This week, a major-party politician said that “we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority.”
How can simply having a viewpoint — a very American thing to possess, by the way — terrorize anyone?
But of course, this person wasn’t talking about real terrorism. This person — a Democratic Party politician of high standing — was using the T‑word to smear defenders of the Second Amendment.
Yes, it was Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, and former U.S. Secretary of State (an office she has now taken “full responsibility” for holding), who trotted out those words, allegedly to encourage “a more thoughtful” debate about gun control.
Demonizing her opponents as “terrorizing” her comrades is hardly a way to produce the stated result.
Them’s fightin’ words.
I know of no one who defends the Second Amendment and opposes the gun control agenda of the Democratic Party who also supports the terroristic activities of spree murderers. Not one.
We have more complicated reasons to oppose gun control than merely focusing on such violence.
But understanding those reasons would require a “more thoughtful” attitude than besmirching opponents with the word “terror.”
And as for terrorizing, there are few words more frightening coming from an American politician than “we cannot let a minority” exercise their rights — whether to arms or … holding “a viewpoint.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
11 replies on “Terrorized?”
Mrs. Clinton’s attitude is “terrorizing” to me.
I don’t want majority rule; I want U.S. Constitutional rule.
I want reason, history, morality and experience to rule, not the current fears of the majority.
The majority have been proven wrong many times.
Some time back, JAMES TORANTO, of The Wall Street Journal, in his blog (Best of the web) discussed gun control.
He quotes a website RESTRICTED TO CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL which surveyed its members on gun control. I forgot the exact number, but it was OVER 90% who felt the restrictions (magazine size; etc.) were useless; and about the same number said needed better mental health facilities.
Oh, there are so many points that could be made about that little sentence — each of them “terrifying.” Of course the idea that someone’s beliefs must be allowed is the main one, and that the minority must think like the majority.
But just who are “we” as in, “We cannot let…”? What does she mean by the word, “let”? Who is it that can let, or not let, us use our inalienable rights?
I think Ms.Clinton had better do a little thinking about the meaning of “terrorize”!
To Sue:
Why? Then, is she has to think-someone might ask her about terrorists-RE: BENGHAZI AND ALSO HER STATEMENT (ON THE SAME SUBJECT A FEW DAYS AGO – ) reading 280 (I think that was the number that she mentioned) emails ‑asking for reinforcements, etc.
So, if she is asked to think on this issue, she might be asked to think on others.
52 million American households with guns. Not Americans. Households. Were they terrorized their neighbors, it would not need Hillary to be trying to get attention for it.
The job of the Supreme Court is to prevent people like Hillary from having their way.
Mrs. Clinton has made a number of statements on her book promo tour that has terrorized me. Almost everything she says has that “one world government” — all think alike message. And the very couching of her statement that those who think differently then she is a terrorist is among the most troubling. Yet thousands are buying her book and I believe that too many will vote for her as well. Yet no one can tell me 1 thing she did as secretary of state that was a home run. No one can tell me anything she did in Congress that indicated she was a leader.
Mrs Clinton wants a nation of followers, so she can keep them under her ether.
A minority of Americans that still think that the president is ok are terroroizing the rest of us.
Outstanding! Hillary Clinton’attempt to “terrorize” gun control supporters is where the word should be applied. Moreover she sails right past why gun possession is so important, apart from sport: SELF-DEFENSE!
We live in a dangerous world, which gets more so by the day. We have right and the obligation to defend our families.
Outstanding! Hillary Clinton’s attempt to “terrorize” gun control supporters is where the word should be applied. Moreover she sails right past why gun possession is so important, apart from sport: SELF-DEFENSE!
We live in a dangerous world, which gets more so by the day. We have right and the obligation to defend our families.
Seems to me, this is an acknowledgement from Clinton, that government uses its power to terrorize its citizens. And she’d like to brand her political opponents as willing to do the same.
I agree with her. Most of our representatives in the GOP also do it, with more spending, more taxes, and less freedom to keep the fruits of our labor.
Paul is right that holding a viewpoint doesn’t terrorize anyone. It’s government force (or criminal force) that terrorizes.