Hillary: People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Constitutional Rights

“If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links,” Hillary Clinton said today in her supposedly apolitical speech, “you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun.”

If we’re going to do this, let’s be consistent.

If the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of your suspected illegal use of a home email server to transmit classified intelligence, you shouldn’t be allowed to just go and run for president. Obviously. The idea that we would allow a person who can’t be trusted with our most vital secrets to hold the most powerful office in the nation is absurd. It’s just not safe.
******************************

Wonder if "guilt by association" would also include her security detail???

I can see this coming back to bite her right quick fast and in a hurry!

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/hillary-people-under-fbi-investigation-should-lose-constitutional-rights/

that really would require an Amendment to the Constitution,and you know how difficult that would be!

The American people know that, but we're talking Hitlery here...... who thinkis herself above the law like our current idiot and liar in chief!

well, along the lines of not leaving the area when police are investigating you for a crime,, it makes a bit more sense then banning anyone who shares your religion from entering the usa

This definitely wont help her. If I were Trump, I would pounce all over this.

WATCH | Protesters escorted out during Hillary Clinton's Cleveland event
http://www.wkyc.com/news/politics/watch-protesters-escorted-out-during-hillary-clintons-cleveland-event/242635067
*
"H Stands For Hypocrisy,"
the crowd of roughly 3[it was more than just 3 people!] people appear to be chanting.They were quickly escorted out.
"It is good to be back in Cleveland," Clinton quipped.
One man protested outside the event, carrying a sign reading
"The liar of Benghazi," the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

I don't see how H. Clinton or T. Cruz (& maybe Rubio) were even permitted to be candidates !?
It is simply appalling & globally humiliating.

Word!
I can remember back to a time when even The Thought That Any Political Candidate Who Was Under A Criminal Investigation By The FBI Could Gain The Endorsement Of A Major Political Party To Run For The Office Of President Of The United States would've been considered as deranged & delusional.
"Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes..."

On the other hand, I think there IS a bit of a difference between the threat of someone who might buy an automatic weapon and massacre dozens of people...

...and the threat from someone who may call upon those same people and more to

HORROR OF HORRORS!

vote.

"... deranged & delusional.
"Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes..."


And it is NOT for the better.
2016: The year when evil became good & good became evil.

Not a great idea. People could be exploited for no reason

Basic fact checking, using the source presented by the thread starter, reveals that the title and lead sentence he presented is FALSE.

Clinton did NOT make the very general statement he claims she said.

What the linked source DOES say that she said, is specifically that people who are under investigation for terrorism should not be allowed to buy weapons.

Now. If you want to argue that the only way to do this, would be to pass a very general law saying that "people under investigation should lose Constitutional rights," you can try to make it. It is certainly true that we suffer from a LOT of legislation in the past, which sounded good when described politically, but when written into actionable verbiage, was actually dreadful.

But again, when we talk about LAWS, it's tremendously important that we don't LIE about what's being proposed.

So. If you think people under investigation for terrorism should NOT have any restrictions put on them, fine. Argue that.

OK...if that is what the DOES say, why is an individual under investigation for terrorism allowed to walk our streets, much less buy a firearm?
The left shouts from the roof tops...."We won't let these people on our airplanes, why do we let them buy guns?!"

Why aren't they locked up? Kicked out? Do we need some "terror threat level" to attach to these people? Yellow, he made a joke about crashing an airplane into a building? Green, he muttered some anti American remarks during evening prayer? Red, he posted on Facebook that he would shoot up a bar? Are all those types banned from flying?
It seems to me....and granted, I'm just some dumb azz redneck...if we don't want them on our planes, we shouldn't have them on our streets either. But hell no says the left.... "Let's shift focus to the MILLIONS of law abiding firearms owners....among those, owners of those mean ol black 'assault rifles'....thank you terrorists for giving us that inroad! Thank you Omar Mateen, even though you weren't on a watch list, we can still screw law abiding citizens anyway!"



Again....why just restrict their gun buying? Lock em up, kick em out. I say, if were going to bypass the Constitution bypass it in big way.....we won't have to worry about these fanatics flying on our planes OR shooting up our clubs.

Of course, some of this is in jest....this whole "no fly no buy" yapping is a gun grab....no more, no less.
And being on some list won't deter those bent on harming us....even with mean ol 'assault weapons'. Just ask Paris.

One more thing about 'mean ol guns'....a good guy with a gun ultimately stopped Mateen, plain and simple....a FACT seemingly overlooked by the gun grabbers....and I wouldn't be surprised if it was with a version of an AR15.

Some of what you say I agree with, but some of it is absurd.

You think an effort to keep terrorists from buying weapons is a "gun grab?" Really?

There's been zero proposals to "grab" any guns, in order to limit the ease with which terrorists and crazy people can increase their destructiveness. No proposals to take any weapons currently legally owned by non-terrorists or other criminals. Just an effort to make it possible for patriotic gun sales people, to help keep weapons out of the hands of the people who THEY don't want to have them either.

Unless you think all gun sales people hate the United States, as well as all Americans, and actually WANT criminals to be well armed.

And according to all the reports I've seen so far, it was the armed and trained Police who killed Mateen. Now, I think most Police ARE good guys, so in that sense your claim would be true, but if you want to say that a civilian got him, you really ought to post proof.

Since there are reports of a surge in gun sales to gays (I can't confirm this, I just saw it mentioned yesterday...could be a rumor), then perhaps one of them WILL kill the next psycho who attacks the Gay community.

Why sure, I even admitted that....did you miss that part? And I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with anything you posted...more like using it to make my opinions a bit. Send me a bill if ya want

The current push to keep folks on some list from buying weapons? Sure...considering the latest shooter wasn't on any list.

Obama mentioned renewing the 'assault weapons' ban again today


Yes I meant the police....with a gun. But make no mistake, there ARE plenty of civilians with the training to do the same thing.....and not take three hours to do it. Not a jab at police procedure, mind you....that three hour thing...just an observation.

Or any "community'....let's hope so.

it sounds like what has always happened

the implied student implementing it can be the corporations or the government,, but its part of society in just about every society I can think of


excepting the levels of 'control' can vary from physical force to elective policy or non mandatory options

always? i would say some of it started with bush, and was amplified by obarry... so what it would be if hillary gets in office? she wrote her college thesis on olebuddy Saul ....