It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VICIOUS: Hillary Clinton BLAMES GOP Voters for Vegas Rampage

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

More importantly asking a question about whether someone knows about how many democrats kill with guns is not calling democrats complicit in the gun epidemic. Apparently, though, the more challenged amongst us see irony.

edit on 3/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It's rich in irony actually.

You blame gun murders in cities on Democrats then turn around and complain about someone else blaming the opposing political party for gun murders.

Tell me how that isn't ironic.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Go back and read.

Clearly democrats are part of the issue, unless it's exclusively all those GOP voters in south side of Chicago shooting the sh** out of each other.

Now if you can point out where I said anywhere this is solely a democrat issue you have some irony. If not, you have comprehension difficulties, which is more likely given your posting history.


edit on 3/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


They blame the NRA for mass shootings, but non-NRA Democrats kill way more people in one-on-one shootings every WEEK, than all the so-called "NRA Induced" mass shootings combined, each year.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Do cite the statistics that show the vast majority of gun violence is committed by Democrats. Just because a city has a Democratic mayor doesn't automatically mean everyone in the city is also Democrat.

Please, prove that you're right. I will gladly admit it if you do.
edit on 10/3/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: six67seven



If have to ask yourself: A. do you agree there is a "gun epidemic"?


In regards to the GOP, the NRA and how the culture has permeated the US culture in general?

Yes.

And I'm a pro-2nd advocate. Just for reference.



If yes, then: B. would the Vegas massacre be a result of the "gun epidemic"?


I don't know. Too early to say anything definitively.



If you agree A & B are both true, there is a "gun epidemic" AND Vegas is a result of that epidemic, then you would have to say (if, like Hillary Clinton agreed, the gun owners and makers are complicit in the "gun epidemic") that those owners and makers are also complicit in the results of said epidemic.


It's absurd to posit that other gun owners are complicit in this act and she did not suggest anything of the sort.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well you seem to have a hard time actually saying that Republicans commit gun violence as well. Maybe that's where the mix-up is happening.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

No you have it wrong. It's those nasty GOP voters and NRA members in the south side of Chicago doing all the shooting. They ruin it for the democrats, who would never do such a thing. Same in all cities. If the NRA and the GOP was gone it would all end. No more killing.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Somebody should ask Hillary if she blames the cigar.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Does it need to be said that republicans do too?
Jeez, the whole point is that putting it all on one political party, which is what the OP is about, is a nonsense.
You really do have comprehension issues.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: introvert

Taking advantage of Hillary taking advantage of the situation. In fact I've seen numerous posters on here blame it on Progressivism.

Both sides are guilty of politicizing this tragedy in my opinion, trying to put blame on just one side is disingenuous.

It's not about which side is guilty, though they're doing a good job of making people believe that is the solution.


I agree.

This event should not be used in any fashion to push a particular agenda.

But some on both "sides" will.

Poor form, regardless.


In your first post you specifically call out the NRA and Republicans.

I guess even you aren't above it?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I wouldn't know what Hillary is up to except for your diligence, so thanks.

She's harmless as a private citizen. We all have opinions about what to do about mass murderers. No worries, the Republicans won't do anything and they are in charge of Congress.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: introvert

Taking advantage of Hillary taking advantage of the situation. In fact I've seen numerous posters on here blame it on Progressivism.

Both sides are guilty of politicizing this tragedy in my opinion, trying to put blame on just one side is disingenuous.

It's not about which side is guilty, though they're doing a good job of making people believe that is the solution.


I agree.

This event should not be used in any fashion to push a particular agenda.

But some on both "sides" will.

Poor form, regardless.


In your first post you specifically call out the NRA and Republicans.

I guess even you aren't above it?


Did I push any particular agenda with my post?

I simply said they are "complicit" in pushing the gun culture in this country and that has nothing to do with the events that took place.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I guess I'm just used to everything being blamed on leftists. Excuse me for using the usual posting habits of certain members as context.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I am starting to like cats more than Hillary Clinton.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Sorry, when I used "you" in my post, it was in general, not specific.

But I appreciate the candor.

I'm not pointing the finger, but I understand it happes a lot on ATS and see how it can be confusing.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I know you are well aware that Hillary is fundraising like crazy right?

Harmless hardly.

Very dangerous yes.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

I do not agree with her stance on firearms completely, but in this case she is correct.

The NRA and the Republican party are complicit with the gun "epidemic" in this country. She was not asked, nor did she say they were complicit with the events that took place in Vegas.

Another junk thread trying to take advantage of a completely horrible event in order to push a political agenda. No different than those that would use this tragedy to push gun control agendas.



So by your own standards, everyone who is in favor of allowing immigration of people from islamist problem countries without more extensive vetting is complicit in every terror act commited by these immigrants/refugees including yourself?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


So do you believe the makers of the bump stock should be held liable for someone using it on a crowd of people?


Hmmmm... generally speaking, I don't hold gun manufacturers or sellers responsible for what people do with guns ethically, and legally, they're protected from liability anyway, by the PLCAA.

As a human being, I think that a person who sells a nutjob a gun, knowing that person is unstable, is a piece of s#. The issue of course is how you can prove what a person knew about another person? That makes it impractical from the jump unless you could demonstrate gross negligence like the buyer saying, "how many people could I take out with this if I just sprayed a crowd?" before buying a gun, a bunch of ammo and walking down the street and massacring a bunch of people.

Under all but a very small number of scenarios, I don't see how a gun seller could be at all responsible but in the few that I could imagine, I do think that the PLCAA could be viewed as restricting a victim's right to seek redress in a civil court.

As a side note, it just occurred to me how strange it is that conservatives will argue that selling a cake that could be used in a same sex marriage is "endorsement" of the marriage but they don't want people who sell firearms to be open to assuming any sort of responsibility over what a person does with a firearm they sell.

As to the bump stock — I honestly hadn't given it much thought. I didn't even know there was such a thing until a day or two ago.

I can tell you what I believe might be the argument if a suit is brought. It would be that the bump stock is essentially a way to allow a gun owner to circumvent legal restrictions intended to prevent the weapon from being used in a mass casualty crime.

In that way, it could be thought of as a way of bypassing a legally mandated safety feature. Short of the manufacturer marketing it specifically for the purposes of mass murder though, which I'm guessing we can assume they did not, I don't think they should be held liable.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Fair enough.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join