Bill Clinton’s Comment About Hillary’s Health Could End Her Chances of Winning - Page 3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Bill Clinton’s Comment About Hillary’s Health Could End Her Chances of Winning

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    I'm voting for Concealed Carry Permit Holder Donald J. Trump of course
    Not surprising and it explains so much.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    OK Blues, considering what we have to work with, which one do you feel would be a better president for us pro-gun people.
    So, you could care less what the POTUS does, as long as your gun rights remain intact?
    Way to throw the country under the bus!

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    So, you could care less what the POTUS does, as long as your gun rights remain intact?
    Way to throw the country under the bus!
    The bus is coming, and it's only a matter if the wheels on the right or the left turn the country into road kill.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    So, you could care less what the POTUS does, as long as your gun rights remain intact?
    Way to throw the country under the bus!

    Your joking right? Where our gun rights go so go our country.
    .
    You might review your history to remember what has happened millions in other countries when their gun rights were taken away from them -IE- Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, China under Mao Zedong just to name a few.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Your joking right? Where our gun rights go so go our country.
    .
    You might review your history to remember what has happened millions in other countries when their gun rights were taken away from them -IE- Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, China under Mao Zedong just to name a few.
    I think you may be utterly lost in your own version of reality.
    In 2008, there were 4.7 million permits to carry issued in the US. The population was >320,000,000.
    I'll do the math for you: that's 1.2% of the population.
    Far from a majority.
    Far from significant.

    It's a drop in the bucket if the government suddenly went "rogue" and wanted to squash the citizens.
    The military would decimate the citizens with ease. Despite what the 2A says, us gun owners are as far from a "well regulated militia" as we could get.
    We could only hope that if the government went rogue, the military (being comprised of "us") would not follow orders and would turn on the "controllers" like rabid dogs.

    Get your head out of the clouds and see reality for a change.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    I think you may be utterly lost in your own version of reality.
    In 2008, there were 4.7 million permits to carry issued in the US. The population was >320,000,000.
    I'll do the math for you: that's 1.2% of the population.
    Far from a majority.
    Far from significant.

    It's a drop in the bucket if the government suddenly went "rogue" and wanted to squash the citizens.
    The military would decimate the citizens with ease. Despite what the 2A says, us gun owners are as far from a "well regulated militia" as we could get.
    We could only hope that if the government went rogue, the military (being comprised of "us") would not follow orders and would turn on the "controllers" like rabid dogs.

    Get your head out of the clouds and see reality for a change.
    Rob,

    You might as well be talking to a brick wall....he's got his head so far up Trump's metaphorical rear, he can't see anything else.

    -trump-supporters-meme-39872.jpg

  8. #27
    Rod, you say the military would decimate the citizens with ease, how did that work out in Vietnam and Afghanistan? Both places were fought to a tie with a group of people with very limited weapons and your so called citizens have a very large majority of prior military back grounds that could be used.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Rod, you say the military would decimate the citizens with ease, how did that work out in Vietnam and Afghanistan? Both places were fought to a tie with a group of people with very limited weapons and your so called citizens have a very large majority of prior military back grounds that could be used.
    Ops,

    Revolutions/rebellions depend on far more than just arms. Arms are only a tool wielded by the user. The success or failure of any armed conflict depends far more on the will and tactics of those involved than the weapons used. Afghanistan and Vietnam are both low hanging fruit examples (rather typical of you to pick conflicts that have far more protracted histories than the final or current outcomes would indicate. Then again, you never put much effort into any of the posts you make do you?)

    I can cite 2 rebellions that had armed populaces, that were protracted, and that ultimately failed. Namely the conflicts in Wales and Scotland. Both had long histories armed populaces, both were protracted, low level conflicts that lasted for decades or centuries depending on how far back you wish to go, and both were conflicts in which the natives ultimately lost. The person who had the will and the genius to conquer those populaces, Edward I of England. William Wallace and Robert the Bruce aside (the scots staged a successful rebellion after his death and there was about 4.5 centuries of further conflict before the Scots were finally conquered at the Battle of Culloden in 1745 aside, his reign was the one that conquered both civilizations due to superior tactics, and more importantly the will to win. So either way you cut it, both rebellions ultimately failed even though the populaces were able to provide armed opposition.

    If you want to look to our own history here in the States, how about the Native Americans, they were all well armed, yet it came down to successive American Governments with the will to win that ultimately led to the genocide and subjugation of the Native American population, the Native American as a civilization lost the will to fight. The American Government certainly did not always have superior weapons or superior tactics to win (As Custer found out).

    From what I've seen of the "Militia Movement" they talk a big game, but don't have the will to win. The most recent example of this was the Bungling Bundy's at the Malheur Wildlife Center, where they were ultimately arrested by the Feds who had more time, patience, and better tactics to wait them out and ultimately ambush the Bundy's when they got sloppy. So no, guns alone DO NOT ensure a successful rebellion.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    OK Blues, considering what we have to work with, which one do you feel would be a better president for us pro-gun people.
    Like I said, I don't know why I even bother posting links for you, and add now that I don't know why I bother answering your questions. I literally ignored you for most of the time since I found out you were just a former banned poster who snuck back in under this nick up until you started shilling so hard for Trump. I will likely do that again after answering the above question by re-posting the answer I gave you less than two weeks ago when you asked the same basic question then. The fact that your memory can't withstand the passage of even two weeks before it fails you is just one of many reasons why you make such a lousy spokesperson for conservatism and gun rights advocacy. You probably don't even recall me asking you just yesterday to stop trying to speak from a conservative perspective, because you are so lousy at it. See if the answer to the above question will stick for more than two weeks this time, eh? I'd appreciate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    What's your opinion on the possibility of Hillary becoming president and influencing our gun rights, considering what she's said, like, "If the 2A is a right".

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    My opinion of Hillary's effect on the Second Amendment is the same as my opinion of Trump on the Second Amendment. Both supported Billy Boy's Assault Weapons Ban, or are you purposely ignoring that? Or you think the AWB is compliant with the 2A? Whatever you think (or wish, as the case may be), neither Billary or Trump will do anything that The People don't allow them to do.

    Billary can't kill what's already dead, and Trump can't resuscitate what's already dead even if he was a true 2A advocate, which he ain't.

    Your rights are your rights whether politicians like it or not. The only way you protect them is by defending them. Government's nature is to destroy them if you let them, which Americans have allowed without so much as a whimper of real founding-era protest for centuries.

    You'll be left with only being allowed to own a single-shot bolt action .22 squirrel gun before you'll admit that the Second Amendment is already dead and buried, and that Republicans contributed to its murder every bit as much as Democrats have, or that Trump himself helped the Clintons themselves with disposing of the body.

    I answered your question, now who wrote what you posted above?
    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. #30
    The first thing enlisted and officers joining the US Military swear to is to protect the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, anybody trying to defeat the constitution would be considered a domestic enemy threat.

    The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):

    "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    The Oath of Office (for officers):

    "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

    Also note to all those who have served, there is no expiration date to this oath.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast