Exactly what guns does Hillary Clinton not want banned to the public

C

Canceled 2016.4

Verified User
Forget the dopey fake assault weapons that should be banned, what we want to know is what guns does Hillary say are acceptable for the public to own?

Note this must be the gun that can not kill people...............................

So lets hear it kids
 
Bbs will put your eye out.
22s are favored by assassins as they leave no ballistics and are quiet.
I think it's down to nerf guns.
 
Okay, I'll bite.

How about guns that are commonly used to hunt?
How about guns that allow a homeowner to defend his life and property against intruders?
How about guns that allow store keepers to defend against robbery?
How about guns that can protect couriers from attack?
How about guns that gun enthusiasts can compete with?

Does anyone really need a semi? A well-regulated militia used to use single load, single shot rifles. To say that, in this modern world, a single load gun is no longer sufficient to defend us from foreign assault is also to say that tanks, bazookas, rpgs, grenades, ICBMs, nuclear bombs, and fully automatic weapons are now required to defend our country by ordinary citizens. This country was adamantly opposed to a standing army in those days. That is why the Constitution wanted the populous to be armed, and ready to defend the country. But, we now have an armed, standing military force, the likes of which this world has never seen before. If you want to defend the rights of ordinary people to extraordinary modern weaponry, then you must be in favor of replacing our military with a nuclear equipped 'Billy Bob'.
 
mogur said:
Okay, I'll bite.

How about guns that are commonly used to hunt?
How about guns that allow a homeowner to defend his property against intruders?
How about guns that allow store keepers to defend against robbery?
How about guns that can protect couriers from attack?
How about guns that gun enthusiasts can compete with?

Does anyone really need a semi? A well-regulated militia used to use single load, single shot rifles. To say that, in this modern world, a single load gun is no longer sufficient to defend us from foreign assault is also to say that tanks, bazookas, rpgs, grenades, ICBMs, nuclear bombs, and fully automatic weapons are now required to defend our country by ordinary citizens. This country was adamantly opposed to a standing army in those days. That is why the Constitution wanted the populous to be armed, and ready to defend the country. But, we now have an armed, standing military force, the likes of which this world has never seen before. If you want to defend the rights of ordinary people to extraordinary modern weaponry, then you must be in favor of replacing our military with nuclear equipped Billy Bob.
Click to expand...

Considering she is for allowing people to sue gun companies which in essence would put them out of business it's pretty hard to argue she supports any gun rights.
 
Why should gun manufacturers be immune from lawsuits when ladder manufacturers are not?
 
Jarod said:
Why should gun manufacturers be immune from lawsuits when ladder manufacturers are not?
Click to expand...

Sigh. Gun manufacturers can be already be sued for a malfunctioning product, just like ladders can. But you already know that.

What Hillary wants is if you hit me with a ladder I can sue the ladder company.
 
Single step ladders are not the problem, it is the multi-step ladders.

Mass ladderers can kill dozens, while single steppers can barely raise a welt.
 
mogur said:
Okay, I'll bite.

How about guns that are commonly used to hunt?
How about guns that allow a homeowner to defend his life and property against intruders?
How about guns that allow store keepers to defend against robbery?
How about guns that can protect couriers from attack?
How about guns that gun enthusiasts can compete with?

Does anyone really need a semi? A well-regulated militia used to use single load, single shot rifles. To say that, in this modern world, a single load gun is no longer sufficient to defend us from foreign assault is also to say that tanks, bazookas, rpgs, grenades, ICBMs, nuclear bombs, and fully automatic weapons are now required to defend our country by ordinary citizens. This country was adamantly opposed to a standing army in those days. That is why the Constitution wanted the populous to be armed, and ready to defend the country. But, we now have an armed, standing military force, the likes of which this world has never seen before. If you want to defend the rights of ordinary people to extraordinary modern weaponry, then you must be in favor of replacing our military with a nuclear equipped 'Billy Bob'.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this. Well said.
 
The problem with the gun issue is that both sides have their nutters. The anti gun nutters like Leo want to ban all guns. The pro gun nuts want to allow all arms.

Speech has its limit in this country, why can't guns or arms? Also, there seems to be a real division on what constitutes an assault weapon. Anytime someone present evidence that a certain gun is not an assault weapon, anti gun nuts like Leo cry they are gun nuts, racists, etc., while offering nothing in rebuttal. And then they mock anyone who tries to discuss the issue for weeks.

With trolls like that, the issue will always be divisive. We need logical arguments, not hysteria.
 
Jarod said:
Why should gun manufacturers be immune from lawsuits when ladder manufacturers are not?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges counselor. You are arguably the dumbest fucking attorney in the world.

If a dirty, stinking, scummy, camel fucking muslime takes a ladder and bashes you over the head with it, the ladder company is not going to be sued
 
When liberals ban abortions I will talk about the 2nd amendment. Until then, they can stick the business end of a 12 gauge shot gun up their itchy pussies and pull the trigger
 
Jarod said:
Why should gun manufacturers be immune from lawsuits when ladder manufacturers are not?
Click to expand...

So if a ladder company is sued, because the ladder was improperly made and failed; how does that mean that a manufactured gun has failed, when a person used in improperly?
 
Ziggy said:
Forget the dopey fake assault weapons that should be banned, what we want to know is what guns does Hillary say are acceptable for the public to own?

Note this must be the gun that can not kill people...............................

So lets hear it kids
Click to expand...

What Clinton wants or doesn’t want is irrelevant; just as we saw with Obama.

Eight years as president and no ‘new’ AWB, no guns ‘confiscated,’ no Second Amendment rights ‘violated.’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top