Bill Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah where I live, they recently banned the Walther G22...seems it is dangerous and is an assault type deadly bullpup design. You guys should feel fortunate that for the most part you are legally able to buy, own and carry firearms. Where I live it is illegal to point a loaded firearm at somebody. It is illegal to load one up in a suburban area, when not at a range. It is illegal to shoot anybody who hasnt shot or stabbed you multiple times first. We have no rights for protection of private property and are not allowed to adequately defend ourselves.

The only gun control I favour is this.

No sales to criminals
No sales to mentally unfit
If you got kids, keep them locked up

anything else is just stupid, like the whole thumbhole stock thing...what did that change? Why are black synthetic stock firearms more deadly then wooden one with pics of ducks on the side of them?

The funniest thing of all is where I live they just spent almost 2 billion dollars on gun registry..and its now easier then ever to buy and or trade firearms..all hassle free now...The average public as usual doesnt have a clue.
 
justinhip said:
Lead,
I understand what the ban was, just did not know its association. I origonally thought it was a ban on automatic weapons up until it came up for renewal, I read the bill and realized it made no difference to crime.
Click to expand...


You know all this, but need US to tell you why gun owners hate Clinton? :rolleyes:


Whatever, dude. Not entirely sure your condition can be helped.


-blackmind
 
yeah cause gun laws dont effect the majority of crimes...

as most criminals dont follow the majority of laws....

I slept better at night knowing that all those AR15 LE Colts were for sale up here cheap..cause you guys couldnt buy them down there..lol...now its getting hard to get good stuff again..

I still dont dislike Clinton..if he didnt do it..somebody else wouldve..most politicians are all the same.
 
If it wasn't Clinton per se, and "all politicians would have done it," why has there not been any kind of push for a new, replacement AWB going anywhere on Bush's watch?

Clinton PUSHED for the AWB; it's not like it was just handed to him to sign and he signed it because not doing so would have made him look bad. He actively WANTED it.

Bush is not doing that.

So I hate Clinton for what he did, how he lied to the people about it, and what harm it did to my rights, and yours, and everybody's.

-blackmind
 
they are mostly all scum...Clinton with his AWB you dont like..and look at alot of the little personal liberties and freedoms that Bush and his buddies have been chipping away at...Just cause its not gun laws theres other things him and his buddies have been up to which are no good for the land of the free....

Face it unless your stinking rich they are not on your side. Only you are on your side. To bad you gotta be a millionaire to win the presidency in this day and age...cause the right person at the right time could do alot of good...for those with money..and for those without money...

lol im a derailer...

Up here they have a large dog at my range which apparently barks and attacks those who vote liberal..my facist buddy gets mauled everytime...

there is no justice. I need a beer. :o
 
Another reason why gun owners and Military vets hate Clinton is that he is a self confessed draft dodger from the Vietnam War... I can't believe in my liberal youth I voted for that loser... I"m so ashamed of myself.... And Clinton sent good men to their graves.

459 stated:

EIther way things will change, unless Bush goes nuclear, it seems unlikely he will be able to get a third term.
Click to expand...

Read the Constitution. US Presidents are two term limits.

The economic upswing was indeed during Clinton's presidency but was completely coincidental and was purely due to the internet and tech bubble.
 
Uh, surprised that no one has mentioned the rampant growth of legal suits meant to ban guns by bankrupting the industry during that time. Oh, and that HUD thing.
 
Hey blackmind, did you read what I wrote or what you wrote. I stated I new what the ban was about but knew nothing more.....ie who wrote it, where it came from, who supported it. I think you have the condition my friend.
 
I have no doubt that it was a legitimate question, Justin. That's why this thread remains open even though it has elements of a troll's style.

I appreciate everyone who has controlled their responses and kept this thread on the high road - for the most part.

-Dave
 
I am also a Diver and am part of TheDecoStop and Scubaboard. The same thing happens, people troll and get everyone's feathers ruffled. So assure you (all) I am not trolling.
 
I despised Clinton when he was Atty General of Arkansas...long before he became the Gov of AR.

My opinion has not changed. Not now, not ever.
 
In this entire thread, there's one tiny island of reasonability.. Somewhere in the midst of page 2, in a post by Rob P.
Click to expand...

Awwwww, shucks. Now ya dun it... :o

Seriously though, Clinton, no matter how you personally feel about him, was a Great Man. He had his problems (for sure) but he did his best to protect our rights. ALL of our rights and not just the ones he agreed with.

For instance, he helped protect personal/privacy rights that were/are at risk at the expense of tightening the screws on those that aren't so close to being lost. He did what he could to help protect women's rights at the expense of some errosion to our Second Amendment rights. That was a tough call but I believe that he made the right choices.

The Second Amendment is a guaranteed right that is specifically enumerated. It can't be discarded at the stroke of a pen or by the personal opinon of 5 people. If it's changed or deleted, it must be RATIFIED to do so. That's a tough thing to do. OTOH, discarding Roe v. Wade and all the other civil rights that spring from it is EASY - just stack the deck in your favor with political appointees to SCOTUS. 5 votes and the right is lost.

Clinton protected us (the gen public) from ourselves and our fanatical members of society. He did so for 8 years and paid the toll for it in lost health, lifespan, and public opinion. From my point of view, that's a pretty good deal all things considered.

Small minded people hate him for the AWB when there was so much he should have been admired for that was, and still is, overshadowed by personal political agendas. Given the choice I personally will always side with protecting the weaker liberties first and worry about those things that are specifically protected and enumerated afterwards. IMO you MUST look at the big picture instead of just the parts you find attractive. Or else you begin to pander yourself to the highest bidder.

And, not to get too far off topic, our current president is of the opposite stripe. He will do everything to protect our enumerated rights at the expense of all of the lesser freedoms we enjoy. Our right to privacy (patriot act), the right to decide what type of education our kids get (no child left behind and anti-homeschooling laws) , womens rights (he's an admitted right-to-life proponent who actually proposes laws to restrict existing rights), & stem cell research (limited to exisitng and contaminated stem cell colonies), have all taken a backseat during his stewardship of our country. Yet he is admired on this forum in part because he favors the 2nd amentment. That's poor vision.

In the past 2 presidential terms we have lost much of what we gained under Clinton, Bush the elder, and Reagan. All were/are great men. Gdub is nothing in comparison but a political whore.
 
Rob P.

I wholeheartedly disagree that Clinton was "A GREAT MAN" as a ridiculous statement.

Great men don't cheat on their wives;
Great men don't lie - under oath no less - to the citizens of the US;
Great men aren't asleep at the wheel whilst our enemies silently AND loudly plan against us. How many terrorist attacks occurred under Clinton's 8 years?
Great men don't dodge the Vietnam draft and responsibilities owed to this nation;
It's also speculated that he had MANY people killed because they were set to testify against him or knew harmful things against him....

Clinton and his administration made very poor military, defense, tactical, and planning decisions again and again and again.... Somolia, WTC, USS Cole, Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, US Embassy, and on and on and on.....

Protecting our rights? Like what? He didn't protect squat! He got into office to get laid and have power and money. He didn't have some higher cause.
 
In retort to 625 above:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/iyablokov.html
“Do "backpack" nuclear weapons exist? Yes, small atomic charges exist. They are very small. Several dozen kilos, thirty kilos, forty kilos. I spoke with people that made them, I saw them. The American specimens can be seen on the Internet, they can be seen on photographs, they can even be seen in the movies. I have never seen Russian analogies, I have only seen American ones, but Russian ones do exist, because I spoke with people who made them, and I believe these people, these people knew what they were talking about. And there was data published about it. ... Some was published in the newspaper of a town in the south of the Urals in a little paper, and it said there that the prominent achievement is that they have manufactured a miniature atomic charge. ... No one knows how many exist ... . Lebed mentioned that there's forty-eight, or a hundred and fifty, but no one knows for certain.”



http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html
“it is a misnomer (or even utter madness) to call a 20 Kt bomb "small" or "tactical." A 20 Kt bomb produces an explosive force equal to 40,000,000 pounds of TNT [40,000,000 = 20 x 1,000 x 2,000]. This is simply an enormous amount of destructive and death-dealing force. After all, one weapon of a smaller size (12.5 Kt) destroyed Japan's eighth largest city in WWII.”


http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nucwps.txt
“To give you a little perspective, let's say that a fifteen kiloton
nuclear missile exploded over New York City while most of the population
was out to lunch. A report from the Secretary-General of the United
Nations says out of the eight million people in the city, approximately
one million people will die on the first day. If a one megaton bomb was
exploded over Detroit, approximately 640,000 people would die immediately.
If a twenty-five megaton bomb exploded, approximately 3.2 million people
would die out of the four million people living there.”


Based on the above information, I don't think my statement that a small tactical nuke could destroy Manhatten, kill and injure 10 million people, and make the area uninhabitable was out of line.

Now, given TODAYS technology and terrorist minds, maybe we're not at risk, or maybe we are. However, just as 9/11 occurred, sometimes we're taken by surprise.
 
If you were cheating on your spouse with your secretary in your workplace and got caught, you'd lose your job. You might be facing sexual harassment charges. If you were asked by the Senate under oath and committed purjury, you'd certainly go to jail.
Click to expand...
Damn right. THat's the first thing I thought when that all happened.
"Wait a second...if I got a hummer from my secretary, I'd be fired, without hesitation, without recourse. I'd be gone." (If I had a secretary...)
 
lead,

Your first link shows no proof. Some clown says he saw them. Big deal. NO PROOF guy. Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman. All speculation like I said.

Your second link talk about when we bombed Japan. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you using a Clinton tactic otherwise known as side-stepping the issue?

The third link talks about nuclear missiles. When did I mention missiles?

You are completely missing my point AGAIN. We have no proof that any of our terrorist enemies have any nuclear material, much less the capability to detonate a nuclear bomb. I'm still waiting for proof that a briefcase sized bomb has the capability to do what you say it does. Do you have any idea how small a briefcase is?
No more side-stepping lead. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top