Hillary Clinton Speaks

Did he honestly have automatic weapons? Do you have a link to something stating that as fact? The reason I ask is that in order to get an automatic weapon, it requires a significant jumping through hoops. Additionally, firing an automatic weapon from that distance wouldn't be very effective.
It absolutely sounds like a automatic weapon firing.Listen to what is for sure full auto.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...4D4F485BCD45D45E65704D4F485BCD45D45&FORM=VIRE

Then listen to this sound of the shooting. No doubt in my mind it's full auto. Either he obtained it illegally, or converted it himself. Doesn't take a weapons specialist to do it. Far as accuracy goes, he didn't need to be accurate. He was shooting fish in a barrel. All he needed was volume of bullets and he had that.
 
The 2nd amendment is not there to protect us from just burglars and for the occasional hunter. It's there to protect us from our government or a military style invasion of another government.

Is that rationale relevant today? Can the private gun owners really challenge the United States government?
 
Yes, but with caveats. It's important to understand that the right to own a firearm isn't what protects you from the government. The government has much better weapons and many more soldiers. It is the armed populace that makes the government think twice, because the whole of the people, armed, provides a check on the government.
Thank you. That simple logic is lost on today's liberal.
 
He killed 59 people and injured 500+ in less than 5 minutes. Not every effective?:confused:

I didn't say he wasn't effective. I asked if there were truly automatic weapons (not semi-auto) found. Because at the range he was shooting, a fully auto weapon would have been exceptionally difficult to fire accurately.
 
It absolutely sounds like a automatic weapon firing.Listen to what is for sure full auto.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...4D4F485BCD45D45E65704D4F485BCD45D45&FORM=VIRE

Then listen to this sound of the shooting. No doubt in my mind it's full auto. Either he obtained it illegally, or converted it himself. Doesn't take a weapons specialist to do it. Far as accuracy goes, he didn't need to be accurate. He was shooting fish in a barrel. All he needed was volume of bullets and he had that.

Yes, that certainly does sound like automatic fire. I suppose if he sprayed all over the place he could have. But there would have to be a lot of bullets in places outside the festival, all over the place.

Converting isn't that easy. Takes someone with a good deal of planning, meaning this guy was at it for a while.

Also, for those pushing gun laws, remember France in 2015. Some of the toughest gun laws on the planet, 130 people dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
 
I didn't say he wasn't effective. I asked if there were truly automatic weapons (not semi-auto) found. Because at the range he was shooting, a fully auto weapon would have been exceptionally difficult to fire accurately.

Ok, I get it. You wondered if they were semi-automatic.
 
I don't think the founding fathers wanted any disgruntled nutjob to be able to inflict mass murder on Americans. A lot of second amendment talking points gets used for some really perverse ideas. The NRA has really lost its way and has acted irresponsibly for decades now. Clinton's comments are an important point to make about public safety.

With the fact the dumbass Lefties on this forum "like" the bilge you post, 6 posts and you're OUT! ON IGNORE!!
 
Was this man's motivation gun control?
Perhaps in his own fucked up mind, he thought he was a hero.
How the hell does one get a machine gun anyway?
I know you can can convert a semi-automatic... but I wanna hear what ATF says.
Or will they even say?
The gun stocks soared today. I can see that under Obama... but Trump?
Nothing adds up.
 
Back
Top