Monday, May 2, 2016

From Crowder: Hillary Clinton's Campaign Manager Steps Forward! Explains 'Strategy'


Anonymous said...

TechCrunch: NRA Is ‘Right’: ‘Smart Guns’ Lead to Gun Control

On April 30, the tech blog “TechCrunch” examined the Democrat-led push for “smart guns” and concluded the NRA is “right” — that a successful push for smart guns will be followed by a mandate for smart gun purchases, i.e. a form of gun control.

How can Obama push the purchase of battery operated guns which have yet to prove as reliable as traditional firearms? The examination of this and similar questions led TechCrunch to conclude that the push must be made because it is the prerequisite for a mandate, which is certain to follow.

For this reason, TechCrunch says the NRA is “right,” from its perspective, for opposing the current smart gun push. Defeating the smart gun push now could be the only thing that prevents a mandate later.

Anonymous said...

If THIS mook can figure all that out, hopefully, so can the voters and send this woman into obscurity once and for all.

skybill said...

Hi Sgt. Matt,
This is Funny!!!..... One can't help but laugh! But then again...the meat of the matter is true!! Unfortunately it is also very sad because Hilary has the blood of dead Americans on her hands from Bengazi!!! Trouble for her won't wash off!!
Got Gunz........OUTLAW!!!!,

Anonymous said...

"Hillary has the blood of dead Americans on her hands". So what do American troops have on their hands ? What do you call it when you fly all around the world to initiate violence against individuals ? MURDER, plain and simple. It's always easier to point the finger away from ourselves, EH ... Hillary did not literally fly over there and kill people, but we know who did. Hillary is not innocent by any measure, but if we hate her for not physically killing individuals, how come we adore, cheer and support those who do initiate violence and murder for individuals just like Hillary? A strange world we live in, EH..? Let go of the indoctrination and the false paradigm. Just because someone says that you have to choose between these 2 things, DOES NOT MEAN, that you have to choose between these two things. Stay safe y'all ! I hope nobody murders you in your sleep from 12,000 miles away !

free for now said...

Anonymous seems to be confused about the difference between murder and killing, and also to think no killing is ever justified. Poor sap. Too bad the human race is imperfect and sinful, because it would really be pretty cool if no killing were ever needed or justified.

Anonymous said...

When you kill someone and it's not in self defense, it's murder. no matter the motive, even though most American troops are paid with blood money to murder on behalf of the new world order. It would be even cooler if individuals could actually call a spade a spade, and quit with the jingo indoctrination that has engulfed (and always has) the "liberty" movement.

If the military wanted to do some good and honor their so called "oaths" why not put that reckless use of murder and violence to use against the real enemy, the government? I mean, I don't see ISIS assaulting, kidnapping and extorting millions of Americans every month ? But I know who does exactly that, the government with the help of their enforcers, the police. If the military really upheld their "oath" they would kill just about every cop, judge, DA, ETC in this country. Foreign and domestic ? How about we aim at the ones who are actually committing the crimes ? (by the way, a crime is when another individual physically hurts another individuals body or property, nothing less.)

Instead of all that crazy bloodshed, how about the military simply stop following crazy, immoral, and unconstitutional orders for a start. Is that not reasonable ?

Chiu ChunLing said...

What if I kill someone to defend an innocent victim? What if I kill them to defend a whole bunch of innocent victims? What if I kill to protect millions of innocent victims?

There probably is a point at which you can plead removal from the situation and ignorance of the precise level of the danger. Or even a point where you should.

But if you so plead, and someone a good bit closer to the events decides that it is necessary to kill to defend innocent lives, maybe you should stick with your plea of ignorance.

When I speak of appealing to the natural law to defend myself against the murderous aggression of oathbreakers, I find it annoying when people on the other side of the country or the world elevate their ignorance of my situation as a superior basis for judgment. Because when they're on the other side of the world defending their lives from people trying to kill them, I try and lay off their case.