It’s become an involuntary incantation…a verbal talisman uttered after every atrocity involving a firearm by those who would degrade and destroy Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. ‘Are you insane? More people there with guns would have made the situation even worse!’ The latest anti-gun automaton to mindlessly mumble a version of this mumbo-jumbo: the finger-wagger himself, President Bill Clinton.
From The Hill:
In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the former president was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s claim that fewer people would have died at the club if they had firearms.
“Did you see how dark it was?” Clinton said. “It’s likely that more people would have been killed.”
Omar Mateen managed to shoot 102 people in a club packed with about 350 souls early Sunday morning. Is it possible to imagine that situation being much worse? Can anyone — without an agenda he’s trying to further — honestly contend that even one or two armed individuals in that crowd firing back at the terrorist would have resulted in more dead and wounded? That more people might not have escaped while Mateen was engaged?
Remember, though, we’re talking about a Clinton here. When asked about the ‘assault weapon’ ban he signed into law, he had this to say:
It worked pretty well,” Clinton said of the ban. “Then when it was allowed to expire. For a while we didn’t seem to have uptick in crime, but look at what happened with big weapons at Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado and most recently in Orlando and San Bernardino, California.”
I guess it depends on what the meaning of ‘well’ is.
moron
Actually, he’s a liar, and made himself a millionaire by assuming the voting public was composed of gullible morons.
“assuming the voting public was composed of gullible morons.”
because they are. How else do you explain that his wife is the presumptive democrat nominee when she broke several federal laws and exposed our nation’s secrets to everyone and anyone. And sold her influence as Sec of State to the highest bidder.
Or Donald Trump
Actually, this is exactly what Clinton and every other anti-gun Democrat want. If there were no Gun-Free Zones, the bad guys would have potential victims shoot them dead. Democrats can’t allow that to happen since there would be too few bloody shirts to wave.
He isn’t a moron, you just do not know libtard speak. What you are assuming is that he is referring to the shooting incident itself. He is not. He is talking about the ability to wave the bloody t-shirt of the shooting incident. If there were armed victims, the number of casualties (both dead and wounded) would have been sharply lower. Not only that,it would give credence to the idea that being armed saved lives. Both are things that stand in the way and make the situation worse for those that crave to disarm the populace so they could enslave them. Now you know that when viewed in the libtard elitist mindset, it make complete and perfect sense that an armed response would make their situation worse.
Senile moron. fify
Just like his “wife”.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/dhs-whistleblower-orlando-terror-linked-to-san-bernardino/
Nutty as ever. In my view, there are no such things as “armed victims.” You are one or the other…
That was exactly my thought. Armed victim is an oxymoron.
And we still don’t have an uptick in crime. The rate has continued to plummet for over two decades.
Well, that’s until Obama’s DOJ and their sycophants in places like Ferguson and Baltimore decided to give the BLM thugs “space” to riot, while maliciously prosecuting police officers. So, we very well may see an “uptick” in crime this year – at least, in places controlled by Democrat policies.
Why is it that Bill thinks Omar could effectively use a weapon but no one else present could? Is it the super powers you gain from being a radical islamist?
It’s too bad we can’t compare data since these attacks never occur in places where the victims are armed. How strange.
In the “good ol days”, bartenders kept a double barrel shotgun or pistol under the bar as a just in case.
Seems Slick Willy, being so tactically savvy, thinks a chance to change the outcome, is not worthy of us lowly citizens.
At the clackamas mall exactly that happened. Armed civilian present, shooter initiates suicide phase as a direct result of resistance, lives saved.
But not enough dead bodies to qualify as a mass shooting, so no mass shooting was stopped… Go figure.
Exactly my point.
Bill Clinton, part of America’s one family mafia. Who gives a rat’s butt what he says about anything.
This is why I never discuss anything but the weather with Liberals.
Sh!t-I don’t even do that. They get going on global-warming-man-caused-climate-disaster-white-man’s-privilege stuff if you talk about the weather.
So he is foregoing Secret Service protection from here on out then, right?
I mean if a “gunman” comes for him, all those SS guns will just make it worse.
Yeah, Guns aren’t obviously the problem here. *sarc*
You can thank the NRA for allowing unrestricted access to full auto military weapons to fall into the hands of criminals and terrorists.
You can thank the NRA and the gun lobby for preventing background checks and preventing a terror watchlist that would have actually prevented the attacks.
You have the NRA to thank that 50+ are dead and numerous others are fighting for their lives.
But at-least their 2nd amendment rights are still intact.
You make me wish 2ASux was back, and that is saying something.
2ASux will actually debate you, not just spout off copy-paste vomit like this Auzzie fvckwit…
So like in kindergarten when the teacher told you 2+2=4 you just screamed and screamed and to this day 2+2 = 5 to you?
When all these safe space bubbles start bursting and the snowflakes begin to melt there’s going to be such a mess.
Here’s the NRA position:
Here is Chris Cox’s full statement on the issue of terrorists and whether they have the ability to get their hands on guns:
“The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”
Seems like the NRA supports terrorist control, with which I definitely agree.
Nuzzo: why don’t you support the right of patrons in gay clubs to defend themselves?
Fifth Amendment
n.
An amendment to the US Constitution that provides for due process of law where the government is seeking to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property; provides for Grand Jury proceedings for certain serious offenses; prohibits the government from trying a person again after that person has been acquitted; prohibits the government from forcing a defendant to testify against himself or herself; and prohibits government confiscation of private property for public use without just compensation to the property owner.
Gun ownership has skyrocketed over the past two decades, while crime rates have plummeted. Indeed: guns are not the problem.
What “full auto military weapons” have been used in crimes this year? This decade? Ever, since 1934 when ownership was heavily regulated?
Why don’t you use your alleged “unrestricted access” to attempt to purchase a “full auto military weapon”, and report back on your experience?
Mateen passed multiple background checks, including background checks more rigorous than what is typically required for the purchase of a firearm. Almost every perpetrator thrust into the national spotlight similarly passed background checks. What, then, would be the purpose of expanding said background checks?
The terror watchlist exists. The terror watchlist has not prevented such attacks. Tying background check passage to the terror watchlist would not prevent such attacks.
Most importantly: tying the terror watchlist to background checks would represent a blatant, gross violation of constitutionally protected due process rights.
No. The culpability of that act falls squarely – and only – on the perpetrator.
No. He has no more rights, because he is dead. He was stopped by good guys with guns.
The people he killed are dead, in part, because of the existence of gun-free zones, and in part because of the incompetence of the FBI in conducting multiple investigations into the perpetrator.
Lame troll isn’t even worth responding to. Doesn’t manage to make a single statement without a lie in it.
He’s .. N U Z Z O .. baby !
>>>>>>>>> but not as nuzzo as Billary the perv , now he’s nuzzo .
or slick .
Mena Arkansas , cocaine on the governors desk , killing cheerleaders , little boys on railroad tracks , sexual predator , Barry Seals in N.O. , bombing the aspirin factory , Bosnian killing fields . Lying under oath .
I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is is .
What will be will be , Que Sera Sera
How exactly does the NRA allow full auto weapons to go to terrorists.
That’s the purview of the US government. Drug cartels get first dibs though.
Obama gave Isis thousands of fully automatic weapons, grenades, tanks, humvees and more when he pulled out of Iraq. Hillary was giving terrorists weapons in Lybia. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated in the USA. What progressives have done is let loose thousands of jihadis on the LGBT community. If Hillary and Obama really believed what they say about guns, they’d disarm their security detail. They won’t.
And you can thank drugs rights activists for letting River Phoenix overdose of heroin. If only heroin was illegal…
You realize that homicide rates increased after your gun control passed in oz, right?
Fully automatic? The NRA must be holding out on me. I only get a hat and twelve gun p0rn mags that end up as bathroom reading materials.
Here’s the news. It’s ALREADY WORSE.
There’s nothing here an armed citizen could have made worse.
As always, the assumption is that an armed citizen is as unhinged as the gunman. That the armed citizen has as little respect for life as the gunman. Armed citizens aren’t your typical NYPD police officers, spraying bullets in to crowds.
The butcher had at least a 1/2 hour free reign within the building after the start. Those lost souls (God bless them, God rest them) trapped in the bathroom would most certainly have enjoyed being armed when the killer came in to finish them off.
I have no stats to show that armed citizens are more a danger in active shooter situations than a help. But I have to assume that if that were the case, those stats would be printed in blood in every major newspaper of the land, and it’s not.
Q.E.D.
These progressive constitution grabbers also rely on the publics ignorance about weapons and the people who own them and this is our fault .
The unarmed public is told that these are ‘ automatic ‘ . Gobble – gobble .
The unarmed public are led to believe that when the trigger is pulled the gun just sprays bullets . Gobble – gobble .
The unarmed public is told that anyone can just walk in and buy an ‘ automatic ‘ weapon . Gobble – gobble .
The reason there are no stats to use about what an armed citizen could have done to stop any of these attacks is because they always take place in ‘ GUN FREE ZONES ‘ . Except the two dudes that tried to pull this shit off in Texas , that didn’t work out now did it .
Same goes for here in WV where 1 in every 6 citizens are armed . ( my inclinations ) .
Is this moron really saying that, if there was an armed person shooting back at the terrorist, that the armed civilian possibly hitting someone instead of the terrorist but potentially stopping the lunatic before he murdered 50 people would be a worse outcome? What the Fvck is he smoking?
Just remember tho…. Whatever he was smoking; he “didn’t inhale”…..
These people are unhinged.
Are they making this play because they believe they can win this time, or is it because they think that maybe with Trump possibly being elected and changes to the makeup of congress, that this is their last chance.
Either possibility is bad.
This crapfest is all bad.
Don’t you know! When a mass shooting breaks out, everyone with a gun starts shooting innocent bystanders! The gun, the magical talisman it is, takes hold of the owner replacing free will with the urge to murder, inflict damage and watch the View!
How many “victims’ were accidently shot by the Police that morning?
He should get rid of his Secret Service detail. After all, if he’s attacked, their guns would probably just cause more people to be killed.
You’re an idiot Bill. Stick to what you know best…cigars, and where to put them…
Lucky for him his victims weren’t armed.
Armed victims would have saved themselves from being raped and assaulted by Bill Clinton, and intimidated by Hillary; and we wouldn’t have the pending coronation of the Hildebeast.
Sorry Slick Willy, we actually have direct irrefutable proof that an armed person at the nightclub would reduce the body count: there actually was one armed person* at the nightclub who shot at the armed attacker and survived the attacker’s return gunfire. There is no evidence that anyone else who engaged the armed attacker survived. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the armed person shot any bystanders.
In case you missed it, I will highlight it again: note that the “good guy with a gun” survived the attack! Even if the lone “good guy a gun” was unable to stop the attack, that lone “good guy with a gun” was able to place suppressive fire on the armed attacker and facilitate the good guy’s escape.
* The “good guy with a gun” was an off-duty police officer working security at the nightclub.
So a hate filled radical Islamist shoots his way out of the closet and guns are to blame. Nope
Of course he’s against armed self-defense.
If one of the victims had been armed, the murderer might have been harmed in some way and been unable to kill fifty people….
Definitely needs to be more than one “good guy with a gun” in a building full of 350 or so unarmed people. I hope those survivors will give this some serious thought now.
Of course he’d say this: he’s a criminal. Imagine if one of those women he sexually assaulted had been packing…
I had been a military cop who was explicitly trained in the art of counter-terrorism, and here is my professional and official opinion about Bill Clinton’s statement: He is a freaking moron and a lying $@B. Geez.
30 people packed ass to nuts in a bathroom with the asshole standing in the door, chatting with them as he cleared his jammed rifle so he could murder all but one lucky survivor. More likely than not given Florida carry rates, at least 2 people in that bathroom had the thought ‘I wish I had my gun’ before they were executed.
Explain how an armed victim could possibly make this worse. I’m waiting.
Thanks goodness we finally got a succinct definition of “assault weapon”: it’s big.
So says the hound-dog with a federally supplied security force.
F-You Bubba.
Ya’ wonder how many brain cells slick willy lost during his heart bypass? ALL of THEM. Um moose-lim control anyone? Hey I suddenly miss Grindstone…
Bill is an old geezer used to fighting women. He’s got no spunk left.
Bill is an old geezer used to screwing women. He’s got no spunk left.
FIFY
Then live white out your bodyguards and make the beginning.
Don t do this as first step before talking to other to be defenless ?? Hypocrite should up !!
What would have happened if there were two patrons with firearms in the club. Say those two used there weapons to stop the attack after 20 victory but three or four were hit by the defenders. The MSM would still scream for gun control
The gun grabbers would still jump on their soap boxes. No matter what. A no win scenario for us.
This from a genius who was going to bring democracy to Somalia, look up some thoughts on the Clinton Foumdation in Haiti.
For Somalia, type in “Somalia education rates”, see what stats UNICEF provides (and you know they fudged them).
Hope he rots in hell.
This moron knows nothing, don’t waste our time.
That dude always has sores on his mouth… No way he doesn’t have AIDS.
Larry Corriea has already refuted this best, and TTAG even made it a QOTD:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/daniel-zimmerman/379862/
The sad thing is that most liberals have sold themselves on the belief that the ‘average citizen’ can only shoot themselves. I listened to two coworkers yesterday loudly and vigorously proclaim that, ‘I own guns, but I would never get a concealed carry permit’. One imbecile, who I used to have respect for, suggested that, ‘people with concealed carry permits’ just don’t know what sort of split-second decisions you have to make in a situation where you might have to use a gun. The other imbecile suggested that his guns are so well secured (to protect his grand-kids) that even he doesn’t know where they are or how to get at them. I was sooo tempted to ask how he knew they were still secure, but I let it slide.
Point is that the average FUDD and the average liberal have had victimhood so ingrained in their minds/psyche that they literally cannot imagine anyone who COULD defend himself. Unless he’s an “only one”. Sad fact is that one of the two imbeciles is a volunteer firefighter and really ought to know better as far as the ability of the average person to pitch in and save lives.
“More people there with guns would have made the situation even worse!”
Ask the people at Waco how bad it can get.
Lying in the service of the Democratic agenda and his own lust for power.
That’s our Bill.
That said, the question is not “if armed citizens would have made the situation worse.” The question surrounds an individual’s inherent right to self defense. Each has a right to his own decision, regardless of lying, lecherous finger pointers.
So the basic belief of liberals as far as I can tell is this: If they were there, trained and armed (or if a genie appeared and put a gun in their hand) and they saw this monster slaughtering their friends in front of their eyes, they would not use the weapon and attempt to stop the massacre because they would be afraid of hurting someone.
That’s not just cowardice, it’s reckless cowardice.
So, in addition to congestive heart failure, he’s now battling dementia??? Bwahaha
What an ack jass!
And this addle-brained shell will have an important place among the Queen’s advisors — as she/it did among his. Please, whether or not you like him, vote Trump like your sanity depended on it.
Bill Clinto made this country’s condition worse by taking office.
Add another hes full of shit to what he says tale. If out of the 300 or so in the club. 5 armed civilians taking aim might miss and hit an innocent . But odds are between the 5. One would have hit their mark. I know its easy for me to say whats a few misses worth?? How many will it turn out were killed by the police?? We will probably never know the answer to that one.
A lot less possible dead or wounded for sure. If “Gun Free” and Florida removed the bars and guns clause.
I wont say I have or haven’t here in Florida.
But I have been in many a bar strapped and willfully. My personal safety means more to me then some sign. Or state law most times.
More proof that bill is suffering from dementia
He is absolutely right. Armed victims would have caused a lot more problems, just ask all the women he has raped.
Yeah, and you didn’t have sexual relations with that woman, got it.
Prove it!
Rhetorical question, of the many last thoughts the victims had, which of the following would have been thought of more?
1) I wish there were universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.
2) I wish I had a gun right now, and the means to defend myself from this psycho.
By “worse” he means:
“worse for Hillary’s gun control stance in the upcoming election because they’d have killed the motherfu*ker before 50 people were slaughtered”
Really? I think he should relinquish his Secret Service guard as they may “make it worse” if there is ever an incident. It’s hard to make a massacre much worse, and even if there were strays it’s likely either killing the attacker or causing him delay would almost invariably have a net gain compared to letting him have his way with impunity like the police did. Their response is a clear expectation that people should have little to no faith in the police keeping them safe ultimately.
If Clinton believed his BS he would dismiss his security guards at the onset of darkness.
Tell us about Monica Bill …
The majority of the posters here come off as so paranoid. It’s hilarious. The liberal boogeyMAN is comin’ for ya. Better grab your bible and gun and start shootin’!!!
Please name the Christian that has murdered Liberals or has even called for murder.
But before you do that, name just half of the Islamist radicals that have murdered Americans just in the last decade.
When you deride and demonize people for their sincerely held beliefs it’s the first step in dehumanizing and marginalizing them. When someone is engaged in a systematic campaign to dehumanize and marginalize you, turn the public mob against you, they ARE coming for you.
Bill Clinton more famously said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” If his lips are moving…………..
Seems like this Bill of lefts wants to devour your bill of rights.
I doubt more people would be dead. But I do believe you assume a certain amount of risk in a situation like that of being mistaken for a cohort by someone else who is armed or by police. Is that a guarantee that you will be mistaken or friendly fired? No. Given the other options, I’d roll those particular dice any day. I just don’t think we do a good enough job acknowledging this side of the more armed people argument.
Well Mr. Ex President just like when you signed in NAFTA that Michigan and the rest of the country that lost jobs and plants closed in automobile industry.
Your remarks as you never had sexual relations with that woman yeah okay lol !!
You’re living in a fantasy world because if all zones SHOULD BE OPEN and like myself being an expert shooter and retired law enforcement if I would have been there or anyone that practices enough that has a CPL that knows their ability and knows how to use their firearm yes they could have put a stop to this maybe one or two might have got killed or injured but definitely that person would have been stopped we need all zones open in our nation all the legal law-abiding citizens should be carrying.
Over my years in law enforcement and out of law enforcement when people talk to me about Firearms or talks to me about wanting to get your license to carry I encourage them to take the training and to carry and practice practice practice because police officers cannot be there all the time to rescue you by the time it takes for you to make a phone call if somebody was going to attack you or somebody’s trying to kick in your door more like what happened in California and Orlando before a call could be made the crazy person could end up killing many people and they don’t have to use a gun to do it they could have a knife or machete other weapons look at the bombing in Boston for the marathon crazy people and criminals but do whatever it takes if they set their mind to it. I’ve carried guns for many years and my years of service I never had to shoot anybody and I think God everyday that I never did but I know my ability and my training if I needed to or had to, I could do it but the thing is I’m happy I never had to but when it comes to hunting yes I shot deer I put meat on the table I put meat in the freezer but mostly with my firearms now I just go to the range and shoot holes in paper and that’s actually relaxing just like you might go out and play golf. It’s not the guns it’s the criminals behind the guns if we had any good leaders in our country and any good politicians they will see that instead of just trying to push their own personal agendas !!!!!
Shut up, you dolt.
Slick Willy has a herplip in this photo.
Nice to know Bill has access to a crystal ball.
Comments are closed.