Bill Clinton: Some ‘Are Compelled’ to Let Kids Die to Keep Freedoms

[rhart]

Some ‘Are Compelled’ to Let Kids Die (by keeping their schools defenseless) so they can leverage kids deaths (mainly by the hands of Democrat nutcases) to disarm Americans...​

 

[sh00ter]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...e-compelled-to-let-kids-die-to-keep-freedoms/

Oh he's talking about abortion right? LOL

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Oh he's talking about abortion right? LOL

He's actually talking about kids who want to be pirates. Without parental permission they will be able to have the amputations of their choice and hardware, hooks and pegs. Also if they wish they will be able to get one eye put out with a dagger. This is for children 2 to 12 years of age.

 

[Cowbaby]

Does that count the kids on Epstein Island Slick?

 

[Raido Free America]

That's just it, isn't it! The Left simply buys votes. The Right has to earn them.

It's all too sad that so many people are willing to sell their votes. In the end, they will find out they have sold themselves into political servitude. Someone will have to support the Left when it/they take over and it will be those who have sold their votes for the promise of government support that will find themselves conscripted into slavery.

I wonder if Bill Clinton would be willing to sacrifice his armed security to "save the children" ...

Woody

Kinda like WHORES, it has been established what these poeple are, now it's just a matter of PRICE? Did anyone hear aboput the new accusations of illegal immigrant kids being sold into slavery, for sex slaves, or to work at slave labor? Acording to this news story, some of the SPONSORS that are suppose to care for these kids, are using, or selling them, for these purposes? That is hard to believe that anyone would stoop that low? Ask yourself one question! Do YOU think the Clinton/Epstein CHILD SEX SLAVERY RING, that operated for over 20 years TOTALLY ABOVE THE LAW, under the leadership of both parties, would have come to light if Hillary Clinton had been elected President in 2016, instead or President Trump? IF WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW THIS, ARE WE JUST AS GUILTY AND THE PEOPLE DOING IT? GOD I HOPE NOT? VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[C_Hallbert]

The suggestion that rendering millions of citizens as ‘individuals’ defenseless in an attempt to attenuate the relatively low frequency of incidents in which small clusters of citizens have been killed or injured ‘collectively’ by firearms leaves the overwhelming majority of citizens with a profoundly greater risk of death or injury from a myriad of sources than the actual risk to which a relatively insignificant collective subgroup is exposed. Remember, there are around 350 million citizens, and God only knows how many illegal aliens, now residing in our country. The argument in question intentionally does not take into account of the enormous number of incidents where privately owned firearms are used to prevent citizen deaths or injuries often without ever being fired. The rationale behind this dangerous suggestion is based a on a fallacy appealing to the emotions of the audience (argumentum ad passiones) and it smells to me like another Marxist dialectic narrative. I call to mind that Hillary Clinton was a protégée of Saul Alinsky, Marxist author of ‘Rules for Radicals’; so, It’s not much of a reach to imagine from where this idea arises…..