There is no…safe space in which the laws connected to a federal firearms license is checked at the door of a gun exhibit. This is something that the Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowksi took umbrage with concerning Maggie Haberman’s piece on Hillary’s gun control initiatives, where she wrote, “Mrs. Clinton’s proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores. But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers.” Gutowski noted, there isn’t some special carve out regarding these sales:

Gun shows and online sales enjoy no special carve-out or loophole. Under federal law, all sales through commercial gun dealers, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), must be processed through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Background Check System regardless of whether the sale was made at a gun shop, gun show, or over the Internet. Similarly, sales of used guns between private parties living in the same state are not required, under federal law, to go through the background check system regardless of where the sale occurs. A small number of states do require sales between private parties to submit to background checks. Oregon is one of those states......snip~

Hillary: Hey, I’ll Totally Bypass Congress On Gun Control If Necessary - Matt Vespa


Now we just need people, to call out the liars for what they are. Lets put an end to politicians that want to talk just to be talking.

 

[Harman]

I would bring the troops home and set them to gathering all the guns in the country.

 

[tech30528]

WRONG (as usual) something should be done only if it will

1) have clear and convincing evidence of reducing crime

2) without violating the rights of law abiding citizens


Cankles' solutions fail both tests

That's good. I was just watching the new Muppet Show and Ms. Piggy bears a striking resemblance to "cankles".

 

[tech30528]

The psychological effects of climate change are well-documented. The Pacific Northwest has been hit especially hard. You joke about it but it needs to be taken seriously.

http://www.weather.com/science/envi...ogical-impacts-stress-anxiety-ptsd-20140610#/!

Jesus. What a bunch of self absorbed pansies.

 

[tech30528]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-brain-scans-diagnose-mental-illness/

I suppose she will force this technology to be able to do something it can not at this time......

 

[TurtleDude]

That's good. I was just watching the new Muppet Show and Ms. Piggy bears a striking resemblance to "cankles".

Kermit the frog wouldn't bed Hildabeast though