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

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/

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!

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..."

Hillary: People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Rights

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.

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.

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