Clear Channel Not Playing "Come and Take It" Commercial, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:08 PM by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by xedocodex

So guns only endangers the person you are intending to shoot? Tell that to the many people who have been shot by people aiming for someone else.

Yeah tell that to the victims of the police and the US federal government you know they have more blood on there hands that any gun owner in this country.

I am no statitician, but perhaps if the police and military are involved in more shootings than the average gun owner, it is because thier occupation involves putting themselves in harms way? It's thier actual occupation.

That said I can scrounge up stats on "accidental shootings" between police and the average untrained gun owner if you like? But you might not like it...

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".

How the ad simply said come and take it said nothing of the current potus.

Not sure if your pc or phone is video equipped, but the presidents image was featured prominently.

edit on 12-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:13 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Hefficide

the Mayberry ideal ??
i sure hope not

... talk about fantasyland.

things are as they are because we allowed it ... just like any good parent, perhaps we should revoke said permission ?

boycotting CCC is next to impossible as they have tooooo big a bite of the industry as a whole. the best anyone can do is to boycott their advertisers/income source.

no, before CCC, we had those choices ... not any more.

i'm with ya on the 'free market' concept But, CCC is no such participant.
airwaves are FREE ... when did we forget that ?

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:13 PM by neo96

reply to post by Indigo5

I am no statitician, but perhaps if the police and military are involved in more shootings than the average gun owner, it is because thier occupation involves putting themselves in harms way? It's thier actual occupation.

California police shootings current events ,Gun running across the southern border that has killed over 50,000 Mexican nationals. on the military side Libya,Yemen,Somalia,Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan to name a few. Last time I checks the average gun owners isn't going around the globe killing people.

That said I can scrounge up stats on "accidental shootings" between police and the average untrained gun owner if you like? But you might not like it...

I can scrounged up the Iraq death toll and drone attacks but someone might not like it.

Not sure if your pc or phone is video equipped, but the presidents image was featured prominently.

What did they ad say?

Come and take it.

Did it say they are going to washington and get shot by DC swat,dhs,FBi and every other armed alphabet agency the government has?

Nope.

edit on 12-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:15 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Indigo5

really ???
you post someone else's interpretation of what you failed to review ??
typical ... hey, believe what you will, i've read it.

edit on 12-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:23 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by 200Plus

It's going to be interesting to see how the politicians spin this when the blood starts flowing.

Blood start flowing how?

Let's say that legislation is passed that now makes it illegal to own a certain type of gun. So the police come to confiscate the gun...and the person starts shooting at the police, the police respond and kill the person.

Who's at fault? The Police officers enforcing the law...or the idiot who is shooting at the police for enforcing the law?

Public support will be behind the police.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:38 PM by 200Plus

reply to post by xedocodex

So you support the Kent State shootings as well then?

And the drone war (legal)
the occupation of Iraq (legal)
the occupation of Afghanistan (legal)

Not saying you do, but I hate when people pick which legal acts are right and which are not.

Is a law just if it is morally wrong?

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 01:44 PM by xedocodex

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by xedocodex

So you support the Kent State shootings as well then?

What does the National Guard shooting unarmed students have to do with the example I posted?

And the drone war (legal)
the occupation of Iraq (legal)
the occupation of Afghanistan (legal)

No, I don't support any of those...but that doesn't give me the right to start shooting people over it.

You don't seem to get the difference between voicing your opinion against laws/actions that you don't agree with and starting to shoot people because you don't agree with them.

Not saying you do, but I hate when people pick which legal acts are right and which are not.

Is a law just if it is morally wrong?

The law of the land is law...if you disagree with it, fine...great...protest...work to get the law changed...but that doesn't give you the right to ignore or disobey that law. And it definitely doesn't give you the right to start shooting people who are enforcing the law.

It is frightening that you think if you don't agree with something, then you must start shooting people over it.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:19 PM by Indigo5

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5

really ???
you post someone else's interpretation of what you failed to review ??
typical ... hey, believe what you will, i've read it.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

Yes...I trust the dozens of independant researchers and fact checkers that have each thoroughly researched the issue over the idealogically addled opinion of an anonymous ATS poster.

Your claim is known bunk...agendized propaganda...BS

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:21 PM by 200Plus

reply to post by xedocodex

When did I ever say to shoot anyone?

You plainly said that as long as its a law the cops would be right in shooting people.

I NEVER said anything about shooting people. I just know where this is going to lead.

Kent State, drones, occupations = legal killings by those in power.

I find your views hard to fathom.

Citizens should lose the right to self defense because the people in power say so?

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:30 PM by Indigo5

Originally posted by OneisOne
reply to post by Indigo5

While everything you posted is true, you missed why this is being used as part of the commercial.

That little battle kicked off what would become the Texas Revolution, a war of independence which resulted in the Republic of Texas.

I guess that it is just suprising to see the gun lobby cite Mexican history as an example of appropriate gun control. Cuz the city was Mexican, got it's cannon from the Mexican Government...and the "authority" that tried to take the cannon back was the Mexican Government.

Or are you saying that Texas will cede from the United States? Is that the moral of the story? If they would like a gun policy more akin to Mexico's they can strike a deal with the Mexican government...I think you might be suprised by how many other members of the union might be just fine with Texas returning to Mexico or an independant territory...Texas could enjoy it's 1200 mile border with the cartel infested Mexico all by thier lonesome. Texas has guns though!

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:35 PM by SubTruth

Originally posted by xedocodex
Does that video actually claim that gun rights come from God????

First off, it's a horrible video...I have no video experience and I think I could make a better one. Second, it is a borderline threat to the President. Third, Clear Channel is a private company, they can do whatever they want.

Freedom can not be taken away or given to you. You are born with it......But you must choose what to do with it. Progressives have a hard time understanding personal freedom and liberty.

edit on 12-2-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:36 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
How the ad simply said come and take it said nothing of the current potus.

The VERY first words of the ad are "Mr. President" with a picture of Obama. This ad is ADDRESSED to the president and congress. Did you watch it?

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:52 PM by OneisOne

Originally posted by Indigo5

I guess that it is just suprising to see the gun lobby cite Mexican history as an example of appropriate gun control. Cuz the city was Mexican, got it's cannon from the Mexican Government...and the "authority" that tried to take the cannon back was the Mexican Government.

But it is also as much as USA history as the Battle of Lexington. Same concept. When someone refers to the Battle of Lexington do you get all riled up about it being British History?

As for the stuff about Texas becoming part of Mexico again, ehh. That would be like the Eastern Coast of the country seceding just to return to British rule.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 02:59 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

Yeah, that song doesn't promote the stereotype of fat hillbillies with guns or anything.

Sounds like a freakin' Hamm's beer commercial.

Aside from the terrible song, the message is just straight up dangerous bravado. The producers of that commercial, the writer of that song, and the makers of these guns... they are all going to be hiding behind private guards the day "they come fer yer guns".

They are simply cashing in on the gullibility of bored laborers who want a little Red Dawn fantasies in their lives. Those are the people this hurts. To me this is no different that Hip Hop artists telling young black youth to attain bitches, hoes, gats, and all that crap. It's just the rich telling the poor to kill each other.

Again thank you for your support and deep understanding of the second amendment.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 03:01 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
How the ad simply said come and take it said nothing of the current potus.

The VERY first words of the ad are "Mr. President" with a picture of Obama. This ad is ADDRESSED to the president and congress. Did you watch it?

Well POTUS is a big boy....he certainly wouldnt take this personal.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 03:04 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by xedocodex
The law of the land is law...if you disagree with it, fine...great...protest...work to get the law changed...but that doesn't give you the right to ignore or disobey that law. And it definitely doesn't give you the right to start shooting people who are enforcing the law.

It is frightening that you think if you don't agree with something, then you must start shooting people over it.

Again as you have pointed out.....the law of the land is law......thus the 2nd amendment and it "shall not be infringed".

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 03:10 PM by milkyway12

Best commercial ever. I'd just take the picture of Obama out. The government needs to know the American people are a threat to national security if they try to remove or ignore our constitutional rights, especially the 2nd amendment. If you try to take my guns unconstitutionally, I'm going to try and kill the people who show up at my more door step to confiscate them.

If the warning to get off my property doesn't work.

edit on 12-2-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 03:49 PM by neo96

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The VERY first words of the ad are "Mr. President" with a picture of Obama. This ad is ADDRESSED to the president and congress. Did you watch it?

Come and take it Mr president and congress and they all hide behind people with guns.

So where was the threat?

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 04:13 PM by xedocodex

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by xedocodex

When did I ever say to shoot anyone?

Umm....remember when you said this:

"There are people that will fight and die for their beliefs.

It's going to be interesting to see how the politicians spin this when the blood starts flowing. "

You plainly said that as long as its a law the cops would be right in shooting people.

If they follow your advice and fight and die for their beliefs...then yes I would support the police in defending themselves if they are being fired upon by some crazy nut that thinks their "beliefs" superseced law.

I NEVER said anything about shooting people. I just know where this is going to lead.

Yeah, you kind of did.

Kent State, drones, occupations = legal killings by those in power.

I find your views hard to fathom.

Citizens should lose the right to self defense because the people in power say so?

Citizens should follow the law and if they don't like the law to peacfully use the system we have all agreed to live in to change those laws.

The solution isn't to say "Well I don't like that law, so if you try to enforce it I'm going to shoot you"....which is what you are advocating.

reply posted on 12-2-2013 @ 04:14 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by SubTruth

Freedom can not be taken away or given to you. You are born with it......But you must choose what to do with it. Progressives have a hard time understanding personal freedom and liberty.

Were you born with a gun in your hand?

Then I guess that can be taken away from you.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^