Makes sense why Clinton specifically mentioned silencers in that tweet

She specifically mentioned the upcoming legislation.

She's so good at putting politics aside

She was a politician. Do politicians ever put politics aside?

She's a retired politician, hopefully for good

She retired? God I hope not! She is pure gold for anti-Leftists. Wins news voters for her opposition every time she speaks.

Antifa and her do a pretty good job explaining the recent surge in alt-right membership.

'Alt-right' membership. I'm considered alt-right now just because I like facts and evidence and dislike criminals, when I'd always considered myself left leaning. It's ridiculous! All the lefties who thought that believing in fairness and justice and equality and truth meant they were leftists are now thoroughly confused at suddenly being in the same category as people like Antifa and Clinton. It's the old switcheroo, they hope that by getting people to align themselves with an ideology by baiting them with positive ideals and messages, that people will still cling to that 'tribe' even when the tribe suddenly goes mental and becomes all about shutting down free speech and laundering money for pedophile rings.

You just fucking nailed it, they are attempting to make us feel as isolated as possible so that we are only able to relate with what they feed us through media.

So divide-and-conquer politics, where black and white thinking is crucial and voting third party is akin to believing any of what is written on /r/conspiracy.

She's still campaigning on the clearance isle at Costco. Right next to the expired meats.

Oh that smell isn't the expired meat. Its her gaping, saggy, putrid wizard sleeve cunt

Her tweet literally said "We can and must put politics aside"

My point stands.

Put politics aside, and pick up gun politics!

Dont know why you're being downvoted. High profile politicians like her never put politics aside. She doesn't care about those people that died, only how it can further her cause

I can't believe these people who make a mass shooting into a gun control issue /s

Why would a mass shooting indicate a need for more gun control? Are we going to make all guns illegal? Make bump stocks illegal (people will still get them/make them/ figure out another solution)? Ban high capacity magazines (easily obtainable from other countries/black market)? What is the solution? There isn't one unless you ban all guns, and can you imagine what's going to happen if they did that? Massive rebellion and unrest. It would not end well at all

One mass shooting doesn't indicate a need. But there have been far more than one mass shooting.

Ok, but what specifically would more gun control solve?

There is no upcoming legislation. That was fake news. Seriously.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-02/house-poised-to-pass-law-easing-sale-of-gun-silencers-after-las-vegas-shooting

Putting aside any conspiracy, I'm ok with gun silencers being restricted. I see no purpose in them really.

Other than the obvious fact that they make shooting quieter? I mean that's pretty useful.

What purpose to most non-criminals have for a quiet boomstick?

For hunters who need a quick shot it can help hearing damage immensly without worrying about ear pro

That's a logical. But there are great options for hearing protection, including those hella tight muffs that can enhance your hearing and then silence sounds at the press of a button. It's pretty tough to use earmuffs criminally, unless you're under the jurisdiction of the fashion police.

Also a few of my friends have them set on there hd guns. In the case they ever have to use them in a hd scenerio their family and own hearing wont get permanent damage.

I hunt, and yes one 30-06 round will have your ears ringing but you're only taking one or 2 shots like that a season, so, meh.

I guess its all matter of opinion. Me and you arnt going to descide anything haha. I personally have no problem with it being as easy to get as a scope or attachment.

Hey, if suppressors were made legal id buy one on my way home from work.

I mean they are legal i just dont wanna pay that tax stamp! You and me both!!

I live in Canada, they're not legal :(

I stand corrected!!

If for some reason they were made legal, they'd likely be restricted to ranges only and cost a thousand bucks.

Thats pretty lame.. do you have to have your firearms stored in Canada like they do in England or do they let you have a nightstand home defence gun??

I keep all my guns in a gun safe, if you wish to keep them out they need to be either locked or inoperable

Apreicate the insight!

Sure, here are some scenarios:

• I don't feel like making a bunch of noise while shooting
• I don't want to upset nearby wildlife or livestock
• It's early in the morning and I don't want to bother the neighbors
• I don't want to advertise to thieves that I might have guns stored on my property

I mean, why would non-criminals have a use for anything quiet?

Why are you shooting on your property in the early morning if you might upset your neighbors? You're not a very good neighbor. A silencers doesn't change that, just covers it up.

It's his property and he can do what he wants. In this scenario, he's taking steps to mitigate the potential nuisance to neighbors, which he would not be obligated to do. That sounds rather considerate to me.

Fuck off and stop trying to control everyone’s lives. 99% of this fucking gun crime you leftist complain about happens in shitty ghettos and usually only impacts people who are involved in gun crime themselves.

Stop fucking pretending that we have an epidemic of everyday citizens walking around murdering each other.

By the way, most of these ghettos are in cities with very strict gun laws too.

You don't seem like you're a very good neighbor, either.

A lot of the biggest mass shootings did not happen in ghettos though. Nobody wants to take yurrr gunz. What we want is restrictions. Also, WE DO have an epidemic of everyday citizens walking around murdering each other. Where the fuck you been?

We do have an epidemic. 50 or 60 people are killed by gun crime in Chicago every single month. Look at what their gun laws prevented! So many law abiding citizens can't be armed but criminals still are!

I feel gun laws are easier to scoot around when you can buy guns in one area and use them in another. This needs to be a 100% thing but that's very doubtful.

So you're saying that criminals go around the law to break the law? Cause thats what happens when guns are restricted. Gun control will never work.

Australia seems to be doing decent with gun control.

I didn't know Australia was America. This country was founded by fighting back against a tyrannical government. The founding fathers wrote the second amendment to make sure we could do it again if the need arises. We will never surrender our guns and I'm glad that we won't. I'll enjoy being a responsible gun owner because that is a right that I was born with. And I plan for my children and their children to be born with that right to.

Nobody wants to take away your right to own a gun... I said r e s t r i c t e d. A mentally sound person has the right to feel safe and protect themself. A mentally unstable person should NOT have the right to own a gun. Period. Point blank. No idea why this is so hard to understand. Anyway, you don't have to worry about your guns being taken away. This government thrives on this shit.

And myself and many gun owners have zero problems with better background checks. Yet that's always tagged along with the idea of a national registry.

liberals have much more restrictive opinions on gun control than leftists. the further you stray either direction from liberalism, the more you want to protect yourself instead of sit back and let the government "protect" you.

And you are the condescending neighbor we all hope we never have.

I have a guy 3 "doors" (read about a half mile) down and he shoots off a cannon now and then. Sometimes that's in the morning. Doesn't make him a bad neighbor, we live in the country and we expect things like that. Stay in your city please, we don't want you here.

What you're saying is:

It doesn't upset his neighbors, therefore he /does not/ need a suppressor on his cannon. Gunshots coming from a neighbors home are not all that upsetting or annoying and therefore suppressors are not needed in this context.

I don't know if y'all remember the subject of the thread but it's about why we need suppressors.

No, what I'm saying is that shooting in the morning doesn't make you a bad neighbor like you claimed. Regardless of the topic you replied to, I replied to your reply. You claim it's a bad neighbor who shoots his gun in the morning, I claim that you're a city dweller with no concept of country life if you dare to make such a claim.

To protect your own ears from getting raped as you shoot? A suppressor hardly makes a gun "quiet".

I believe, relatively speaking, that's exactly what a suppressor does.

Still not even quiet enough to fire without additional ear protection.

I dunno man, I haven't worn ear protection while shooting since I was in middle school. Granted I never shoot indoors or around things that reflect sounds, but I imagine most experienced shooters would be comfortable firing a suppressed firearm as long as they aren't surrounded by concrete walls.

Say hello to tinnitus and sleeping with a fan on for the rest of your life. I work at a sporting clays course and always wear protection and I still have developed tinnitus. Your ears are extremely sensitive and that shit will sneak up on you.

Yes it is, as long as you're not indoors.

You can fire certain calibers without ear pro, especially with subsonic ammo. .45 is subsonic already, but I have fired weapons with suppressors and subsonic ammo and wore no ear pro.

You clearly have no clue what a suppressor actually does.

Even without any knowlege of a suppresor's mechanism of action, it's common knowledge that it makes the sound of the shot less loud. That's an irrefutable and easily measurable result of using a properly made suppressor. Does it make a barely audible "pew" sound like in a video game? Hell naw. But this is real life and I feel like you know that I know that.

Silencers don't make guns quiet, still loud asf

1: A primary purpose of a suppressor is to lower the volume of the report. I don't think that my use of the word "quiet" in this context can easily be construed to mean like a whisper. We're talking about firearms here, I literally used the term "boomstick" and I'm very aware that they aren't quiet. 2: If suppressors are so unsuccessful in quieting the report from a gun, as everyone seems to want to convince me, why tf do we even produce them?

I believe it's mainly for snipers tbh.

A silencer makes it a lot harder to pinpoint exactly where said shot came from, which could save his life.

Although I completely get what your saying

I once read that because of how a suppresor actually dampens the report it actually makes it less likely to echo. But I'm not a physicist and I also don't know where I read that.

See this is what I like. Actual discussion, yeah i read something similar I believe it was a 'gun myths you believe thanks to movies' or something.

Pretty sure it also removes/reduces muzzle flash.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't live in the country.

Isn't the easiest way to solve this problem to just, i'unno, not shoot boomsticks for no reason too close to homes? I mean there's a whole host of reasons why that's a good idea.

Also I have lived in the country, but not like boondock country. Just boring midwest farmland. The kind of country where you wouldn't hear your neighbor shooting his gun in his backyard unless the wind was right anyway.

We should remove all mufflers from cars. for sure

I see no purpose for mufflers either.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-spread-myth-that-congress-is-voting-this-week-to-lift-restrictions-on-gun-suppressors/article/2636299

It seems like the article you posted has an issue with the October 2nd date. I'm sure some outlets have incorrectly listed that as the date. That said, there is a bill that went through a House committee just a few weeks ago - September 12th. They're setting up the House vote. It's just a matter of time. To say that it could happen as early as this week isn't the massive stretch you're making it out to be. It's certainly not fake news.

Your article is false.

"House to Vote on Gun Silencer Legislation This Week"

No, they will not vote on any such bill this week.

In the realm of misleading headlines, saying something is happening this week, when it could actually happen next week is hardly worth note.

It does, and her tweet was creepy as all hell, but if silencers were the motive, wouldn't it have made more sense to actually use silencers in the event?

Silencers don't really work well on high powered automatic weapons.

Oh, exactly, that's kinda what I'm getting at.

Suppressors* are still loud as fuck on any gun btw

Word. Seems like most people learned about guns from 007 movies

Pshoo!

I mean if you put a legit ass suppressor on a little .22 pistol or rifle, it would probably sound like that. But that's it. Unless your suppressor was like 6 inches in diameter and two feet long

They work just fine. She's just too stupid to know that "silencers" don't make a gun silent. Not even close. Quieter yes, but far from silent. She probably got most of her gun knowledge from movies.

There are limits as to how obvious they want to be. One of his 23 guns probably has a silencer on it))

Why has this point not been brought up more?

23 guns, wtf. Even shtf preppers wouldn't bring 23 guns. 4 rifles and 2 pistols max. Primary battle rifle and backup, Primary scope weapon/backup, and primary sidearm/backup = 6.

23 guns make zero sense unless there was more than 1 shooter, or it was initially an arms deal turned false flag.

Plus, with as much preparation that was put into this, (cameras in hallways, etc) why wouldn't the guy have brought a few 2x4's and bolted the door in a zombie apocalypse fashion, making it difficult for an entry team.

Automatic guns overheat pretty quickly, especially light rifles like an AR. And shooting with a bump stock is almost guaranteed to cause a lot of malfunctions like gnarly double feeds and bolt overrides due to the inconsistent rate of fire.

I'm aware of heat build-up in ar-15, though quite a bit depends on your barrel profile. I've never shot a bumpfire or seen/heard of misfires with them, so I'll look into that. I would think that practicing how to clear malfunctions would be a priority and once easily learned quicker than changing rifles unless you have a catastrophic failure , such as the extractor ripping off the casing.

The hotter a gun gets, the worse the malfunctions get. I've seen some crazy shit dude

Suppose it depends on the quality of the build.

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

Ive shot some the of the highest quality military weapons we have. My statement remains true for all of them

I'm only speaking about Ar-15's and If you have a quality bcg and barrel(socom or heavy) and you clean and lube them with slip2000- ewl or another machine gun lube. I don't doubt you though. Heat kills everything, engines, computes, etc..

Also, aren't a lot of the military weapons already heavily used? How many new, well maintained weapons have you had go sideways? I have no military experience, so I'm genuinely curious

Its not that the gun is broken or can't be used anymore. They just overheat and shit starts going wrong. A lot of it is caused by the metal expanding as it heats up, and also the changes to the metal's physical properties due to heat.

You have to realize these guys are playing the long game. They can afford to wait and slowly whittle away at gun rights until the complete destruction of the 2nd amendment. What they CANNOT allow is a repeal of any of their laws; if things start going in the opposite direction they will lose their inevitable creep towards tyranny.

Oh, I understand. I believe they are trying to guilt us and shame us into voluntarily giving up our 2nd. They can't afford the war that would come with just taking them. They need us running the machine.

Except that gun owners already suspect that this is their plan so it won't work

I dunno. Just yesterday one of the country music performers disavowed his previous staunch support for the 2nd amendment.

Okay, but thats one person. You think Cletus from Alabama is going to do that? Fuck no

Are you saying that country music performers don't have an influence on their fans?

That was the dumbest thing I've heard all day. I'm not even going to bother addressing what you just said

They aren't trying to take away guns. They know that's never been possible. Without sending the military into combat against the citizens to take weapons away, there will always be guns on the market in the US.

No, this has always been about giving a handout to the gun manufacturers. Guess what happens every single time they start talking about gun legislation. People go buy guns. Every mass shooting - people go buy guns. These are the same manufacturers that are making the military's weapons. Why the hell does everyone seem to be in the mind set that they want to hurt these companies that are giving them kickbacks?

I've been starting to agree with this more and more lately. Why would they want to hurt Colt's, Daniel Defense's etc civilian arms sales when they buy thousands of military weapons from them every year?

She is such a god awful person.

For those interested in the tweet: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/914853465926639618

People are tearing her apart in the comments its funny

Because everyone wants her gone. If I could vote to send her to the moon, I'd do so and with much more enthusiasm than when I reluctantly voted for her last year (Supreme Court).

DON'T FORGET FORT LAUDERDALE!!!!

IN DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ DISTRICT NO LESS!!!!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-fort-lauderdale-airport-security-20170107-story.html

All her talk about silencers and from what I've seen no silencers were found.

All targeted very specific populations too.

Pulse- latinos and gays. Tend to be more liberal?

Congress- the ones voting.

Country Music Festival- country music fans are usually a little more conservative and pro gun. NRA loving people.

They target liberal gays and NRA members? Why not just shoot everyone indiscriminately (because these aren't conspiracy theories, they are the results of too many guns).

What better way to get every minority (even the NRA) to accept more gun laws?

Why are you here then?

I’m not allowed to point out a hole in your logic without being told to get out?

It was a simple question - if they are targeting specific groups, why hit both sides (liberals and NRA members)? It doesn’t make sense. If everyone is a target then your theory doesn’t hold up because there’s no reason to target specifics groups, like you suggested.

People tend to ralley together when they feel "their kind" has been specifically targeted.

Sounds like they are trying to trigger a war. Make everyone feels threatened.

A large group of people in the same area are usually there for a similar reason. They're specific groups because they were there for a specific thing.

Sometimes but not always, a mall for example would have a diverse group, or at a sporting event, there would be young, old, liberals and democrats. Country music is pretty cutlturally specific though.

Right. And then someone targeted them and shot at them.

Great find OP. Most will see this as fuel for rhetoric centered around the need for mental health screenings, stricter gun laws, etc. but the aware will see these as truly artificial events propagated by the very powers the rest of society blindly believe & idolize.

Holy shit you are grasping at straws.

Depends on what your assumptions are, if you're talking about literally being accurate....I mean yes? All you're doing is stating things that happened before a certain date, you can do that with ANYTHING. But if your assumptions are hinting at some foul play, I'm going to need a little more evidence than coincidences.

I think it's more likely that when you live in the US (a complete outlier for gun deaths for developed nations) it is pretty common for there to be some form of mass shooting within a week of relevant legislation.

It's correlation, sure.

Good work OP, that is very odd timing for all 4 events.

Maybe, if gun control legislation is only talked about rarely. You'd have to actually take into account every firearm related legislation they talk about and see if the pattern fits to them all. If they've discussed gun laws two hundred times in a year, three shootings occurring near those times wouldn't be strange but expected.

it seems you confused a vote with someone publicly talking about the issue.

This is happenstance. Both of the things you're correllating -- shootings, and votes or hearings about gun control at the state and national level -- happen regularly in the United States. Wikipedia lists 14 mass shootings in the United States in 2017 so far, which is a rate of about one mass shooting every three weeks.

Eh....those are 3+ people, many of which are known victims. Random, senseless violence against larger groups is much more rare.

Well, the Congressional Baseball shooting had 0 fatalities, and the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting had 5.

Setting that aside, though, the other problem is that there are plenty of hearings and votes about gun control. It's a really broad category; OP includes bills both for enacting and easing restrictions, bills in the Senate and the House...

Take a look at OP's link to the Florida bill about loosening restrictions on concealed carry in airports. It might seem like an amazing coincidence that a shooting would happen in an airport within a week before that bill was put before subcommittees, until you realize that the bill is associated with three other significant dates (its initial filing, its first reading in the House, and its eventual death in subcommittee). So that's four out of 52 weeks, or a 1:13 shot that an aiport shooting in Florida would happen within one week of a significant date of this specific bill.

But wait, there's more! That bill links to four "related bills" all of which attempt to loosen restrictions on concealed carry in airports. Those add about seven unique dates, covering a total of about 11 out of 52 weeks, or more than 1/5th of the year. The Fort Lauderdale airport shooter could have committed his crime on any date in January or February of 2017 and been within a week of one of those dates. And if he wouldn't have had to shoot up an aiport, either; at least one of those bills also attempts to loosen restrictions on concealed carry in countrooms, schools, and a whole bunch of other public spaces.

So you're admitting it's correlated, but arguing that it's not at all connected. That's some compartmentalization skill you got there.

Eh, I'm not sure that I'm admitting they're correlated. The dates the OP gave are accurate, but I'm arguing that what looks like correlation of the dates can be manipulating by selecting specific mass shootings and government actions out of a large available pool.

Certainly all of those shootings happened on specific celebrities' birthdays, for example. But there's a celebrity birthday for every day of the year, so that really means nothigng at all.

Lolz what. Most of these bills you quote and trying to relax regulations. So the obvious answer is to stage a mass shooting in order to gain support to relax regulations? Uh, sure pal.

I don't think that motivation scans.

For example, the vote you link to after the Pulse shooting was an attempt to enact gun control measures, and it failed.

If you were a conspirator who organized a mass shooting that resulted in the deaths of 49 people -- thus, at the very least, putting you at extreme risk if you were uncovered -- and it didn't even achieve your desired outcome, would you then do the whole thing again, staging a mass shooting that results in the deaths of even more people, in the hopes of restricting access to silencers, which weren't even using in the shooting you planned? Wouldn't it be much, much safer and more efficient to just buy off politicians?

You can’t talk sense into these people. They think sandy hook was a false flag and if sandy hook didn’t get anything to happen, nothing will. Like you said, who would keep trying this same plan over and over expecting it to work? That’s something a moron would think.

Ah man, I love it. You just shift the goalposts in whatever direction you need to make it meet your fucked up twisted paranoid fantasies.

Interesting find! Is there a way to see how many gun regulation votes occur yearly to see if they literally occur with just when gun votes are coming. Or do gun votes happen pretty often?

so these people who stage mass shootings by setting someone up, or using agents and escaping or whatever, they must have a lot of resources right?

if they want to enact gun control why dont they just outbid the lobbyists of the NRA and gun industry? its not like one position or the other has overwhelming public support

They need public outrage to make civilians want stronger gun laws but from what I've seen, it makes folks want to protect themselves even more.

so why do they keep doing it

Not enough people on board?

Marxist want to eliminate conservative ideology so that can disarm them and create less resistance for the next chapter of the USSA. United Socialist State of America maybe?

Or the real idea is to arm everyone, then instigate MASSIVE PANIC and suddenly population has solved itself.

That'll be so messy though

It's win-win, one just has more cleanup.

And who will work their factories and fight their wars when we're all dead?

Wouldn't work. Many people have or would hide guns and come out on top leaving the surviving population a hardened resistance.

A reduced, hardened resistance might be easier to handle with other methods than a full force bewildered herd.

I agree with your logic implied by your example.

However(Jokingly), personally I'd prefer 1 billion chickens, I could just get in my car and run them over or leave. Don't know what the fuck I'd do against even 1 t-rex, lol

They can't push laws without a hell of a lot of pushback. The way to enact change is by getting the masses to ACCEPT the change. You basically make them want it.

they passed legislation enabling companies to buy and sell our personal info, something nobody wanted. they dont care what we think

Well these are the worst conspiracies ever, considering they did nothing to actually change any legislation.

Also, what about all of the mass shootings that don't happen near a vote?

Wow. Good research.

I'm surprised nobody has asked already, but how frequently does the senate conduct votes on gun-control legislation? We need a prior distribution to make sense of this data.

If these were the only votes (on gun-control) they have done all year then your observation is statistically significant, but if they have votes every other week then it is just noise.

Not just Senate votes -- OP is including hearings, votes, and subcommittee reviews in the Senate, the House, and state legislatures.

For tromp to actually sign a piece of legislation that had to do with gun regulation, it would be political suicide.

I'll just leave this here...

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

It's all connected through the language of gematria. So is Tom Petty's death and this recent false flag attack (yes it actually happened and people died 😥) in Las Vegas. You will even see connections to Chester Benningtons death in this language. We live in a world where our media, sports leagues, politicians, president, etc etc. are all own by these rich and powerful religious psychopaths.

These events were planed in a digital manner in advance, and very likely instructions were disseminated prior with encrypted messaging apps. This planning/inspiration/instruction took place on a server where creative writers and cabals operated. This has not come out due to the highly sensitive information discussed on these servers and likely confluence of intelligence/criminal syndicates/terrorists/law enforcement/media etc... that operate(d) on places like this.

Right, that is definitely "proof" of a conspiracy. Give me a break, nutjob.

Yea? And you’re point?

Yeah these events are all connected. Even aside from that. But that's good evidence.

Okay, well let's do the stats on this and see if there's anything here. We need a list of all shootings and all gun legislation votes, let's say over the past 10-15 years. If someone gets the data I'll run the analysis.

It's his property and he can do what he wants. In this scenario, he's taking steps to mitigate the potential nuisance to neighbors, which he would not be obligated to do. That sounds rather considerate to me.

Fuck off and stop trying to control everyone’s lives. 99% of this fucking gun crime you leftist complain about happens in shitty ghettos and usually only impacts people who are involved in gun crime themselves.

Stop fucking pretending that we have an epidemic of everyday citizens walking around murdering each other.

By the way, most of these ghettos are in cities with very strict gun laws too.

And you are the condescending neighbor we all hope we never have.

I have a guy 3 "doors" (read about a half mile) down and he shoots off a cannon now and then. Sometimes that's in the morning. Doesn't make him a bad neighbor, we live in the country and we expect things like that. Stay in your city please, we don't want you here.

I keep all my guns in a gun safe, if you wish to keep them out they need to be either locked or inoperable

I believe it's mainly for snipers tbh.

A silencer makes it a lot harder to pinpoint exactly where said shot came from, which could save his life.

Although I completely get what your saying

The hotter a gun gets, the worse the malfunctions get. I've seen some crazy shit dude