BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Running for President. Her Views on Guns

Hillary Clinton Launches Women's World Cup Initiative

If it was a surprise to you that Hillary Clinton was about to launch her presidential campaign, then I’d like to welcome you back from your year-long Australian outback walkabout. Hillary has been the assumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination since Barack Obama tagged out on his presidential elections, and today she has finally officially announced her candidacy. As a reminder to our readers, here’s a quick run-down of Hillary Clinton’s history with firearms.

On the idea of respecting the right of people to keep and bear arms, Hillary had the following to say just last year.

“We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” she said. “And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

Note the language in use. Not that the majority of people agree with her point of view, but that she knows what’s best for everyone and wants to make her vision a reality. That’s slightly concerning, but as we start reaching further back in history things get worse. Earlier in the year, Hillary appeared to believe that American gun owners are potential terrorists.

We’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before.

I think she meant “semi-automatic” instead of “automatic,” but I’m not discounting the idea that just like CNN’s anchors they don’t care enough to look up the difference and just want to ban all the scary looking guns. She went further, bemoaning the fact that the proposed universal background check bill failed, and demanding that we “do something” to “protect our children” from the scourge of “automatic weapons.”

“What’s been happening with these school shootings should cause everybody to just think hard,” she said. “I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shooting at Sandy Hook and now we’ve had more in the time since.”

Clinton, thought to be a likely 2016 presidential candidate, then made a glaring error when making an emotional plea to promote gun control.

She said she couldn’t understand how an individual could walk into a school with an “automatic weapon” and “murder innocent children, students, teachers.” In fact, automatic weapons are highly regulated and very difficult to acquire. It is likely the former first lady was actually referring to semi-automatic weapons.

She referred to “automatic weapons” for a second time later during the town hall, saying they can do more damage than ever before. There have been two homicides committed with legally owned fully automatic weapons since 1934, according to GunCite.com.

Stepping back to the last real presidential campaign, Hillary admitted during a debate in the Democratic primaries that her goal is to re-instate the failed Assault Weapons Ban:

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed–the Republicans will not reinstate it–are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

As we have stated many times, the Assault Weapons Ban is widely acknowledged even by President Obama’s own staff to have had no effect whatsoever on reducing crime and only impacts law abiding citizens. But Hillary doesn’t care — “assault weapons” are scary and need to be banned. For the children.

Beyond simply banning “assault weapons,” Hillary has also publicly stated her belief that all firearms should be registered.

“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”

While in congress, Hillary voted AGAINST prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and also AGAINST prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers for “gun violence” cases.

The following is a cut-and-pase of Hillary’s 2010 manifesto about her stance on gun issues, including her desire to require “smart gun” technology in all firearms

Make America the “Safest Big Country” in the World

After climbing relentlessly for three decades, crime rates started to fall in the 1990s. Nonetheless, the public remains deeply concerned about the prevalence of gun violence, especially among juveniles, and Americans still avoid public spaces like downtown retail areas, parks, and even sports facilities.

We need to keep policing “smart” and community-friendly, prohibiting unjust and counterproductive tactics such as racial profiling; focus on preventing as well as punishing crime; pay attention to what happens to inmates and their families after sentencing; use mandatory testing and treatment to break the cycle of drugs and crime; and enforce and strengthen laws against unsafe or illegal guns. Moreover, we need a renewed commitment to equal justice for all, and we must reject a false choice between justice and safety.

Technology can help in many areas: giving police more information on criminal suspects so they do not rely on slipshod, random stop-and-search methods; allowing lower-cost supervision of people on probation or parole; and making it possible to disable and/or trace guns used by unauthorized persons.

Above all, we need to remember that public safety is the ultimate goal of crime policy. Until Americans feel safe enough to walk their neighborhood streets, enjoy public spaces, and send their children to school without fear of violence, we have not achieved public safety.

Goals for 2010

  • Reduce violent crime rates another 25 percent.

  • Cut the rate of repeat offenses in half.

  • Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.

  • Ban racial profiling by police but encourage criminal targeting through better information on actual suspects.

  • Require in-prison and post-prison drug testing and treatment of all drug offenders.

“Until Americans feel safe” she plans to keep pushing for more gun control. Not based on actual facts or statistics, but based on her personal feelings of how safe America is with all these proto-terrorist gun owners and their automatic assault weapons, unregistered handguns, and “cop killer” bullets.

comments

  1. avatar Sammy says:

    Yea, bill’s AWB was really, really effective.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      …at making everyone want an AR15. People forget how popular the Mini-14 was before Slick Willy made the AR15 the bad boy of the gun world. Bill Ruger made a mistake cooperating with the Dems. He should have been begging to get the Mini on the banned list.

      1. avatar John Butler says:

        To be fair, Bill Ruger wasn’t the only one. Colt’s CEO at the time publicly supported handgun registration. Smith & Wesson cut a deal that lead to their eventual bankruptcy and purchase (ironically) by Safe-T-Hammer. In the 90’s, everyone thought we were headed for UK style civil disarmament and various corporate heads went the Neville Chamberlain route and attempted appeasement with those who could not be appeased.

        Even the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre supported the fedral gun free school zones.

        Bill Ruger is remembered and vilified to a certain extent by some because most of his companies best sellers at the time were in full compliance with the 94 AWB when it went into effect. Single and double action revolvers, bolt action rifles and even the Mini 14 Ranch rifle (with a five round magazine) were all compliant with the AWB by their basic design.

        Ruger saw some backlash, but nothing like Colt and Smith & Wesson experienced. For the most part, Ruger’s customer base grew through the 1990’s. The Mini 14 became the favorite of various Militia groups, partly for the .223 chambering and partly for the steady supply of “pre ban/Leo only ” twenty and thirty round magazines that somehow never dissapeared from the civilian market. And once it became clear the gun banning tide had turned with the sunset of the AWB in 2004, Ruger began making magazines with capacities higher than ten rounds available to the “general public” (even though they never really went away) and started building EBR’s, including AR pattern rifles.

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          Very true! Ron Stewart, then CEO of Colt wanted all gun owners to have to have a Federal permit and licenses.

          http://articles.philly.com/1998-07-13/news/25738137_1_gun-control-proposals-gun-control-federal-gun

          `I’m not a gun nut,” Stewart said. “I’m not even a member of the NRA.”

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Ruger never made their ‘high capacity’ Mini-14 magazines available to civilians until after the sunset of the AWB, but ProMag was happy to oblige. The ban only applied to the manufacture and importation of >10 round magazines, not the sale of the existing stock. Then they gave everyone something like 6 months to continue manufacturing them before the ban took effect and by then there was pretty much a 10 year supply, AR15 magazines included. Anyway, the best way to get people to want something is to get the government to tell them they can’t have it anymore. Bill Clinton is the father of the AR craze.

          There are still people out there who will not have a Ruger product to this day. I’m not one of them. Half of my firearms have Alexander Sturm’s heraldic eagle on them. BR was the closest thing to John Moses Browning since John Moses Browning, he deserved a Mulligan.

        3. avatar John Smith says:

          Bill Ruger supported the 10-round magazine limit. That won’t ever be forgotten by those of us old enough to be affected by that AWB BS.

        4. avatar BlueBronco says:

          Bill Ruger has been dead since 2002. His son and the company are a different animal. You guys like to give Colt and S&W a pass on their crap. Colt was 100x worse than what Bill did. Don Stewart wanted every one to have Federal permits and licenses to own guns. Colt also thought back then that the public didn’t need AR15’s.

          Ruger and S&W have done a lot the past 10 years to advance the 2A especially the past 5. They are leading the battle on the firing pin b.s. in Cali.

        5. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          You do know Bill Ruger is dead, right?

        6. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          @ Gov. William J. Le Petomane

          Doesn’t mean we can’t dig up the corpse and desecrate it out in the open.

  2. avatar JWM says:

    I will do what I can to stop her from being elected. But living in CA it does seem at times like I’m shoveling sand against the tide.

    1. avatar DrewN says:

      I still love California, but if these nitwits elect Kamala freaking Harris I’ll be in Az so fast your head will spin.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Right now, the only one who could beat Harris is another democrat (Ms. Rice,who is not running, by the way). There is not a single high profile Republican to be found.

      2. avatar EMT Jeff says:

        What’s the problem with sending Kamela Harris off to Washington DC? There are plenty more Republicans there (as compared to back in California) to keep her in check; it sounds good to me.

        1. avatar DrewN says:

          Sigh. I just hold a vain hope that someday, someone who is actually qualified for the job will bother to run. Senator from California shouldn’t be a starter job.

      3. avatar BlueBronco says:

        Harris will have 2 years to train under the Wicked Witch of the West and assume that roll when Diane finally retires.

    2. avatar Phil LA says:

      Shovel-away: the tide reaches only so far.

  3. avatar JasonM says:

    If the republicans nominate yet another statist RINO, that a rational person can’t distinguish from a democrat, she’ll probably win.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      For too many election cycles the GOP has nominated the establishment candidate just because they had paid their dues and it was “their turn”.

      Now the Dems get to do the same thing. I hope it works as well for them as it did for the RINOs.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        By the way…

        GOP RINOs are feckless
        Support the TEA Party
        They give a feck

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      I think Rand is the closest we’ll get. But the brass in the GOP probably will go with someone like Cruz. God help us if they pick Jeb…

    3. avatar int19h says:

      And if they don’t nominate an establishment Republican, they will lose even harder because insane degree of social conservatism exhibited by almost all non-establishment candidates is such that it will push younger and female voters away in droves.

      The sole exception to that is Rand Paul. That guy is probably the only one who could actually draw a sufficiently large base of otherwise Dem voter base (against Hillary or any other establishment Democrat candidate) for it to even be a contest. But he’ll never make it through the GOP primaries in the first place for the same reason – he doesn’t peddle the party flavor of stupid.

  4. avatar Albaniaaa says:

    Rand Paul

    1. avatar Publius says:

      He’s the best Republican, but the GOP elite will never let him win. They’ll do the same to him as they did to his father, where they do everything they can to keep him from being heard and to keep voters from knowing he exists.

      1. avatar BlueBronco says:

        The establishment RNC did not like Ronald Reagan one damn bit, but he took George Hebert Walker Bush to the wood shed in the primaries.

        The problem I see is that there are a lot of candidates in the field: Jeb “Pepe” Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Krisp Krispy, Lindsey Graham Cracker, Mike Huckabee (potentially), and Marco Rubio (likely), and Scott Walker. Rubio should just wait because he is young enough and all he is likely to accomplish is put an ass-hat like Goodtime Charlie Crist in the U.S. Senate. I think this will favor the Bushes because they can ride out every primary hoping to gain ground by attrition.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        True, he is not establishment and will be sabotaged, if that is, it is necessary given his recent displays of temper. Even assuming the interviewers were being insufferable, he cannot win if he cannot control (a) his temper and (b) the conversation.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      Rand is the only R runner I have the fewest disagreements with. But, as stated above, the GOP ol’ boys club likely will pick someone else.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        IMHO, it’s between the Canadian and good ol’ Jeb for the GOP. It will probably be Jeb. 🙁

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          You’re probably right. Political dynasty vs political dynasty.
          We’ve all been sold down the river.

        2. avatar BDub says:

          Well if it is Jeb, you can rest knowing that you helped put the first “white hispanic” (LOL!) in the White House. HAHAHAAA! Gotta love Florida!

  5. avatar JohnO says:

    Wasn’t she already Co-President back in the day?

  6. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Hitlery=Obozo
    I thought the movie America covered her politics being a disciple of Saul Alinsky rather well. I think the article above was okay, but really should have covered this aspect in much more detail. Hitlery is a Bolshevik.

    1. avatar Tom W. says:

      Between McCain calling Cruz a “wacko bird” and the RINO establishment wanting the same ol same ol, on the other side we as a Nation have The Cankle of Hidebeast. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

      Where have I heard that before?
      Hmmmm.

  7. avatar John Fritz - HMFIC says:

    Her and Jeb are running.

    He will lose.

    God help us all.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I’d take a third Bush long before I would consider a second Clinton.

      The reality is that she is a federal felon and not eligible to run for public office. The fact that the Obama administration has not charged her with violation of federal record keeping laws is a travesty of justice.

      Anybody know a federal judge who would sign off on a charging document?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        No one is a felon until convicted. Since she has not been convicted, she is not a felon, no matter what your feelings on the matter might be. Further, judges do not “sign off” on indictments–charges are brought (in federal court) by the Attorney General’s Office, and not by anyone else. So you might as well give up on that thought; it isn’t going to happen.

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          Actually, it is not that simple either. Grand Juries have something to do with it as do judges. The prosecutors can bring charges, that is all. They don’t get say if there is an indictment or “true bill.”

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      1) Scott Walker

      2) Emails, Benghazi, and Bill Clinto (aka, the gift that keeps on giving).

      1. avatar AllAmerican says:

        Scott Walker is the most underrated man in the game. He would sweep the floor with her in the debates.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I wouldn’t underestimate Ted Cruz when it comes to the debates.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

          Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy[29] from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992.[4][6] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[30] In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year, as well as Team of the Year, with his debate partner, David Panton.[30] Cruz was a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship, making him Princeton’s highest-ranked debater at the championship.[31][32] Princeton’s debate team later named their annual novice championship after Cruz.[31]

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Ted is probably a very good debater, but if he starts Bible thumping and cozying up to the remnants of the Moral Minority, he might as well kiss his chances good by. Huckaby and Rubio too. Morality comes from the heart and from the home, not dictated by the U.S. Government.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Mark, when did you first realize that you’re a bigot?

        4. avatar Sprocket says:

          Walker’s the Governor of my state and I voted for him. That said, I have no idea why people are excited about him. He’s dumb as a stump and just another crooked political hack. He is where he is because he greases the right wheels and the rest of the state doesn’t want to be run by Madison leftie whackos. If the Republicans run him, they’re even dumber than I thought.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Bill Clinto (aka, the gift that keeps on giving).”

        Aw, Bill’s just a lovable ever-growing-senile horndog.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      I think Rand Paul has a solid chance of winning, both the nomination and the election. He’ll get the support of his father’s C4L backers (a huge, highly motivated grass roots movement) as well as the conservative majority of the republican party, two groups that have not been represented by the republican presidential candidate since the mid ’80s. Throw on Ted Cruz as a running mate, and their chances are very good.

      And if not, time to buy a compound in Montana and push for secession.

      1. avatar BlueBronco says:

        Take a look at the Gov of Montana before committing to go there. He is a leftist Dem and has vetoed several pro-2A bills this year. Montana has been influenced by Cali libs kind of like Colorado.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Montana has historically been a Democrat-leaning state (largely due to unions) for a very long time, it has very little to do with CA.

  8. avatar Martin B says:

    I see ol’ Hillary has really studied up for her presidential bid, knows the issues and presents them clearly. Or not. Seems like, not only is her hubbie a hard dog to keep on the porch, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Technically that’s a bitch, but let’s not get too personal.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    hey Hillary,
    “What difference does it make”
    which gun I want to own…

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      If you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

      Period.

  10. avatar jim says:

    We didn’t want her in 2008. Don’t want her now. When you hear people promote Hillary for Prez confuse them by asking what has she accomplished. Not what jobs she held. What has she accomplished? You will hear crickets

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      That didn’t stop Obslama twice now did it??

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Obama was a YBM. Hillary is an OFWB.

  11. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I really think people should watch both of Dinesh D’Souza’s movies. T always thought they described Obozo and Hitlery rather well.
    I think people should read Ayn Rand’s books as well.
    I like Atlas Shrugged and think it is sort of a portent of things to come.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      You think the railroad industry might collapse soon? 😉

      I bought a reprint of Atlas Shrugged in the late ’90s, because my first copy was falling apart, and I noticed it was rife with misspellings that were not present in the previous version. I had to wonder if it was an intentional move by some statist editor to discredit Ms. Rand and Objectivism.

      I do have to admit I liked Anthem better: straight to the point. That would make a great movie…unlike that godawful crap that came out a couple years ago.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Anthem was a great book as well. I probably have read most of her books. I thought Ayn was usually more right than wrong.

  12. avatar AllAmerican says:

    So it begins….

  13. avatar racer88 says:

    No. She didn’t MEAN “semi-automatic,” though she was REFERRING to semi-autos. She MEANT “automatic” as a way to leverage scary language in order to ban semi-autos.

    This is not accidental or even ignorance. She (and her ilk) know EXACTLY what they’re doing. They KNOW the difference between semi and full auto. They are very intentionally conflating the two to the point of gaining momentum to ban semi-autos. THAT is their rather obvious (to me) plan.

    1. avatar racer88 says:

      By conflating the two terms, the public’s general ignorance can be leveraged to gain support for banning “evil automatics,” with the result being the banning SEMI-automatics.

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      +1 I agree. This is simply a tactic. Refuse to acknowledge any significant difference. How dare you correct the queen’s misinformation.

  14. avatar Fusic says:

    If Republicans can keep their trap shut regarding social/religious issues that alienate half the voting population we may have a chance to beat her and keep our rights for another 4-8 years.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      “RINOs gotta RINO”.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Still buying in to that ‘war on women’ thing, huh? Have fun voting with your ‘lady parts.’

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        No kidding. Walker and Cruz can’t ban abortion. Gay marriage will happen regardless. Actually, it already is happening.

        Gun rights are far more important than supporting gay marriage or tax payer-funded abortions.

        1. avatar Publius says:

          Even if they have no effect on the outcome of abortion / gay marriage, it still turns away potential voters to hear the candidate say something utterly retarded / bigoted.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          The social conservatives should quietly let their opposition to gay marriage go to the wayside, but on that front, I don’t and I don’t think most people think that people should be forced by the government to violate their conscience, which is what the left is pushing. The right needs to make it a religious freedom issue and not an anti-gay issue.

          As far as abortion, the polling shows that 2/3 of the population oppose abortion after the first trimester. In most places the social conservatives are pushing for a 20 week limit while the Democrats are pushing for unlimited tax payer funded abortion right up to the moment of birth. Rand did a pretty good job last week of throwing that back at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, insisting reporters go ask her if it was OK to kill a 7 pound baby 8 1/2 months into the pregnancy. (She thinks it just fine.) Fortunately for the Democrats there is a seemingly unending supply of people who have no idea that a trimester is only 13 weeks. Anyway, the social conservatives are much much closer to the mainstream than the Democratic Party.

          Thirdly, if you’re really willing to give up your gun rights so your taxes can be used to pay for abortions, go ahead, vote Hillary – 2016.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          >> Gun rights are far more important than supporting gay marriage or tax payer-funded abortions.

          To you, they are. To many people, they’re not. If you want to lose those votes, keep telling them what they care isn’t important.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          McCain and Romney. That’s how you win. If you want to lose the election you put up a conservative like Reagan. If you want to win you need to nominate a squishy moderate.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          Reagan is a blazing RINO by pretty much any metric today. The man supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, fought budget deficit with tax increases, supported “common sense” gun control (including Brady) etc.

        6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          You’re confusing support with governing with a Democratic congress.

    3. avatar Cloud says:

      Sorry. But I won’t vote for a squish on social issues. If he’s a squish on social issues he’ll be a squish on gun rights too.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Not true. Look at Libertarians. They support all personal freedoms. Republicans and Democrats both believe in using the power of the state to impose their agenda on everyone. They differ only in the details of the agenda. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has no chance of winning at this time. That could change if a handful of bright young people spent twenty or thirty years building it into a serious contender. It won’t be me because I’m neither smart enough nor young enough. On a practical level, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican policies I dislike don’t hurt me personally while the Democratic policies I dislike do hurt me. That leaves me a reluctant Republican.

    4. avatar barnbwt says:

      If the Republicans took pot and ran with it, like Dems did with Civil Rights once the writing was on the wall courtesy of Republican efforts, they would eviscerate the Democrats’ little cobbled-together group of grievance voters for generations.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Pot and dropping the anti-LGBT BS. That would almost assuredly secure a win for the GOP. But it would take putting the Bible down and picking up the Constitution, which establishment Rs and the far right seem to have a hard time doing.

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          Rand Paul has said he is for decriminalizing POT at the Fed level to get in sync with State laws where it is now legal.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Too bad the socons will get a case of the vapors and demand a good ol’ “Rightous” Christian. I like how Cruz’s leading YT video is all about religion. Because THAT’S what they need, to pander to the far right who are voting R anyway.

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          I know a lot of what you might call “hard right” folks who are _not_ “voting R anyway”… just sayin’…

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “But it would take putting the Bible down and picking up the Constitution,”

          I don’t have to put the Bible down to pick up the Constitution. The problem lies in the fact that the Bible applies to ME and MY relationship to God … not in me telling OTHERS how to live.

          I am commanded, in the Bible, to “Love My Neighbor as Myself.” Love is an action, not a ‘feeling’ or ’emotion.’ Nowhere does it say, “except LGBT” or any other exceptions. I cannot, in my Biblically Christian morality carve out an exception to Christian Love for gays or any other group. There’s a TON of theological literature on this subject (beginning with Jesus talking to the disciples about interacting with Gentiles against the wishes of the contemporary church leaders…it is part of what led to his execution).

          The problem is not the Bible or Christian morality. The problem is Statist ideology of “control.”

          I want a Conservative candidate that respects all individuals over the ‘rights’ of the State. That’s who I prefer to vote for. The issue at stake is one of ‘free will’ sovereignty vs control by others. Hillary is the latter. So are, unfortunately, a lot of so-called ‘conservatives.’

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @JR_in_NC: Great post!

        6. avatar Grindstone says:

          Excellent post, Mr. JC. I just wish the rest of the GOP was the same.

        7. avatar Wiregrass says:

          JR nailed it.

  15. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    If the people who generally stay at home and vote this time around. With even 50 million of who, say are gun owners that aren’t FUDDS vote.
    There is a snowballs chance in hell the biach wont make it.
    Then its still 2 years from now. A lot of older people might, myself included?? No one knows when. Might have some permanent health issues that make sure she cant serve anywhere ………….I can only hope for her, not me…..

  16. avatar Accur81 says:

    I hope sincerely hope that no one on TTAG is dumb enough to vote for her. Unfortunately, a whole lot of TTAG readers voted for Obama.

    If you care about gun rights, do everything you can to get Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and / or Ted Cruz on the Republican ticket.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Don’t forget all of Rob’s “Obama is basically pro-gun, you should vote for him over Romney” posts from three years ago either.

      1. avatar Cloud says:

        Whaaaat?

        1. avatar Publius says:

          Back during that election, at least once a week Rob wrote a post about how Obama “is basically pro-gun” and ignored all of Obama’s previous anti-gun rants. If I were the tin-foil hat type, I’d say it was because he knew he’d get far more page views (and ad revenue) if Obama got re-elected.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        “Rob”? You don’t mean RF do you? ( I wasn’t hereabouts 3 years ago).

        1. avatar Publius says:

          That would be the one.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Gotta say, I’m pretty shocked. seems I have read him post stuff like, oh, “Don’t trust Democrats, ever” since I’ve been here. Maybe that ‘s part of the reason?

      3. avatar int19h says:

        RF never said that Obama is pro-gun. He said that Obama is not vehemently anti-gun based on his track record, which was in fact the correct assessment of the facts as they were before Newtown (which is when said assessment was made).

        1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          No, that is not true. Obama was a voted for several pieces of gun grabbing in the Illinois state legislature. Obama was even on the board of the Joyce Foundation. Yet RF said he was not going to try to take our guns.

  17. avatar Pete S. says:

    Yeah, Clinton v. Bush, wasn’t there a similar election in 1992? Sigh, its a wonder that I haven’t voted in a presidential election for awhile.

  18. avatar racer88 says:

    Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.

    Authorized??? By whom? And when? And, for which reasons?

    The language of that statement is a very good example of how “words matter.”

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I don’t think she was the one, but some democrat genius leaked the idea of requiring remote kill switches in the smart guns.

      I believe she was one of the people who supported the idea of the internet kill switch and trying to force tech companies to put government backdoors in to all security.

      1. avatar racer88 says:

        Exactly.

        Read. The. Words. Carefully.

  19. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    Annnnnd up goes the prices of guns

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Yes, if I owned a firearms company I would be rooting for Hillary and a Republican congress. That way nothing would get done to restrict gun rights and yet everyone would run out and buy my products. Perfect combo from that perspective.

  20. avatar USMCVeteran says:

    As usual both parties are going to cram their choices for candidates, i. e. Jeb and Hillary, down our throats. Isn’t that the same problem that Hong Kong is having with the Chinese government? I’m sick of the presidential crown going back and forth between the Clintons and the Bush family!

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Pay attention, Americans – You can’t get TEA from a Bush.

  21. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I don’t know which is more concerning; that she was Secretary of State and either doesn’t know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic small arms or that she knows the difference and lies for emotional appeal to con the American people out of the free exercise of a natural and protected right. Either way, she has no business being President of the United States of America.

    1. avatar Cloud says:

      She knows. She’s a liar and is intentionally conflating the two to scare her drones and other dim wits to vote for her so she can attempt to ban semi-auto.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        All politicians are liars, and all great politicians are great liars.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    I’d like to welcome you back from your year-long Austrailian outback walkabout.

    Year long? That beyotch has been running for President since 1992.

    1. avatar Ozzallos says:

      This. It’s been a pretty accepted notion since the day she positioned herself in New York.

  23. avatar cockatoo says:

    Preemptive caveat: everything she says here is a steaming pile of creamy crapola.
    However, i’d like to remind the readers here at TTAG that there’s an ocean of difference between what a candidate (any candidate) has to promise in order to get nominated, survive a primary, and get elected, versus what a president (any president) is compelled to do or retfrain from doing.
    This is all red meat for her base. She has to say these things, the same way that Ted Cruz has to promise to outlaw evolution, declare America a “Christian Nation” and deport all the brown people. Rand Paul has to promise to abolish the federal government altogether.
    Any of these people might win in 2016. None of them will do any of these things. As good as any of it sounds to their supporters, it all sounds outrageous to their detractors, and none of it survives the process of opposition in the world of realpolitik.
    Think about it, guys, when have you ever NOT been disappointed and disgusted by whoever you voted for, once they’re in office?
    HRC may be many things, but she’s politically street smart. She knows all this stuff is dead before it his the ground, but she needs to mobilize the support of the antis, because she knows she can’t get it from us. Candidates have to build coalitions. If the MDA ends up disappointed in her in 2017, that’s just how the game is played.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Are you one of the people who told us that Obama wasn’t coming for our guns? How’d that little prediction work out?

      Bill was thought to be a moderate. Then he instituted the AWB and crammed restrictions down S&W’s throat — and ours. Hillary is and always has been hard left. When she says she wants guns gone, she means it, and there’s nothing that the crabby old harridan won’t do to get her way.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Not only is she hard left, but incredibly arrogant. I wouldn’t trust HRC to lead a Girl Scout Troop.

        1. avatar Raven says:

          Girl Scout Troop? I wouldn’t trust her to lead a convoy of piss-ants…

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Do you claim Rand/Cruz are actually saying those things, because Hillary has actually said what was documented in this article.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I’m sure Mr. Cruz is in a real hurry to “deport all the brown people”.

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      I guess this is the place to note that, if anything, Hil is more anti-gun than Bill. And Bill doesn’t believe there is an individual “right” to own firearms; he believes that there is just a “national consensus” (his words) that makes it OK for people to own firearms for hunting and such (not including target-shooting with semi-autos, BTW; Bill said those people should “read a good book” instead). In other words, Bill had elevated Fuddism to national legal policy in his own mind. Hillary will only be worse.

    4. avatar Aaron says:

      Weren’t ar15s banned the last time Hillary lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave??

  24. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    The hildebeast couldn’t get crowds to her crummy book signings…unless it has another stroke(yeah I think it did) it is a lock for the dumbocrat nom…ONE of the worst presidential candidirts ever. And for once thee elephant party has some good people.

  25. avatar DoomGuy says:

    That’s our next general secretary… Er… president ladies and gentlemen…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Well, if it does win then I hope more POTG will finally start carrying their long guns every now and then or at least stop ragging on those of us who do.

      It’s damned difficult to infringe upon people who are already visibly well armed all of the time in public. That’s the whole A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state stuff, guys and gals. 😉

  26. avatar Jim R says:

    If ANY of this is a surprise to you, you have been under a rock for the last 20+ years.

  27. avatar John Dalton says:

    Arrogant dictators LOVE a disarmed peasantry……….how curious to wrap totalitarianism in compassion for the middle class family……….but, then……dictators (and potential dictators) lie.

  28. avatar S.CROCK says:

    On the bright side, if she is elected it won’t cause a .22 lr scare. On the negative side it will be because there is none to scare away.

  29. avatar mlloyd says:

    You know, where there’s smoke there is fire. There is no way I’m voting for her!

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp

  30. avatar sagebrushracer says:

    and BAM! there goes any hope I had of restocking my .22 LR supply. With her run on the white house official, I hereby predict gun buying craze 3.0 has started today.

  31. avatar SteveO says:

    Umm folks, this country still has roughly 2 years of the anointed one to get through. A lotta things are still very much in play, even with congress tilting this past go around. He isn’t a lame duck but more like a caged tiger with the door ready to fall off.

  32. avatar Aaron says:

    HRC will play to her audience. She is not interested in facts and statistics.

    If her democrat constituents wanted free flame throwers for all, she would back it. But they want more gun control.

  33. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Well I was planning on building a 6.8spc later this year, best get a move in before primary season heats up.

    That sound you hear is the gunbroker speculators applying for new credit cards

  34. avatar Pascal says:

    If you dig a little deeper you find she is no friend of the 1st Amendment (for children ban books and video games we don’t like) she all for eminent domain, find her comments on the New London, CT fiasco that haunts many communities till this day and no fan the 4th Amendment that pesky thing should go away.

    She likes to hide emails and her presidency well probably bring back failed Hilliarycare as well.

    Truth be told, neither the left nor the right are big fans of her. We will see, but she could be the Democrats Mitt Romney this go around.

  35. avatar Southern Cross says:

    If you don’t vote, you get the government you deserve. And Hillary should be a wake up call to the consequences of not casting your vote.

    And so starts the 2nd American Civil War.

  36. avatar Researcher says:

    If Hillary Clinton was elected she would be the second oldest president elected after Ronald Reagan.

    He was 69 years 11 months when elected, and she would be 69 years 2 months.

    As anyone who has grandparents knows personally, health is a huge concern.

    There are legitimate lingering concerns about her fainting, falling and concussion incident. We would not expect to be told the complete truth of what occurred but it is a valid concern that someone who is going to be Commander in Chief be of sound health in mind and body not prone to feinting.

    The sad truth is that Ronald Reagan wasn’t competent to be president, he suffered from dementia and alzheimer disease. It is a risky game to play to have a compromised president.

    It is understandable that Hillary would REALLY want to be president, she has been relentlessly ambitious and politically driven and it should be apparent that she would do anything to be president.

    Being president should not be about her ambitions, but rather what is right for the country.

    Her actions and comments surrounding the inappropriate storage of emails and the reckless treatment after the situation became known are suspect and it is a fair and reasonable question to ask if this is an indication of more than just political maneuvering and a sign of degrading competency.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3020517/Did-Ronald-Reagan-Alzheimer-s-office-Early-signs-dementia-revealed-former-president-s-speech.html

    http://nypost.com/2014/05/19/real-cause-for-worry-facts-on-hillarys-concussion/

  37. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Bill is too smart. He Told Obama “support for gun control runs broad but not deep” it’s just. It an important issue to most of the people who are for it. It is a huge issue for people on both sides who are against it. It is a losing issue , just ask pols who have voted for it in all but the bluest of states.
    Hillary is smar enough to avoid this issue on the campaign esp in the general. We need to make sure she has to answer gun control questions in he primary season when she will be honest about being anti to appeal to the liberal base. Then she’s on record with a losing issue in the primary.
    Write in questions to town halls etc. make this an issue.

  38. avatar Ozzallos says:

    Remember this one? It’s 3am. Who do you trust to answer the phone of foriegn policy and world events? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg

    Oh, damn. Benghazi. You had that job. AND UTTERLY FAILED YOUR COUNTRY.

    I don’t think she’ll win. She’s got a sh*t-ton of political baggage. But I think the press will do everything they can to shove her down our throats until somebody more promising proves they can take the liberal spotlight. Today’s media lives in the world of their own legacy.

    “What can I report on that will be remembered?”
    “What events can I leverage latter on in my career?”
    “How much can we milk the current situation?”

    First black president? Check. First female president? Check. Even better, they’re liberal. Today’s media shapes current events to satisfy their own desire to create a legacy for itself. If they can get away with it to make it happen, they’ll ignore Hillary’s record just for the sake of saying “we were there when…” Nor does it help that the conservative party has been particularly spineless as of late. That’s why i’m not taking any chances. I don’t think she’ll win, but I’m still buyin’. Just in case.

  39. avatar joe_thousandaire says:

    I’m pretty sure America is the safest big country in the world.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      EXPLETIVE DELETED safety. I’ll take Liberty.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I rarely get moderated, but when I do… 😀

        1. avatar joe_thousandaire says:

          Agree with you 100% John, even though you are from Ohio lol – Go Blue!

          Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. -Helen Keller.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Aye, brother. Keep your powder dry and carry on.

  40. avatar thx855 says:

    I’ll not vote again, not participate in a system I don’t agree with and that every candidate has a vested interest in perpetuating. But secretly, I’m hoping for a Clinton/Bush 2016. The ultimate 1-2 punch.

  41. avatar Jack Mehoff says:

    Great…a choice between “Fauxcahontas” and “Granny pantsuit”.

  42. avatar Kyle says:

    I personally recommend thumbsdowning the $%^&* out of this if you have a youtube account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N708P-A45D0

  43. avatar Maluka says:

    The bumper stickers will be short and sweet. “HILLARY-PROVEN LIAR”

    And of course she wants to have full gun control because all communists do not want their citizens to own a firearm, ask the islamic communist. Right obama????

  44. avatar Steve says:

    I predict a shortage of ammo and a lot of AR’s being sold.

  45. avatar ELOT says:

    Here’s why we’re screwed and won’t get a good candidate… dilution. Just like the last election and the one before that… the conservatives that support gun rights will dilute each other. We already have Cruz, Paul and Rubio running. There will likely be a couple more conservatives. Then… there will be just one or two RINOs. During the caucuses and primaries the conservative/conservatarian base will be split 4 or 5 ways (or more) while the RINOs will be split one or two ways. This is how we always get a bad candidate on the republican side. This is why the next person elected will either not care or will be against the second amendment.

  46. avatar ghost says:

    I believe she is dangerous at every level, not just against firearm owners. She has a plan, but, she has to be elected before we can see what is in it.

  47. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Something for your consideration in the next election cycle……

    Four of the Supreme Court Justices are over 70 years of age. Whoever is sitting in the Oval Office in the next four years has the potential to pick four seats on the bench.

    Think about that for a minute…. the Heller decision went ‘our way’ by a 5-4. Imagine if just one of the Judges was replaced by a less Rights friendly judge. Now imagine two or three or even four judges picked by someone who is as Individual-Rights adverse like Former First Lady Hillary Clinton.

    Whatever your views on politics, you absolutely can not let this election get reduced to a simple debate over (D) versus (R).

  48. avatar BDub says:

    Hillary’s candidacy must be a GOP plot to get me to vote Republican. Sneaky bastards!

  49. avatar rehafner says:

    Hillary wants to disarm everyone since she found out Monica was cleaning Bill’s gun in the oral office.

  50. avatar Rich says:

    Hildabeast belongs on the plains of Africa not the White House. We have had enough of here corruption, lies, and brain dead thinking. Former employees have reported she beat Bill bloody after she found out about Monica. That is domestic violence. That means she should never own or buy a gun let alone a finger on Nukes. She never saw gun control law she didn’t love. She does not trust us why should we trust her?

  51. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    My thoughts on Hillary announcing are here. As far as I’m concerned it’s a good thing (though not in the was Democrats may think…)

    http://wp.me/p5yCHs-bv

  52. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    People will vote for the first white woman President just like they voted for the first black man president. Because race and sex are number one. The voters are very shallow in their thinking. Hillary the “early 2oth century progressive,” has always supported interfering in the personal and sexual lives of people. All modern liberals have done it.

    They are not the classical liberal of old. Welfare has destroyed the black family structure in America. It was a planned attack and the traditional family. Yes I am a conspiracy theorist. I even believe there has been a plan to disarm the black population and keep blacks disarmed. Anyone on welfare is persecuted by welfare overlords. The government tells a woman they can’t be married and receive welfare payments. Adult males will leave the home before a government welfare inspector shows up for a visit. The government interferes with heterosexual relationships. And always has.
    Blacks are over 30% of the prison population and only 12% of the American population. And nearly all those prisoners had no father in their life.

    Don’t keep accepting the same old line Christians want to interfere in the lives of non-believers. The godless or you can call them non-believers have been passing laws like welfare and gun control for a long time. It was the heterosexual Mormons who were first to be killed over their sexual relationship preferences in America. They are the only people to suffer a pogrom in America. And no I’m not a Mormon.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email