1774
1775

Surrounded by armed bodyguards and Secret Service agents, HillaryClinton declared that guns don't keep us safe. (i.imgur.com)

jagershotzz が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]nowyourdoingit 228ポイント229ポイント  (67子コメント)

Just to throw some fuel on this fire. I did a security detail for POTUS once. Besides the stuff you see: USSS agents, up-armored vehicles, sniper overwatch, HAMMER(?) Teams, etc. He also had about a Platoon (~15) worth of SEALs on standby with their full war kit, ISR, the Coast Guard, two SWCC boats and crews, and some number of Marines also on standby. The public part of the security detail is just a small portion of the bristling shit storm of carnage at their disposal should they need it.

[–]crapposting 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

Isn't that classified?

[–]tuirtuirtuirtiurt 41ポイント42ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you really think someone would make up stories on reddit? I can say as a former delta force operator that OP has his details wrong about POTUS security details.

[–]r0b3r71 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

He is a SEAL.

[–]Reaven1911 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The part where he mentioned SEALs made it all seem like some sort of lie, but on the internet? Nah.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]painkillerzman 77ポイント78ポイント  (36子コメント)

    I want this comment to get me on a government list somewhere. How many trained soldiers do YOU think it would take, if you had a gun to your head and had to guess, to eliminate the POTUS's guard and take him hostage/extract him to a secure location? Could this even happen on U.S. soil or is it the type of stuff you'd see in a Hollywood film ?

    [–]conthisup 102ポイント103ポイント  (23子コメント)

    Just an insane North Kirean leader, about 50 soldiers, 2 garbage trucks, and an antiaircraft gun and you could take the POTUS hostage in the White House.

    [–]V0RT3XXX 57ポイント58ポイント  (6子コメント)

    u forgot a fully armed AC-130 that can fly unrestricted over the DC area

    Edit: AC-130 not C-130. I should have known better from all the call of duty games, shame on me.

    [–]gensix 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    AC-130

    [–]IllKissYourBoobies 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I read 'fully armed C-3PO'.

    I was confused.

    [–]redpandaeater 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

    As compared to when he was still in pieces on Chewie's back.

    [–]MajorRollin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    "I am fluent in over 6 million languages including ass kicking and fucking shit up."

    [–]bryntheskits 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    And it wasn't even an AC, just had Vulcans all over it, looked weird.

    [–]omgbrando 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

    This worked minus the NK leader part, you also need a small crew inside posing as A/V techs upgrading the theater room. I saw it in a movie once.

    [–]veksone 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Lmao!!

    [–]Uriah02 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    And the entire White House Secret Service detail willing to assault said heavy complex force with sidearms and no cover. I would be willing to bet there are full kits available on WH grounds for all security personnel.

    [–]Citizen01123 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    50 soldiers, 2 garbage trucks

    For some reason, my fieat thought was this is is going for a Die Hard with a Vengeance joke.

    Which leads me to propose a question: how many team members, or how much assistance, would John McClain need to pull off this feat?

    [–]A_Meat_Popsicle 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Zero. And shoes are optional.

    [–]MajorRollin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Psssh, 2 garbage trucks? If you need more than 1, you're just being sloppy.

    コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

      [–]nowyourdoingit 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

      4

      [–]painkillerzman 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It's a bold strategy cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em.

      [–]TheFlavorEnhancer 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

      20 good men should do the trick.

      [–]BrianPurkisslibertarian party 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Depends on if you're expecting to survive or not.

      [–]cashcow1 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Maybe like 10. Didn't a guy get across the lawn and into the White House last year?

      [–]obama_loves_nsa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yep he did

      Took over a minute for anyone to confront him

      He was even running up and down hallways

      [–]DamnNatureY0uScary 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Here is a documentary on that ;)

      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

        [–]redpandaeater 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

        What's the history behind only Marines and Secret Service being able to have guns around the President?

        [–]nowyourdoingit 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Can Marines have guns around the President? They told us (navy) to disarm for the photo-op.

        [–]Wolfs_Claw 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        In Iraq when VIPs would visit for photo ops, they even told the active duty to leave the pocketknives behind, heh.

        [–]NessLeonhart 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        if that's an actual rule idk, but i would guess that it's just down to specific individuals who have passed a strict background check and have a certain level of clearance.

        seems logically that the president would be safe in an Army barracks, but fact is, any nut can enlist, and they can't do comprehensive background checks on every person that'll be near the president, so they just don't allow weapons.

        [–]SU7sin1o3 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Basic entry to the us military isn't stringent. It's only when you go for the more specific jobs. Secret clearance is pretty basic unless you have a suspicious background, the fbi doesn't talk to anyone. Top secret though and they interview everyone you listed as references and then some.

        [–]grissomza 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Marine One?

        [–]sillyjohnny 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Indeed. Guns are bad bad bad. And do most definitely not keep anyone safe. Gotta love politics and corruption.

        [–]GonzoUSN 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Terrible fucking OPSEC dingbat

        [–]Curtis_Low 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Go to any event with POTUS or anything and you can visually see everything that OP just described. Guessing by your name you are active or prior Navy. We commissioned the USS San Antonio at Ingleside in Texas some time back. Any civilian would have and did see all that goes into it and it was only former Presidents that were there.

        [–]derpderp3200 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

        ...what. Does ANY other country do this level of protection for /anyone/?

        [–]sellyme 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Not even close

        Well, I mean, maybe a few dictatorships, but the US is extremely unique amongst high HDI countries in that regard.

        [–]ShalmaneserIII 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        We're also ahead of the game in assassinations, too, I think. So it's not exactly unwarranted.

        [–]Lifeguard2012 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Who do you think all those people running with him are?

        Also this or this

        [–]sellyme 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Who do you think all those people running with him are?

        Many of them are friends and colleagues, and even if you do count them it's hilariously incomparable to the photo in this OP.

        Also this

        You did get all the way to the part with a running chainsaw, right? Do that in the US and you'd get shot immediately.

        [–]nowyourdoingit 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Yes and no. Plenty of other heads of state go to extreme lengths for security, but probably nobody has as professional or skilled of a security package as the POTUS.

        [–]NidStyles 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

        In the Philippines they build 30 foot walls around presidential palaces...

        [–]SU7sin1o3 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        If there were terrorist an island or two away from any head of state I'm sure they would do the ssme

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]ikantspeell 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          When president bush was in Bahrain, I was in a platoon of marines on standby. We were in full gear while he was there.

          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

            [–]mrbaconpants 149ポイント150ポイント  (27子コメント)

            When she says guns, she means your guns not her guns.

            [–]oceannative1 33ポイント34ポイント  (18子コメント)

            I am scared for my children if she gets the nomination. No joke. It will be her or trump? Loved Bill, can't stand her. She would be nothing special if she didn't marry well.

            [–]NewAccountFor2016 19ポイント20ポイント  (12子コメント)

            Trump it's running as a joke to improve Hillary's claim. It's either a joke or anyone else. Trump knows it; he can't lose. His image will only improve in the direction he wants that is a public figure who doesn't give a shit. He doesn't care to be good Samaritan. Who cares about that. He doesn't even need to drop out of the race. He can just say some stupid shit its not like he cares and his public image will only improve.

            Srsly people will look upon Trump and say he was a genius

            [–]MajorRollin 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Why do people hate Hillary? I'm honestly asking. I don't think I'd ever vote for her, but I don't think I hate her either. She's just another person who I disagree with on a lot of things.

            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

              [–]NorwegianGodOfLove 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Same principle applies for money, laws etc

              コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                [–]trytoinjurememoral truth doesn't exist 233ポイント234ポイント  (84子コメント)

                And if citizens should be disarmed to minimize homicide and/or violence, shouldn't the state disarm their military to minimize war?

                I definitely can't blame Hilary for her bodyguards. Hated and dangerous people need the most protection. But we should certainly blame her for her blatant hypocrisy.

                [–]Eurynom0s 66ポイント67ポイント  (34子コメント)

                I mean look at the UK, at least when they disarmed the citizenry they also disarmed most of the police. Hardly perfect but at least they actually were trying to deescalate things a bit.

                [–]xFrieDSpuDx 86ポイント87ポイント  (17子コメント)

                That's really not how it worked. The British police have never carried guns. It was explicitly decided that they would not carry Fire arms when it was first founded. It is at the core of the British police force to not carry fire arms. Only select units (e.g Airport security or armed response) that are allowed to carry.

                [–]Eurynom0s 24ポイント25ポイント  (13子コメント)

                Sorry if I botched the specifics but given what you said I think the underlying point of "they seem to actually want to keep it deescalated on both sides" stands.

                You see this in other European countries too. Remember when those Swedish cops intervened on the NYC subway last year until NYPD could show up and take over? They couldn't understand why we found it so remarkable that they could handle the situation without shooting the guy or even hitting the guy or whatever. IIRC in Sweden cops do carry guns despite there also being relatively strict gun control in Sweden, yet they're actually trained on how to not resort to just shooting people.

                [–]faithle55 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                Have you got a link for a story on that?

                [–]xhable 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

                other European countries too

                Like France, Italy, Switzerland & Sweden where the gun laws are pretty relaxed?

                [–]swedishpsychoAnarcho-monarchist 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                I wouldn't say that we have relaxed gun laws in Sweden. Even though we have quite a few registered hunters the vast majority of people have never even seen a gun apart from the holster of people in law enforcement.

                [–]xhable 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                Surely that's culture more than a commentary of the legal system.

                We shot rifles in school here in England on the school shooting range, and there are a more than a few gun clubs within driving distance of my house. This culture doesn't reflect our strict gun control laws.

                [–]sixtom 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                I feel you schooling experience was atypical.

                [–]xhable 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Granted, definetly so.

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                    [–]djphatjive 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    This is kind of pointless. Yea they don't have guns. But there is fully armed royal guards around town. People think those crazy dudes in the tall hats are for show. Nope. Fully armed and ready.

                    [–]JimmyX10 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    They are British Army infantry from the Guards regiments in ceremonial uniform and are only on guard outside the Royal palaces like Buckingham Palace in London. Their weapons are loaded though.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                      [–]Orsenfelt 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      British police have never been regularly armed, excluding Northern Ireland.

                      [–]ForgotMyLastPasscode 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      It happened in Ireland. When the population was disarmed after the War of Independence and the Civil War the armed RIC (Royal Irish Constabulary) was replaced with the unarmed An Garda Síochána (The Guardians of the Peace).

                      コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

                        [–]kyle_gibson 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        The equivalent of that analogy would be to disarm all armies.

                        So yes.

                        [–]humblyawsome 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        We have no power the disarm other armies; we'd be the o lay ones without guns.

                        In the same way, criminals won't follow gun bans; only the good citizens she's trying to protect will be unarmed

                        [–]godlameroso 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Instead of people killing each other, we should decide conflicts with giant robots battling out. I saw a documentary on it

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kd642Ix5ks

                        [–]mspk7305libertarian party 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        But we should certainly blame her for her blatant hypocrisy.

                        Of all the candidates running, I think she is perhaps the least qualified. I would prefer Sanders to Trump, but I would prefer Trump to Clinton. That says a lot.

                        [–]HEADPOCKET -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

                        shouldn't the state disarm their military to minimize war?

                        Liberals actually do advocate this, so you haven't identified any inconsistency in their position.

                        Edit: You guys are preaching to the choir. I'm a hardcore libertarian and as staunch of a gun rights advocate as you can be. All I was doing was pointing out the obvious flaw in the original commenter's argument.

                        The real hypocrisy in the liberal argument is captured in OP's post.

                        Another real inconsistency is their contention that people who say they need guns are paranoid crazies because society isn't actually that violent while at the same time saying that we need to restrict gun rights in order to combat violence in society.

                        [–]trytoinjurememoral truth doesn't exist 21ポイント22ポイント  (4子コメント)

                        Well, I've never encountered any wanting the military to be disarmed to the same degree. They just want them to have less fighter jets than they do now, and shit like that.

                        They still want the military to be armed to the teeth, 100x more than civilians.

                        [–]qwaai 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        I don't think most liberals advocate for complete civilian disarmament either. I'm sure many believe in it, but in general they're only seriously proposing for it to be harder to get guns.

                        [–]TheMarlBroMan 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Bullshit. Vast majority want to simply slowly erode that constitutional right until it effectively doesnt exist.

                        It's already heavily restricted. Gun control almost never gets repealed so its just a frog being slowly boiled rather thrown into a pot of boiling water.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                          [–]Indenturedsavant 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Lol they may say that but that hasn't stopped them from consistently increasing our weapons expenditures and bombing the shit out of tons of people. Liberal anti war rhetoric is just as honest as conservative limited government rhetoric (ie I want small government unless it's two dudes marrying or someone smoking a j)

                          [–]soupwell 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Hillary has never met a military adventure she didn't think was a good idea.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                            [–]chinpopocortez 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            yes, and the police deserve to be protected as well so they should be disarmed too.

                            [–]KhabaLox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Well, States have worked to minimize proliferation of nuclear weapons at least. Also, in countries where gun ownership is less prevalent, police forces are generally less heavily armed.

                            コメントをもっと表示する (33 返事)

                              [–]redstormpopcorn 55ポイント56ポイント  (13子コメント)

                              The point here is that American gun owners should be held to the same firearms training standards as the Secret Service, right? 'cause that's the part that actually precludes safety.

                              [–]testiclelice 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              How about the same standards as police in your jurisdiction? I'm okay with that.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

                                [–]chrism3"Mr Libertarian"Walter Block,Napolitano & Stossel Stand w/ Rand 49ポイント50ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                Better pic: http://i.imgur.com/ybg3r2H.jpg

                                [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 17ポイント18ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                They're also all men, which disproves the idea that women can do the same work men can do.

                                [–]jbillzz33 27ポイント28ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                There are female secret service agents, just none in this picture. Biden spoke at my sisters graduation a few years ago and there was a handful of female agents with his detail

                                [–]menasan 67ポイント68ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                probably at his request

                                [–]fondledbydolphins 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Biden is the current Bill.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                  [–]Engineerthegreat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  The one closest to the photo taker has his hands up ready for a confrontation.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                    [–]CutlassSupremoancap 25ポイント26ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    (Your) guns don't keep us (government) safe.

                                    FTFY

                                    [–]idontlistentomyself 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                    Isn't this form of security mandatory for presidental canditates?

                                    [–]senpai-pls 22ポイント23ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                    ITT: nobody knows how logic works.

                                    "Stores shouldn't lock their doors because I don't"

                                    [–]Candyland_4_Bernie 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                    This thread is pants on head retarded.

                                    Everyone fucking knows this comparison makes 0 sense but they're just rolling with it.

                                    How about a little intellectual honesty?

                                    [–]LitrallyTitler 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    This is how I feel reading your posts, and others on /r/politics lmao.

                                    I feel the same here too, it's pretty retarded, but I'm glad you get a taste of it.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                      [–]lvl5dagon 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      Wait so you want the government to decide which doors are locked and which are open? By all means elect Hillary.

                                      [–]LaterGatorPlayer 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Well, they want the government to be able to lock doors, and private citizens to register to be able to lock their own doors. And to make that process as difficult as possible. And if you do want to lock your own door, it can't be with too many locks, or too large a lock. Because there's no reason a citizen would need a high capacity lock, or should own too many locks. Think of the children.

                                      [–]I0xD 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      Are they there simply because she was once the first lady? I'm not from US

                                      [–]DevilGuy 49ポイント50ポイント  (55子コメント)

                                      To be fair, the reason she has all those bodyguards is because in america any lunatic, criminal, or domestic terrorist can easily obtain any number of fire arms ranging from pistols to shotguns to magazine fed semiautomatic rifles kitted for use as an assault weapon if they're determined to get one.

                                      [–]Clever__Girl 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Is that why she also has the bodyguards with her when she travels in foreign countries with strict gun control?

                                      [–]hootenanny 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      kitted for use as an assault weapon

                                      Define that, if you even can. How can a civilian "kit" a semi-automatic for use as an assault weapon? Kit, I mean. Not machine an auto-sear. Not attach a grenade launcher (which is what assault/fire team leaders use in the USMC). Kit.

                                      Not attach a fore-end grip (which is inferior to the over-arm grip that doesn't require a separate piece). Not attach a shoulder thing that goes up (collapsing stocks have no use outside of small room-clearing).

                                      Kit. Please and thank you.

                                      [–]thatsoRevan 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      Barrel shrouds, bump fires, high capacity drum clips, pop bottle silencers, welding 2 guns together to make a double rifle, Gatling 10/22s. Oh ya, those scopes with the color changing reticle.

                                      [–]_Rabbert_Klein 26ポイント27ポイント  (42子コメント)

                                      The foreign lunatics, criminals, and terrorists still have access to them in other countries too, regardless of the laws in that country. Ownership restrictions only prevent honest people from getting a gun and it doesn't matter one bit for the dishonest ones. Doesn't matter where in the world you are it's the same everywhere.

                                      [–]The_Real_BenFranklin 1ポイント2ポイント  (21子コメント)

                                      So that explains why there homicide rates are so much higher?

                                      [–]gtfomylawnplease 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                      Explain why Chicago's gun crime rate is so high.

                                      [–]non_consensual 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      "Because we haven't rid the entire planet of guns yet."

                                      I'm sure they gave the same excuse for the failure of alcohol prohibition.

                                      [–]hetecon 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      Is Chicago a country? Seriously though...

                                      Takes what less than an hour to drive from Indiana into Chicago?

                                      [–]gtfomylawnplease 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      How far away is Canada from New York? How's Canada gun crime?

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (20 返事)

                                            [–]testiclelice 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            So she leaves those folks behind when she goes to the UK, Germany, Australia, France?

                                            [–]ProjectGSX 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            Not to mention that none of those handguns will protect her from sniper fire.

                                            [–]Qaest 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            That's why there are counter sniper teams up on rooftops.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                              [–]dromni 34ポイント35ポイント  (32子コメント)

                                              Well, in a sense they are bodyguards working for the State, and guns used by governments keep us safe according to the leftist thinking.

                                              The State always knows what is better for us. =)

                                              [–]RUoffended 27ポイント28ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                              The State always knows what is better for us. =)

                                              Literally the epitome of the left.

                                              [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 14ポイント15ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                              Thank goodness Libertarians don't suffer under this delusion.

                                              Now tell me again why we need to divest of the dreaded fiat currency and buy bitgold.

                                              [–]SimpleManSC 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                              You should just have the choice to use the currency you want.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                [–]V4refugee 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                As opposed to the republicans on the right?

                                                [–]FamilyHeirloomTomato 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Turns out that if you go far enough in one direction, you end up at the other end of the spectrum.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                  [–]adidasbdd 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                  Which leftists are you referring to?

                                                  [–]ZapPowerzNihilist, Hedonist 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  The ones on the left.

                                                  [–]rsresnor 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  Statism is a common theme among ideologies of "the left", which is a broad group given the two party nature of American politics. I believe what OP was referring to was statism, the belief that the state should hold strong centralized power over social and economic affairs within it's jurisdiction.

                                                  The American "left" is certainly chock full of statists, at least when compared to the right.

                                                  [–]adidasbdd 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  I don't see a distinction between the left and right here. Both believe that government should play a significant role- but only to their own benefit. ie- right supports internationional military intervention with every breath- giving government authority over womens right to abortion- making drugs illegal and jailing minor drug offenders and minorities- erecting physical borders and expanding border control- expanding online "security" measures to the detriment of privacy and freedom- not recognizing gay rights- recognizing and favoring Christianity as the "national" religion--- the right only wants smaller government when it comes to business and financial regulation, so they can better fuck over their employees and consumers.

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                    [–]BlueSubaruCrewI just want to be left alone 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    relevant:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/683655884547973121

                                                    [–]TweetsInCommentsBot 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    @realDonaldTrump

                                                    2016-01-03 14:27 UTC

                                                    Hillary said that guns don't keep you safe. If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!

                                                    This message was created by a bot

                                                    [Contact creator][Source code]

                                                    [–]kaliforniamike 14ポイント15ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                    None of them have guns, they're just there to take any Bosnian sniper bullets heading for her.

                                                    [–]dfapredator 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                    B...but there are guns in the picture

                                                    [–]Vehe_Mencehayekian 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                    I think it's a walky-talky that you're seeing. I had to zoom in to see it. But, I'm sure they are packing. Body guards should have conceded carry licenses. Not much of a body guard without one.

                                                    [–]NidStyles 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    SS carry sub-guns, usually in a holster under their jacket..

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                      [–]kaliforniamike 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                      They're to throw at the sniper bullets in the air in case the agents can't move quickly enough in a last ditch effort to keep Hillary safe obviously.

                                                      [–]dfapredator 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Ah yes a classic move how did I not realize sooner

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                        [–]iamsofired 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                        What a stupid example OP.

                                                        [–]MagnusTheGreat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Guns may not keep us safe, but burly men with guns might.

                                                        [–]Citizen01123 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        This cameraman is being eyed by at least 3 killers.

                                                        [–]anthonyhelms15 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Harding/Coolidge 2016!!!!!

                                                        [–]PATATAMOUS 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        They even got Tommy Lee Jones to help protect her!

                                                        [–]dmason251994 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        Didn't a guy without a knife, but a bunch of illegal guns killing kids in Chicago.

                                                        [–]jjschnei 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                        This title appears to be a straw man logical fallacy. To the best of my knowledge, Hillary Clinton has not advocated taking guns away from law enforcement.

                                                        [–]-Hegemon- 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        The people attacking her for saying that with armed guards around her seem to think it's a dichotomy of "Guns for everybody", "Guns for nobody".

                                                        Reminds me of this scene:

                                                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aNxzF7MAk

                                                        [–][削除されました]  (34子コメント)

                                                        [deleted]

                                                          [–]LC_Musicminarchist 23ポイント24ポイント  (25子コメント)

                                                          So guns do save lives and protect people then.

                                                          [–]classicrandom 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                          I'm glad that his comment unknowingly says he agrees guns protect people. I bet his Facebook is filled with more gems.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (22 返事)

                                                            [–]delta91 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                            Uh huh, so she's more important than the people?

                                                            [–]guns_r_us 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                            For the sake of the people huh? She should be put in jail and hanged for treason for the sake of the people.

                                                            [–]Thread_water 14ポイント15ポイント  (152子コメント)

                                                            Can I ask you guys something, if it were proven that legal firearms definitely lead to more innocent deaths would you still support legal firearms?

                                                            I get confused as some libertarians make the point that guns shouldn't be illegal, simply because possession of a gun alone doesn't harm anyone, therefore it would be wrong to criminalise it. I think this is a good point, and this is the reason I do support citizens right to a firearm.

                                                            Others seem to try and make the point that legal firearms is actually safer overall for society. Whilst this may be true, it's harder to prove and I certainly don't believe it to be true for every case. (In Ireland I truly believe deaths would rise if guns were made as available as they are in the U.S.)

                                                            So are you trying to say that because firearms can help safety in some situations (in the picture) that they would make all situations safer? Because that's stupid. And thus I don't really see the point in this post. I mean couldn't kids make the point that since adults use guns for protection that they should be allowed them to? Different situations means different rules.

                                                            [–]CutlassSupremoancap 19ポイント20ポイント  (27子コメント)

                                                            if it were proven that legal firearms definitely lead to more innocent deaths would you still support legal firearms?

                                                            I don't make that argument because the 2nd Amendment is not about "safety", it's about being able to check the government with a persistent threat to them of rebellion.

                                                            My understanding of the libertarian position on the matter of firearms is that it is an extension of property rights and self-ownership. So long as your private use of your property does not unduly harm another person, peace-out homie.

                                                            Besides all that...Cars and McDonald's cheeseburgers both kill more people than does the misuse of firearms.

                                                            [–]Vehe_Mencehayekian 26ポイント27ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                            US pollution: 319 million

                                                            Murders in the US 2014: 11,961

                                                            Gun related murders 2014: 8,124

                                                            Murders as a percentage of population annually: 0.00375%

                                                            Gun related murders a percentage of the population annually: 0.00255%

                                                            Property crime (such as burglary) in 2014: 8,277,829

                                                            Source1

                                                            Source2

                                                            Number of deaths from mass shoots annually ≈ 130 (really sketchy approximation)

                                                            Dead from mass shootings a percentage of the population annually: 0.000041%

                                                            Perspective is key. Don't think emotionally, think analytically.

                                                            One more thing!(sorry)

                                                            People who intend to commit violent crime will hid their guns, or have black market weapons - no serial number. Law abiding citizens will surrender their weapons.

                                                            [–]McNultysHangover 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                            Also, the vast majority of those gun related murders are criminal on criminal.

                                                            It would also me interesting to compare the mass shooting casualties to the number of people killed by police.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                                              [–]nowyourdoingit 41ポイント42ポイント  (54子コメント)

                                                              I think the point is that it's hypocritical to tell people that they'd be safer without firearms while your own personal safety is maintained by firearms.

                                                              [–]euthanatos 18ポイント19ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                              Isn't it possible to believe that the average person would be safer if the number of guns decreased, while also believing that some people would be unsafe without armed protection? I think it's ideologically consistent to support strong gun control while allowing exceptions for people who are at particular risk.

                                                              [–]-Shank- 32ポイント33ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                              Whose privilege will it be to decide the people who is at risk enough to have one? Is being a no name law-abiding citizen in a high crime area enough or do you need to be a member of the elite?

                                                              [–]flipmode_squad 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                              "Who decides what level of risk requires a gun" is a separate question. euthanatos' point (I think) was that a person isn't necessarily a hypocrite for claiming that guns can decrease safety in some situations and increase safety in others.

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                [–]CPM17 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                In current times, no.

                                                                Contrary to what media would have you believe, most guns aren't used for crime. However, some are. Police reaction times are too long to rely on them in life-or-death situations. Until you can fix that, citizens need to be allowed to defend themselves.

                                                                Everyone is potentially at risk of gun violence. I don't see why politicians should get protection that citizens cannot.

                                                                [–]V4refugee 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                Only the governing class and their family and law enforcement should have guns, the rest of us should do as we are told.

                                                                [–]nowyourdoingit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                Everyone is at a particular risk. This notion that we can orchestrate systemic protection is folly. I'm safer with a weapon than unarmed.

                                                                The critical thing is that I am highly trained in how to properly use a weapon.

                                                                A guy with a knife is better off than a guy without a knife, but a bunch of children with knives is just asking for trouble. Same same with rifles, handguns, grenades, whatever.

                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                  [–]ATXBeermaker 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                  You can make the point that the general public having access to certain types of guns (e.g., assault rifles) should be limited while being protected by trained security personnel with guns, though. I mean, did she ever actually advocate for a complete moratorium on gun ownership?

                                                                  [–]garboooo 4ポイント5ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                                                  At the point we are now, with guns legal and widespread, it's safer to have one. However, it would be even safer if they were banned altogether, outside of hunting of course

                                                                  [–]DIYDuder 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                  It's not hypocritical.

                                                                  1. Hillary and other high level politicians need bodyguards with guns not because they want to be safe. It's because the country needs them to be safe in the same sense that we send security with nuclear weapons during transport.

                                                                  2.All of the bodyguards have gone through extensive gun training and background checks.

                                                                  1. When you buy a gun it doesn't mean you're now safer. In fact without training you're now putting yourself in more danger of accidentally shooting yourself or others.

                                                                  2. Bodyguards have more training than just gun training. For example, I would bet all of those bodyguards have hand to hand combat training. Do you think Hillary or other politicians have their kind of hand to hand combat training?

                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (23 返事)

                                                                    [–]JollyO 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                    It's more about an intrinsic right to self defense than anything else.

                                                                    [–]non_consensual 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                    Modern progressives don't believe in such things. They're not too big on individual rights. It's why they're starting to alienate liberals.

                                                                    [–]fahq2m8 19ポイント20ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                    Can I ask you guys something, if it were proven that legal firearms definitely lead to more innocent deaths would you still support legal firearms?

                                                                    Freedom ain't free homie. Did you ever stop to think about what those words mean?

                                                                    Legal firearms in the hands of the state have killed orders of magnitude more people than legal firearms in the hands of the citizenry.

                                                                    [–]jmstallardlibertarian party 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                    Legal firearms in the hands of the state have killed orders of magnitude more people than legal firearms in the hands of the citizenry.

                                                                    Yes! This is what I keep coming back to. No matter how evil and murderous an individual may be, it's insignificant next to the deaths governments have inflicted on the human race, so why would I ever support a system in which the worst killer is also the only person allowed to be armed?

                                                                    [–]fahq2m8 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                    The state would never put me in a cattle car, thats just for "those people".

                                                                    [–]NeonDiseaseleave peaceful people alone! 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                                    legal cars lead to automobile deaths, but we don't hear anyone clamoring to outlaw cars...

                                                                    [–]Eurynom0s 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                    But if we're going to go down that route, what about stuff like alcohol? Alcohol undeniably takes a toll on society both in terms of damaging your body by using it and from the carnage associate with stuff like drunk driving yet we here in the US banned alcohol and it went so poorly that it's the only time an amendment to the US constitution has been passed that repealed a previous amendment, which is doubly remarkable given how few amendments actually get passed.

                                                                    [–]bannanaflame 15ポイント16ポイント  (25子コメント)

                                                                    This is not about hunting, collecting, or defending oneself against common thuggery. People are entitled to defend their rights against tyranny of government. I don't care if every private gun sale was guaranteed to result in 6 dead babies. If government has a weapon available for use against the people, the people have a right to own such weapons as well.

                                                                    [–]GrahamSmitWellington 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                    The military has the right to own tanks. How come you don't? Your little guns won't do shit in case your government decides it wants to be a "tyranny". What will your little gun do against drones, tanks, planes, and other advanced weaponry?

                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (22 返事)

                                                                      [–]V4refugee 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                      Weapons even the playing field between government and citizen. The government shouldn't have to worry about citizens because they have the support of it's citizens not because it's citizens can't fight back.

                                                                      [–]non_consensual 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      Not just that but they even the playing field for the weakest in society. Women, the elderly, the disabled.

                                                                      Really the firearm is a symbol of social justice. (Come at me r/ShitAmericansSay)

                                                                      [–]jmstallardlibertarian party 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                      if it were proven that legal firearms definitely lead to more innocent deaths would you still support legal firearms?

                                                                      Yes.

                                                                      [–]omatre 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      The same reason I support drug legalization. Every life can be classified as innocent, I think we should all have the right to determine what happens to ourselves. Drugs might kill people sooner than intended, but, so does everything else, bacon, tobacoo, alcohol, sex with ladyboys. A gun being used in a crime, makes the person a criminal, not the weapon.

                                                                      Just like this chick I know who has herpes and has unprotected sex with people and doesn't tell them about her speedbumps. Is that innocent, or negligent?

                                                                      [–]DayspringMetaphysicsConstitutionalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      Driving cars is proven to lead to many vehicular deaths. Death rates of cars are not contested, however what is also universally contested is, "the limited evil inherent to driving cars is outweighed by the goodness having them readily available." In a society with prevalent guns, there will be accidental injuries and deaths--this is unfortunate. However, the limited evil inherent to owning guns is outweighed by the goodness of having them readily available. The goodness of having weapons is 1) to protect one's family and 2) to protect one's country. Self protection seems obvious enough, but I always found the ww2 Japanese general's comments concerning the invasion of North America to be the most telling (though this quotation has been contested) "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

                                                                      [–]treycartier91 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      There are lots of legal things that kill innocent people every day.

                                                                      [–]non_consensual 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      Yes. The right of self defense would still be worth it.

                                                                      [–]testiclelice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                      Different situations means different rules.

                                                                      I think you are dead on. I also think that is the point gun owners are making. It's easy to make a blanket rule when you aren't part of that rule.

                                                                      Nobody wants a bunch of illegal guns killing kids in Chicago. This happens despite very tough gun laws. So people in rural Illinois feel screwed because their rights and privilegeds are determined by a very small percentage of folks in violent urban environments.

                                                                      Imagine you have a lot of drunk pedestrians hit and killed by cars leaving the bar in Dublin. So in response the government made it illegal to walk home drunk from the bar in the whole of Ireland.

                                                                      Now imagine your leader always had a limo waiting to pick them up from the bar. Should the be provided that opportunity? Absolutely. No question.

                                                                      The next question is if their situation is unique and different, then why isn't yours? Why not just the effected group?

                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                        [–]Geohump 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                        I'm sure Regan agrees.

                                                                        [–]EchoRadius 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                        I know, right!

                                                                        I'm told education will enlighten the population. Yet I'm surrounded by schools and I STILL run into shit posts like this on a daily basis.

                                                                        [–]EWSTW 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                        Well those schools are really pretty shitty in my experience....

                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                          [–][削除されました]  (8子コメント)

                                                                          [deleted]

                                                                            [–]Duthos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            I don't fear the [wo]man who wishes to have a gun, I fear the [wo]man who wishes to have the only one.

                                                                            [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            They don't. Guns keep her safe. Just not you, peasant.

                                                                            [–]kifa79 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            She is lying bitch!!!

                                                                            [–]l00pee -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                            This tired ass joke again? She doesn't want to get rid of guns and receives death threats constantly. I loathe Hillary. Can't fucking stand her and would not vote for her, but fuck this is the stupidest joke since the last time this strawman was made about Obama. No wonder libertarianism can't get any traction. Jesus Christ this is fucking stupid, and so is op, and so is anyone upvoting or cheering this on.

                                                                            edit: and so are the easily lead downvoting this. Be more clever you dumbfucks. You're embarrassing yourself.

                                                                            [–]trytoinjurememoral truth doesn't exist 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                            You think this is the reason libertarianism can't get any traction? This was likely cooked up by conservatives who have tons of traction. If anything, appealing to lowest common denominator partisan bullshit would get libertarians more traction very quickly.

                                                                            Though I agree that nobody should be painting Hillary as someone who wants to ban all guns, that's a big exaggeration. Though I don't doubt she'll hold that position once it's more politically expedient.

                                                                            [–][削除されました]  (10子コメント)

                                                                            [deleted]

                                                                              [–]BladeRunner415 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                                              How so?

                                                                              Or do you feel guns DO keep us safe but only in the hands of government?

                                                                              [–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

                                                                              [deleted]

                                                                                [–]TheGrim1 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                A black man (between 15 and 24) has an almost 50% chance of being murdered (source). That risk level is well above the risk level of a politician.

                                                                                [–]goldenshovelburial 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                Not 50% chance, but if he dies at that age, the likelihood of that death being caused by murder is 50%.

                                                                                [–]trytoinjurememoral truth doesn't exist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                Mostly true. But in Hillary's case, I'm pretty sure there would be 90%+ chance of her being murdered if she routinely walked alone. Hell, I'm not a violent person and even I would be tempted to take her out.

                                                                                [–]trytoinjurememoral truth doesn't exist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                Being a drug lord also makes you a high profile target. What's your point? Nobody is saying that the average person has equivalent risks to Hillary. Many people have higher risks, most have lower.

                                                                                [–]DIYDuder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                Actually a lot of people in this thread are saying they have equivalent risks and value to Hillary. These people are idiots.

                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                                      [–]chodpaba 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                      Guns don't keep people safe, people keep people safe.

                                                                                      [–]MuaddibMcFlyminarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                      Well, to be fair, those guns aren't intended to improve our safety...

                                                                                      [–]norcalgiant89 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                      Once they take the guns were at the whim of the politicians and the criminals.

                                                                                      [–]TheMacPhisto 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                                      Each one of those men have at least three firearms on them. The primary sidearm (usually a sig 226 or 8), a small SMG, usually of the MP5K or MP7 variety, and the ankle backup pistol (usually a small caliber revolver).

                                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (97 返事)