Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Clinton: Gun control opposition 'is nuts'

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


The very reason for the second amendment holds the answer to that question .


Then why limit that to guns

why not builds bombs. why not start buying chemical weapons. if you're genuine, why not do that. Why not stock up on rocket launchers, grenades etc.

can you imagine that, if people started creating and buying such things on the off chance a tyranical government comes around. Because let's be straight about this, if such a thing does happen you need military-grade stuff, right?

you see how preposterous you sound. People should no more have the right to 30 round mags than they should a rocket launcher. They're both excessive and unjustifiable.




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Did all of these people fall on their noggins? Any of them remember anything from the last century? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry dictator disarmed their population. Millions upon milllions snuffed out by their own governments. Most of us on here are well aware of that, but it seems our friends in Washington are absent minded to that very important period in history?

Talking about nuts? Maybe Bubba and his pals ought to look in the mirror at themself? We have a Constitution, and the Second Amendment is part of that. Moreover, it is one of the most important rights, because it is in the Bill of Rights. I guess the peons can have pitchforks, shovels, and slingshots. Oh wait, those are probably off limits as well, because they are blunt objects and have pointed ends. Where as, our benevolent protectors can have high powered rifles and maximum capacity magazines. As for the peons, just don't look at them funny or raise your voice! This is getting ridiculous!
edit on 9-1-2013 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


Nobody answered his question though. Why would you need a mag that holds 30 rounds?
That's a disturbing and misleading question. You must realize that motorcycle riders are killed much more frequently than auto drivers. Who really needs a motorcycle? Or who really needs alcohol? We like it, but do we need it? Science says no. Who needs a fast-food burger place? Who needs tobacco? Who needs a car that goes faster than 55 m.p.h.?

These are all major killers, why don't we ban them? Nobody really needs any of them.

We shouldn't have to prove a need in order to exercise a right.




It's not a disturbing or misleading question. What's disturbing and misleading is the capacity of gun-toting Americans to side-step common sense questions.

A motorcycle is not a weapon. If a person wants to risk their health and ride a motorcycle, that's up to them. If a person wants to drink their health away, that's up to them. People who eat fast-food, again, up to them. We don't ban them because there is no reason to ban them.

The fundamental point is that your right is inherently stupid. Which seems incomprehensible to you.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Nobody answered his question though. Why would you need a mag that holds 30 rounds?


Shall Not Be Infringed!




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 



Did all of these people fall on their noggins?


Dude.. the posted above you is named "GrandStrategy"

They aren't stupid, they are shills.

It's fairly obvious, all of them start making the exact same arguments at precisely the same time....

Like a HiveMind.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apollumi

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Nobody answered his question though. Why would you need a mag that holds 30 rounds?


Why do women want bigger boobs? Why do kids these days want the latest phones? I guarantee those things have caused more death by car wrecks than the guns and mass shootings have.

I'm a big believer in the right to bear arms and I know that unfortunately people run on emotion over facts. I don't own tons of assault weapons but I'm glad others do. I glad because tyranny is a afraid of what will happen when they push too hard. It's smart to be able to defend yourself. Like people, are nations and countries. What if all the sudden China was the only nation with weapons? How do you think that would turn out?? Tell me with a straight face they wouldn't go claiming land the very instance they knew. People, governments, religious groups, etc are no different. Once they know you can't defend yourself then you will discover you are up sheet creek without a paddle real quic


But your argument, like the exact same one before you, is stupid.

People get bigger boobs because they want to improve their looks. Kids want the latest phones because they get better access to the internet and bette rcontracts, and there's also an issue of vanity there too.

I will say to you like I said to the other 2nd amendment fanatic. If you're serious about defeating a tyrannical government, or about preventing one via arming up, then what the hell sense does it make to stop with guns.

If that is the issue why aren't you as insistent on Americans having the right to rocket launchers and other much more substantial weapons, attack helicopters, that sort of nonsense. That's what you'd need isn't it

it's a facade to say 30 shot clips are about dissuading tyranny. It's not that at all.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 



it's a facade to say 30 shot clips are about dissuading tyranny. It's not that at all.


Are you stating that tyrants are somehow impervious to bullets?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Nobody answered his question though. Why would you need a mag that holds 30 rounds?


To fire 30 shots without reloading.

edit on 9-1-2013 by sconner755 because: (no reason given)


But you don't need a weapon which fires 30 shots without reloading, no more than you need to own an mk19 grenade launcher!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I live in Texas and kill pigs on farm land. My load out is normally 2-30 round mags and 2-10 round mags. We hunt at night mostly with night vision and that is usually all I carry. Much easier than a box and reload of ammo. Google feral hogs, what they do, what they eat not to mention the damage they do to other wild life especially ground nesting birds and other critters they can catch.

youtu.be...


Killing hogs has gotten to be so problematic that helicopters Are used with AR-15s in various calibers and 30 and 40 round mags..
Depending on the time of year some hogs are skinned and either eaten or given to a food bank. During the summer they are so tick and flea infested they are usually left for the buzzards and to fertilize the fields.

For those who do not like to see animals killed I recommend you do not watch this video. It is but one of many on youtube
youtu.be...

People who grow up in cities and have never had to do anything but go to the store and buy their food seem to have a problem with what actually goes into getting the food to your store. Does not matter if meat or veggie some farmer had to plant protect and harvest so you could eat. You may not like it but that is the way it is.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 



it's a facade to say 30 shot clips are about dissuading tyranny. It's not that at all.


Are you stating that tyrants are somehow impervious to bullets?


to a degree yes i am, that's what i'm saying. You would need more hard hitting weaponry in a tyrannical scenario. therefore, shouldn't americans be able to own some of the weaponry I've just mentioned, to truly dissuade tyrants, and win a battle in the streets if necessary?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 



But you don't need a weapon which fires 30 shots without reloading


That's not your call, pal.

(Second Line)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Jakes51
 



Did all of these people fall on their noggins?


Dude.. the posted above you is named "GrandStrategy"

They aren't stupid, they are shills.

It's fairly obvious, all of them start making the exact same arguments at precisely the same time....

Like a HiveMind.


all of them? there is me in this thread, that's it. and it's 3:13 here so i can assure you my fellow shills are probably in bed sleeping



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 

Dear Tw0Sides,

I'm sorry that my answer did not satisfy you. Let me try again.

I need a 30 round magazine because that is the only way I can satisfy my desire to have a 30 round magazine.

The same is true for a motorcycle or fast car, my scotch and cigars, and my occasional stop at Burger King or Wendy's.

Without passing a Constitutional amendment, who are you, the government, or anyone else, to say that I can't have what I want if I can pay for it? I will listen to the Constitution or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, but no one else, and will object to any one who tries to tell me that my wants aren't acceptable.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


The very reason for the second amendment holds the answer to that question .


Then why limit that to guns

why not builds bombs. why not start buying chemical weapons. if you're genuine, why not do that. Why not stock up on rocket launchers, grenades etc.

can you imagine that, if people started creating and buying such things on the off chance a tyranical government comes around. Because let's be straight about this, if such a thing does happen you need military-grade stuff, right?

you see how preposterous you sound. People should no more have the right to 30 round mags than they should a rocket launcher. They're both excessive and unjustifiable.



Battlefield acquisition. Both sides WILL have military grade hardware at some point.

There is nothing unjustifiable in having a 30-round magazine.

Hey, why are there 20 cigarettes in a pack? Who needs 20 cigarettes at one time when smoking is the NUMBER ONE KILLER of people in this country? Why not ban 20-pack cigarettes and force manufacturers to sell them in packs of 10 or fewer? Maybe even 5? Because we all know that if we package cigarettes in smaller boxes, fewer people will die of cancer.

Get your head out of your a**.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 



all of them? there is me in this thread, that's it.


Are you assuming that this is the ONLY thread?

(second line)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 



But you don't need a weapon which fires 30 shots without reloading


That's not your call, pal.

(Second Line)


Okay, so an American starts buying mk19s, whose call is that. Are you happy for the government to regulate that or not?

it's hard to debate this with you running around the issue like a child



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!


PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.............


If members wish to discuss Bill Clinton's remarks...fine and good.

If members wish to discuss gun control in general or their personal beliefs about it...there are umpteen thread about it......



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Battlefield acquisition. Both sides WILL have military grade hardware at some point.

There is nothing unjustifiable in having a 30-round magazine.

Hey, why are there 20 cigarettes in a pack? Who needs 20 cigarettes at one time when smoking is the NUMBER ONE KILLER of people in this country? Why not ban 20-pack cigarettes and force manufacturers to sell them in packs of 10 or fewer? Maybe even 5? Because we all know that if we package cigarettes in smaller boxes, fewer people will die of cancer.

Get your head out of your a**.


That's not even an argument. You can't compare weaponry with tobacco, alcohol or bad food. You cannot massacre hordes of children with a pack of fries

please yankys, stop hiding. Do you or do you not think that american citizens should have a right to rocket launchers and attack helicopters. It's a simple question that several of you have ignored



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
There is some basis for succession should the constitution be abridged by the federal gov.
There is also sound basis for redress by the people, as their consent was not solicited.
The country has rules and laws which clearly state the obvious for those too dense to see for themselves.....
The founding fathers made it unequivocal as to how changes can be made......
Should the federal goverment go its own way on this....any confederation deal with the states is null and void.....
The can of crap they are opening could easily get stink all over them.....so i believe they are confident in this act.....
The more they enslave ,impoverish and brutalise the citzens ,just means that many more of us with next to nothing left to loose......
They could be cutting too deeply here.....................
Its a certainty that the power elite have escalated the struggle for domination.....
Are the citizens up to the task of restoring the rule of constitutional law?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 



Okay, so an American starts buying mk19s, whose call is that.


I'm sorry... I thought we were talking about 30 round clips...

You aren't *MOVING THE GOALPOST* are you?





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join