Current Events > Hillary Clinton is using the shooting last night to talk about gun silencers.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/914853465926639618

What a piece of shit.
---

not sure why this makes her a pos
---

lilORANG posted...

not sure why this makes her a pos

She is using a tragedy to push an agenda that really has nothing to do with said tragedy.
---

Hillary sucks, but also the idea that we can't discuss politics (potential solutions) in the aftermath of a tragedy is bullshit, and seemingly only applied when the tragedy involves guns.

If we waited to debate gun control for a day without gun deaths, we'd never debate it.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

lilORANG posted...

not sure why this makes her a pos

She is using a tragedy to push an agenda that really has nothing to do with said tragedy.

gun violence and gun policy have nothing to do with each other?
---

well right wingers use terrorist attacks as a political platform...so how is this any different?
---

Well Obama's told us we should politicize these things
---

I can get where you say silencers have nothing to do with this tragedy, but given that that is on Congress' agenda, it seems worth bringing up all the same
---

It's one thing to talk about gun control after a shooting, but this shooting has nothing to do with silencers. She just used the tragedy to talk about silencers because it's relevant to her agenda
---

She's a piece of shit for politicizing something that evolves around politics?

I'm confused, TC. Explain please
---

mrduckbear posted...

well right wingers use terrorist attacks as a political platform...so how is this any different?

This wasn't a terrorist attack. That's why it's different.
---

lilORANG posted...

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

lilORANG posted...

not sure why this makes her a pos

She is using a tragedy to push an agenda that really has nothing to do with said tragedy.

gun violence and gun policy have nothing to do with each other?

Did the shooter have a suppressor?

Would a suppressor make the shooting more deadly?

Did the gun ban that's already in place on the firearm used stop this shooting?

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, you know why anyone calling for gun control in any form after this shooting is a piece of shit.
---

On_The_Edge posted...

but this shooting has nothing to do with silencers.

that was her point....

I don't even like Clinton but y'all being lazy af with these attacks
---

darkjedilink posted...

Would a suppressor make the shooting more deadly?

Yes. That's literally her point lol.
---

lilORANG posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

but this shooting has nothing to do with silencers.

that was her point....

I don't even like Clinton but y'all being lazy af with these attacks

yea ok her point was it'd have been worse with a silencer

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?
---

GOATTHlEF posted...

She's right though. We should be talking more about gun bans after the worst mass shooting in America.

So you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?
---

Can't we just shoot her into the sun already?
---

On_The_Edge posted...

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?

because

On_The_Edge posted...

it'd have been worse with a silencer

---

darkjedilink posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

She's right though. We should be talking more about gun bans after the worst mass shooting in America.

So you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

do you support the peaceful protests of the people of St. Louis?
---

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Would a suppressor make the shooting more deadly?

Yes. That's literally her point lol.

Okay, so you AND Mz. Clinton have no clue how a suppressor works, or what it even does.

Having ACTUALLY FIRED an AR-15 equipped with one, I can confirm you still need hearing protection when firing it, because it's still fucking loud.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mrduckbear posted...

well right wingers use terrorist attacks as a political platform...so how is this any different?

This wasn't a terrorist attack. That's why it's different.

Lol no. The fucking president and his supporters use terrorist attacks to push agendas like his travel ban

This is literally no different than the people that did that

lilORANG posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?

because

On_The_Edge posted...

it'd have been worse with a silencer

.........

yes. ok. but there was no silencer. she used this shooting to spin it for her agenda
---

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

She's right though. We should be talking more about gun bans after the worst mass shooting in America.

So you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

do you support the peaceful protests of the people of St. Louis?

I support their right to peacefully protest whole-heartedly, and would never suggest passing laws to prevent such activity.
---

On_The_Edge posted...

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?

Because a bill regarding silencers was making its way through congress within the past month.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/gun-silencer-bill-house-floor/index.html
---

lilORANG posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?

because

On_The_Edge posted...

it'd have been worse with a silencer

People didn't start running until they seen bodies start falling. A silencer isn't very quiet at all either. This guy used a gun he wasn't legally allowed to have to kill a bunch of people. A silencer wouldn't have had any effect on what happened.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Having ACTUALLY FIRED an AR-15 equipped with one, I can confirm you still need hearing protection when firing it, because it's still f***ing loud.

you need hearing protection because you're firing an AR. Yes of course it's loud af. But if you're firing it out of a 3rd story window during a country concert, the crowd of people a block away aren't going to hear it.
---

On_The_Edge posted...

lilORANG posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?

because

On_The_Edge posted...

it'd have been worse with a silencer

.........

yes. ok. but there was no silencer. she used this shooting to spin it for her agenda

The NRA is trying to make suppressors largely accessible to the general public
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

lilORANG posted...

On_The_Edge posted...

but there was no silencer so why bring it up?

because

On_The_Edge posted...

it'd have been worse with a silencer

People didn't start running until they seen bodies start falling. A silencer isn't very quiet at all either. This guy used a gun he wasn't legally allowed to have to kill a bunch of people. A silencer wouldn't have had any effect on what happened.

A suppressor isn't supposed to be quiet, it's supposed to mask where the shots are coming from, not the shots themselves
---

darkjedilink posted...

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

She's right though. We should be talking more about gun bans after the worst mass shooting in America.

So you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

do you support the peaceful protests of the people of St. Louis?

I support their right to peacefully protest whole-heartedly, and would never suggest passing laws to prevent such activity.

Good. I hope you are as quick to condemn the police who declare the protests as "violent" and force everyone to disperse as I am!
---

Also please stop calling them silencers

This isn't 007, this is real life
---

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Having ACTUALLY FIRED an AR-15 equipped with one, I can confirm you still need hearing protection when firing it, because it's still f***ing loud.

you need hearing protection because you're firing an AR. Yes of course it's loud af. But if you're firing it out of a 3rd story window during a country concert, the crowd of people a block away aren't going to hear it.

Absolutely not true at all. It can still be heard for blocks. It just sounds DIFFERENT, and is lower in pitch. The volume is still louder than a jackhammer.
---

Axiom posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mrduckbear posted...

well right wingers use terrorist attacks as a political platform...so how is this any different?

This wasn't a terrorist attack. That's why it's different.

Lol no. The fucking president and his supporters use terrorist attacks to push agendas like his travel ban

This is literally no different than the people that did that

The difference is that the demographic that's a threat to us is foreign so we can keep it out. Domestic violence is hard to stop because it's committed by native citizens.

You're comparing apples to watermelons.
---

How dare she use this tragedy to push her anti-tragedy agenda

Shut up TC. This is to prevent an even worse shooting in the future.

If those machine guns had silencers on them, then almost everybody in the audience would've been lit up.
---

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

She's right though. We should be talking more about gun bans after the worst mass shooting in America.

So you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

do you support the peaceful protests of the people of St. Louis?

I support their right to peacefully protest whole-heartedly, and would never suggest passing laws to prevent such activity.

Good. I hope you are as quick to condemn the police who declare the protests as "violent" and force everyone to disperse as I am!

If the protests weren't violent (meaning literally zero protesters initiated any violent contact with non-protesters in any way, nor was there any looting or property damage done by them), then yes, I condemn police officers for lying.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

The difference is that the demographic that's a threat to us is foreign so we can keep it out. Domestic violence is hard to stop because it's committed by native citizens.

The Orlando shooter was born in NY; he was a citizen.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

lilORANG posted...

not sure why this makes her a pos

She is using a tragedy to push an agenda that really has nothing to do with said tragedy.

I think guns has something to do with this shooting massacre

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Axiom posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mrduckbear posted...

well right wingers use terrorist attacks as a political platform...so how is this any different?

This wasn't a terrorist attack. That's why it's different.

Lol no. The fucking president and his supporters use terrorist attacks to push agendas like his travel ban

This is literally no different than the people that did that

The difference is that the demographic that's a threat to us is foreign so we can keep it out. Domestic violence is hard to stop because it's committed by native citizens.

You're comparing apples to watermelons.

The demographic that is a threat to us is already in the country

If you actually believe that ISIS is a threat to the continental US, you have a severe lack of understanding when it comes to US intelligence agencies
---

Dark_SilverX posted...

Shut up TC. This is to prevent an even worse shooting in the future.

If those machine guns had silencers on them, then almost everybody in the audience would've been lit up.

Literally nobody who knows anything about suppressors says this is true.
---

it's not that she shouldn't discuss preventative measures, we all should
but her info is wrong
---

darkjedilink posted...

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

lilORANG posted...

darkjedilink posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

She's right though. We should be talking more about gun bans after the worst mass shooting in America.

So you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

do you support the peaceful protests of the people of St. Louis?

I support their right to peacefully protest whole-heartedly, and would never suggest passing laws to prevent such activity.

Good. I hope you are as quick to condemn the police who declare the protests as "violent" and force everyone to disperse as I am!

If the protests weren't violent (meaning literally zero protesters initiated any violent contact with non-protesters in any way, nor was there any looting or property damage done by them), then yes, I condemn police officers for lying.

But if one protester threw a brick through a window, you think the police are justified in shutting down the whole thing? so in essence....

darkjedilink posted...

you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

---

Mofuji posted...

Can't we just shoot her into the sun already?

---

lilORANG posted...

But if one protester threw a brick through a window, you think the police are justified in shutting down the whole thing? so in essence....

darkjedilink posted...

you think criminal activity should be used to violate the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens?

Has there ever been a situation where it's literally just one guy throwing a brick through a window, and literally nobody else does anything?

Keep in mind, the right is to peaceably assemble. If, at any time, that assembly stops being peaceful - say, a guy throws a brick through a window - it's no longer a legal assembly, and the police have every right to force it to disperse.

Of course, though, you're a liberal, so you have no idea what freedom of speech actually means. You legitimately think that if it's speech that offends you, you have the right to punch the speaker.
---

Antifar posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

The difference is that the demographic that's a threat to us is foreign so we can keep it out. Domestic violence is hard to stop because it's committed by native citizens.

The Orlando shooter was born in NY; he was a citizen.

His religion isn't native though. It's not the people that are the issue it's the ideology.

That's why the West keeps being attacked by foreign radical terrorist and native born 2nd generation ones.

It's just easier to keep more of the bad ideology from coming in than it is to get rid of it from within.
---

Antifar posted...

Hillary sucks, but also the idea that we can't discuss politics (potential solutions) in the aftermath of a tragedy is bullshit, and seemingly only applied when the tragedy involves guns.

If we waited to debate gun control for a day without gun deaths, we'd never debate it.

We don't even know what went wrong to not catch this guy before he could stage the attack and people like Hillary are already offering "solutions" to problems that likely are completely unrelated such as silencers while lying about their purpose by making people believe Hollywood movies are totally correct about them. The reality is they only reduce the muzzle report just enough to not require hearing protection. The blast (and sonic boom if supersonic) is still very much audible to bystanders standing at a distance, but not deafeningly so.

Fun fact: the US is comparatively strict in the sale and ownership of suppressors. Many developed countries with strict gun ownership rules (but not outright bans) do not regulate suppressors any more than they do guns or actually even encourage owning them such as the UK.
---

Samurontai posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Axiom posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

mrduckbear posted...

well right wingers use terrorist attacks as a political platform...so how is this any different?

This wasn't a terrorist attack. That's why it's different.

Lol no. The fucking president and his supporters use terrorist attacks to push agendas like his travel ban

This is literally no different than the people that did that

The difference is that the demographic that's a threat to us is foreign so we can keep it out. Domestic violence is hard to stop because it's committed by native citizens.

You're comparing apples to watermelons.

The demographic that is a threat to us is already in the country

If you actually believe that ISIS is a threat to the continental US, you have a severe lack of understanding when it comes to US intelligence agencies

Oh yea? Which demographic is that?
---

Oakland510_ posted...

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

lilORANG posted...

not sure why this makes her a pos

She is using a tragedy to push an agenda that really has nothing to do with said tragedy.

I think guns has something to do with this shooting massacre

Silencers don't, If you can't follow along then please don't bother posting in here anymore.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Has there ever been a situation where it's literally just one guy throwing a brick through a window, and literally nobody else does anything?

Uh, yeah, that's sort of what's happening. By all accounts the protests have been peaceful except for some acts of unjustifiable vandalism.

darkjedilink posted...

Keep in mind, the right is to peaceably assemble. If, at any time, that assembly stops being peaceful - say, a guy throws a brick through a window - it's no longer a legal assembly, and the police have every right to force it to disperse.

This is not an accurate description of the right. Speech, assembly, association all go hand-in-hand. Expression is really what it's all about, which you can do through those various means. If your peaceful protest gets shutdown, you're peaceful assembly, because people you don't associate with show up to ruin things, your speech is being stifled. That's unjustified.

darkjedilink posted...

You legitimately think that if it's speech that offends you, you have the right to punch the speaker.

I do not legitimately think this and have called every single instance of nazi punching I've seen despicable and cowardly.
---

Dark_SilverX posted...

Shut up TC. This is to prevent an even worse shooting in the future.

If those machine guns had silencers on them, then almost everybody in the audience would've been lit up.

You have no idea what you're talking about
---