Hillary Clinton Launches War on Guns. Again. Still.

hillary26n-1-web

In the wake of the Umpqua Community College mass shooting, sensing rival Bernie Sanders’ “weakness on guns,” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is launching a war on guns. Speaking at a rally on Friday, Clinton promised to fight for “new, effective, gun control measures.” Channeling President Obama’s petulant post-Umpqua statement, Clinton set her sights on “the NRA and the gun lobby and the manufacturers they represent.” The Clinton campaign gave their BFFs at The Huffington Post a heads-up on their candidate’s four “new” gun control proposals, scheduled for their official debut at a town hall meeting later today. To quote Warren Zevon, it ain’t that pretty at all . . .

At the top of the list is a pledge to take administrative action if Congress fails to tighten the so-called gun show and Internet sales loopholes. Under current law, licensed dealers are required to conduct background checks and certify that potential buyers are not prohibited from owning guns. But unlicensed vendors, including some individual sellers at gun shows, don’t have to go through these steps.

Clinton plans to call for lawmakers to address the issue. But if they don’t, she will require that anyone “attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed ‘in the business of selling firearms,’” which would “ensure that high-volume gun sellers are covered by the same common sense rules that apply to gun stores — including requiring background checks on gun sales.” Asked what would constitute “a significant number of guns,” a Clinton aide responded, “There are a number of studies being conducted currently regarding illegal gun sales that could inform an eventual rule making.” . . .

[ED: Everytown for Gun Safety’s anti-gun agitprop arm, The Trace, writes today that ” The White House has been mulling a similar move, we hear, perhaps timed to coincide with the Sandy Hook anniversary in December.”]

Clinton’s second proposal would close a gap in the current background check process that “allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check is not complete within three days.” The so-called “Charleston Loophole” has been pinpointed as a contributing factor in the mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in the South Carolina city in June, though some have also argued that the shooter would have been stopped from obtaining a gun had there simply been better communication between state and federal agencies . . .

Clinton will also call for legislation that prohibits domestic abusers from buying and possessing firearms. Such a bill has already been introduced in the Senate, where it has had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Similar legislation has been pushed in state legislatures as well, where the National Rifle Association has notably backed down from the fight.  According to a report from the Center for American Progress, nearly 12,000 convicted stalkers can legally purchase firearms in the U.S.

Finally, Clinton will call for a repeal of the legal immunity that gun manufacturers and dealers currently enjoy under a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This could be the most politically provocative of the four proposals. Not only is the immunity a prized possession of the NRA, but it is something that Sanders voted for while a member of the House of Representatives. Clinton, who was a senator representing New York at the time, voted against it.

It should be noted that these proposals come to the Clinton campaign via Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s civilian disarmament crusaders at Everytown for Gun Safety (and its wholly-owned subsidiary Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America). Yesterday’s New York Times article Gun Safety Group Sees Room to Reinforce Existing Laws reveals the obvious overlap/transfer of gun control ideas.

That said, as HuffPo points out, Clinton’s proposals are weak beer compared to rival Martin O’Malley’s gun control platform, which calls for national gun registration. But really, what’s the difference? All Democratic presidential candidates support gun control initiatives in all their various flavors, including a renewed “assault weapons” ban. The only real question here: will Sanders defend voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act?

Clinton’s proposals would do sweet FA to reduce “gun violence.’ They also represent duplication with existing gun laws. The former First Lady’s renewed enthusiasm for gun control will help drive Republicans to the polls in November – should the former Secretary of State make it that far and Republicans nominate someone the pro-gun side want to vote for (i.e. not Jeb Bush). Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    This is my surprised face.

  2. Call me paranoid, however, it would not surprise me to find out that the anti’s set some of these up, with support and help of the democrat party.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Well supposedly the shooter was briefly in the military before being discharged for being coo-coo for coco puffs. Yet even after that and all of the 24/7 spying on all Americans (and him posting online the day before that he was going to commit his crime), the government “missed” him? Either they’re completely incompetent in every way or they intentionally let him commit this crime to push their agenda of control.

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        for all the advanced meta data sifting, blatant invasion of privacy and massive amounts of money spent, I have have arrived at the following conclusion.

        They can’t get the relevant data to identify and stop these crazies, or they choose to not act.

        Either way, im sure that we could run the NSA on about 10% of their current budget and still get the same results in regards to “actual” national security.

        Or unless they wanted to insert people into games to gather intel, I could do that. I like EVE online and World of Warships. Pay me to play that for 8 hours per day, ill tell you everything!

  3. avatar pg2 says:

    Perfect. She’ll keep the pharmaceutical companies immune from liability for the death and damage their products(vaccines) cause, but hold the gun manufacturers liable for 3rd party actions.

    1. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

      And don’t forget Monsanto. Congress exempted them from any liability that their genetically engineered fruits and vegetables may cause us end users.

      Interesting to watch us legally evolve from a republic to a dictatorship with the help of our businesses, congress and senate. Who would have thought?

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        The trend has been pretty clear since at least the 80’s, and has exponentially accelerated after 9/11.

        1. avatar Billy-bob says:

          Buffet and Berkshire must have no major gun company holdings and have given her the all clear.

          #HILLARYFORPRISON 2016

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Billy, a lot more like Soros, Spielberg, et al. Where did you get buffet and Berkshire?

  4. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    Bernie keeps looking better and better …

    One thing worth noting is that Sanders has energized a lot of voters on the Democratic side. These are very enthusiastic people who identify with his more contemplative style. Some might reluctantly vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, but I’d suggest that many, if not the majority, will simply not bother voting if he doesn’t get the nomination. Sanders is working with a totally different base than Hillary, and I can’t imagine much of that base being willing to shift their support to her as a candidate if Sanders eventually bows out.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Sanders is no friend of the Second Amendment. He only votes as though he were one because it keeps his base in Vermont from dumping him. If he gets elected by leftists nationally, he’ll go all-in for gun “control” – after all, the ability of the populace to resist is incompatible with socialism.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        I’m surprised more people don’t realize this about Bernie. He has to pretend to be pro-gun in order to get elected in VT. It’s possible he won’t reveal his true anti-gun position until late in the election game. But should people elect him as president, you better believe this liberal commie will push hard for more gun control. I’d be surprised if he didn’t. He’ll have nothing to lose and his fellow Dems will beg him to pass new anti-gun laws.

    2. avatar Publius says:

      I’m not sure how you think that they’re working with different bases. Both are lazy people who want “free*” stuff (*Free meaning paid for from other people’s paychecks), it’s just that Bernie is promising MORE “free*” stuff than Hillary.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Bernie seems very honest to me. But despite how honest he is… it doesn’t change that he is a socialist who believes more government is the answer. More government means more taxes for government services I neither need nor want. While Bernie may think that healthcare is a “human right” – it still costs money that gets paid in the form of taxes. Taxes must be paid whether I use that health care or not. I’m not into re-distributions of wealth and I’m not into welfare states. I’m into “leave me alone and let me be free to live my life” states.

      If I paid a fixed 1%, 2%, and 3% tax each year every year on federal, state, and local taxes only, I’d be a rich man. I’d have my own acreage, my own castle, and could afford any health care that I would ever need.

      Bernie appears to be pro-gun on the surface given his statements, however he is very opinionated and opinions don’t allow much for tolerance and freedom for the people. Despite what many inner city metrosexuals may think this nation needs, I don’t want to be “taken care of” by the government – I want to be left alone to live my life. If Bernie’s opinion isn’t pro-freedom, then it doesn’t support gun rights period. Those go hand in hand.

      1. avatar LarryinTx says:

        If health care is a human right, why don’t these losers stop people like doctors and nurses from charging money for health care? Wouldn’t that solve the whole health care problem? At least once we prohibit pharmaceutical companies from charging anything for drugs. Nirvana will finally be ours, free everything!

  5. avatar bontai Joe says:

    Apparently she wasn’t paying attention when her hubby did this during his second term and cost his party control in Congress. But then again, I’m guessing that she doesn’t pay attention to anything any man says or does, because she is so much smarter and better then the rest of us. (extreme heavy sarcasm here)

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I’m guess she’ll go heavy on this until the primaries are over. After that, if she wins, she’s likely to tone down the gun control rhetoric. That’s my guess, anyhow.

      1. avatar Jim Jones says:

        Except that BO, both in 2008 and 2012, was very careful at crafting at apparently centrist position on the topic. Even after Gifford’s shooting, he was muted and quiet on the RKBA. Only when he secured his 2nd term did he reveal his true colors. I find it very odd, and a bit worrisome, that Clinton is all out gun control from the start. It either means that 1) we know her record, and she can’t really pretend to be pro-gun, or 2) they have polled their constituents and the Dems have decided that gun control is a winning measure (or at least very lightly supported by “their” team). I hope it’s option #1, because if it’s #2, we’re in deep trouble. We all need the Dems to respect the 2A. I for one do not want it to become a partisan issue that only Republicans will defend.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “I for one do not want it to become a partisan issue that only Republicans will defend.”

          Isn’t that pretty much where we are already? Sure, there are a handful of pro-gun Democrats, but the party itself is staunchly anti-gun. It’s written right into their platform. They only tolerate pro-gun candidates if they’re running in a place where being anti-gun is a political death sentence (see Bernie Sanders in Vermont, for an obvious and high-profile example).

  6. avatar Roscoe says:

    Predictable…

    E-mails, what e-mails?

    Benghazi; What difference at this point does it make?

    Gun Control baby; I feel your pain.

    Platitudes to her waffling supporters.

  7. avatar Nick says:

    Clinton epitomizes the current state of modern liberal progressivism. She is a self-righteous, intolerant control freak and bigot. She and her fellow “co-religionists” see those who disagree with them as not just wrong, but evil. Clinton, like Obama, sees herself as superior and more enlightened than the people she seeks to reign over as their benevolent dictator. Noblesse oblige and all that…

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Maybe she aspires to embrace even more divisiveness than our current antagonist in chief.

      It’s curious that there have been more “mass shootings” under Obama’s watch than under George W. Bush’s watch. Maybe with even more class warfare and division, a Clinton presidency could top that, giving her pretext to call for ever more government intrusion and control.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I’d say she’s probably closer to the old model democrat than the progs who dominate currently. She’ll say anything if she thinks it will help her get elected, but she’s really just a self-interested crook. More cosa nostra than Bolshevik.

  8. avatar Joe R. says:

    If she’s taken $0.01 of foreign money to support her means of overthrow of our Constitution, there’s a name for that.

    1. avatar Bob103 says:

      Treason

  9. avatar mike oregon says:

    The truth about guns, they exist. Gun control laws cause an escalation of crime by disarming lawful people they embolden criminals. If a person hasn’t noticed this, or can’t accept it I’m going to recommend mandatory classes in logic and critical thinking.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      You can’t fix stupid.

  10. avatar Bob103 says:

    This is what the Democrat Party has become. Essentially, the Democrat Party now believes that if the representatives elected by people do not agree with their agenda and/or their agenda is a violation of the US Constitution, they can simply override the Constitution and the will of the people with a Presidential dictate. I am convinced, now that people have woken up, no Democrat Party official can win the presidency without cheating, and if the Democrat Party does manage to keep the presidency, the United States will fall. Scary stuff.

    1. avatar WedelJ says:

      Wait, who woke up? It’s the The Average American. He/she/xi is still at home watching Sports Center or Dancing with the Stars depending on which set of gender roles xi decided to follow today.

  11. avatar Ed Sallow, AZ says:

    So in order to stop gun violence becoming routine they must routinely talk about gun violence.

    Her Holiness, ladies and gentlemen.

  12. avatar MWorrell says:

    I have no problem at all with background checks for private sales. Only immediate family members should be exempted, and not even then in the case of inheritance.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      I have two problems with ALL background checks.

      1. They don’t work
      2. They’re unconstitutional

      1. avatar Pseudo says:

        1. You’re probably right, but they might make people feel better. It is also possible that a properly designed system would help law enforcement get better at tracking the entry of white market guns into the black market vis-a-vis the academic paper published on the Chicago prison system and where inmates’ guns came from that was recently posted on this site. Is it going to solve gun violence? Of course not, but I have absolutely no problem doing this so long as the financial burden is not placed solely on gun owners. It’s a law enforcement problem, after all.
        2. I’m well aware that you (and probably most people who frequent this site) feel that way, but I disagree with you. So does the supreme court. Like it or not, the court is invested with the authority to make those interpretations. Also, public opinion is squarely behind universal background checks. I’m in favor of something that potentially represents a mere inconvenience to provide political capital against asinine legislation like repealing protection from firearms manufacturers,restrictions on suppressors/SBRs and magazine capacity — much more than an inconvenience and completely ineffectual at reducing gun violence.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          The problem is that UBC’s are not a “mere inconvenience”. They’re a necessary first step to full registration and then confiscation. The disarmers are playing a long game here, and it goes something like this:

          1) Pass a UBC law.
          2) Observe that it has no impact on reducing crime and violence.
          3) “Since the universal background checks didn’t work, we must have more data so we can stop the epidemic of gun violence [note: they’ll say it’s an epidemic regardless of whether the violence is increasing or decreasing]. We must have all legal gun owners register their guns and get a permit to own them. If you’re not a criminal, what do you have to hide?”
          4) Observe that it has no impact on reducing crime and violence.
          5) “Since the registration and permit scheme didn’t work, we must get these dangerous weapons of war off the streets [even though most “gun murders” are committed with ordinary handguns]. Thanks to the registry, we know who has these evil assault weapons, so if you don’t turn them in, we’ll send someone to collect them. You can still keep your single-shot .22s and shotguns. For now.”

          See the history of places like the UK and Australia for real-world examples.

          Also, trading UBC’s for concessions on the NFA is the stuff of fever dreams. It will never happen that way. How many concessions have we gotten in exchange for all the gun laws that have been passed in the last century restricting our rights? By my count, it’s zero. So why would UBC’s be any different?

          Allowing government encroachment on basic human rights because “it might make people feel better” is how we ended up with a massive surveillance system watching innocent citizens, locking “terrorists” up without a trial, and the lovely sight of children being publicly groped by TSA workers in airports. Feel better?

        2. avatar foodog says:

          See, there you go applying common-sense.

          The problem with trusting the Left to keep their word is:
          a. They lie
          b. they are incompetent
          c. they will keep adding regulations and new rules to cover for a. and b., and
          d. they will exempt themselves from the rules, and any responsibility. For example, Congress has its own rules on pretty much anything, that we citizens have to suck it up on instead.

          the best example of this is California, which has had both federal and state background checks for how long now, Mark N? years, and in the last four years added gun registration, first for handguns and then long guns.

          In the meantime, the state couldnt even fix its own 60% error rate on who is a prohibited person, was sued for robbing money from the DROS fees to try to spend on broken computer systems, and having spent all the the $26Million allocated by the State Congress, STILL hadnt hired enough people to do the checking-
          and no one, including most famously, the State AG Kamala Harris, who keeps blocking and inventing new executive interpretations of sketchy new legislation by the Dem dominated all three branches of state govt-
          actually had one of her hires turn out to be a nut claiming to be in charge of a special police unit of the Masons…

          Yes, the UBC doesnt work because the feds and states STILL dont share data, especially on mentally ill cases. So nuts like Lougner (Tucson -Gabby Giffords) Lanza (Sandy Hook), Rodgers (Isla Harbor), and Mercer (Umpqua) slide right on by the UBC system, that will NEVER CATCH THEM AS IT IS ENACTED NOW.

          So, of course no one with a brain believes that Congress, or the corrupt Liar In Chief, or the Liar of Benghazi will ever tell the truth, or uphold the intent of the law… They are simply lying scum-bag politicians of the worst sort, pandering to the fear of the ignorant, dancing in the blood of innocent victims, saying anything and willing to take any civil rights away to get elected.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      So, you really want your governments (Federal, State and local) to know where all the guns are?

      1. avatar MWorrell says:

        They already know where the guns are.

        1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

          They don’t know where my Gen 1 Sub2000 went after I bought my Gen 2.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Regardless of this ‘loophole closure’ there should be a change in the way NICS is carried out. Rather than sending the government an inquiry when someone wants to buy a gun there should be a system where someone can get a ‘passcode’ that they can enter along with their name\dob- or a gun seller can enter- online to see if that person is ‘clear’ to be sold a gun (it would also show their photo online so you know who you are dealing with).

        This would allow private sellers to check people themselves without telling the government where and when someone buys a gun (you could enter it yourself every week if you want).

        1. avatar Jim Jones says:

          Stop thinking that your opponent is negotiating in good faith. Bloomberg’s gotcha “background check” bills full of felonies for ordinary citizens engaging in legal behavior should tell you all you need to know about where our opponents’ end game lies. They DO NOT CARE about background checks. If they did, they would have gladly accepted Colburn’s deal of easy private up/down checks that people could do online. The only problem was that it removed the tracking of serial numbers. They don’t care for our culture, and they want to eliminate it. They want to make it as hard as possible to obtain firearms so that LESS PEOPLE engage in the behavior. The harder it is to obtain a gun, the harder it is to be introduced to the culture, and the less people will engage in it. When they finally can lower our ranks to a level that doesn’t threaten their re-election, then they would come for the jugular a-la UK or Australia. This is their end game. If you think that you can get them to leave you alone by agreeing to UBC, you are a useful idiot to their cause.

    3. avatar Nick says:

      I would wager that any “universal background check” bill that comes up that she would be in favor of would include a provision to eliminate the requirement for NICS to destroy records of background checks after a certain time frame (they aren’t allowed to keep them forever to make a de facto registration).

      By doing so, the government would essentially have a database with all known gun transactions, with accompanying serial numbers. In other words, they’d essentially have a registration database without legally requiring one exist.

    4. avatar Rusty shakleford says:

      What you said wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza. Since he received his firearms from his immediate family member.

      I think the organ shooter received a few firearms from family members also.

  13. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Thank you, Ms. Clinton, for energizing pro-2A voters every chance you get. Please, give us more reasons to go to the polls on election day, and take our friends with us.

    1. avatar Dale_ ND says:

      It is finally out in the open. No, “I respect the 2nd Amendment, but…..” garbage. Now let’s see if the Fudd’s think they are safe because they only own “hunting” firearms.

  14. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    Crazy Eyes needs to worry about her history of flouting government rules she finds inconvenient. Someone needs to let her know that her time has come and gone in 2008, I can see a lot of Dems sitting it out November 4th. 2016 if she is nominee for her party.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I certainly hope your instincts are accurate, but I don’t see it myself. A couple of choruses of ” glass ceiling” and “women’s health”, and what Dem could resist?

  15. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    Why would a politician want to disarm the citizenry? Perhaps because they want to oppress and do violence to the citizenry? And that is why the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights.

  16. avatar Colorado Kid says:

    I wonder if they will ever realize that they are a gun dealers best sales associates. Barry is my best salesman…aunt Hillary will help me retire. Just keep talking babe…

  17. avatar John says:

    Let’s face it, universal background checks = backdoor gun registry. It’s gonna make it helluva lot easier to go door-to-door, when the time comes again.

  18. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Why this obsession. with Jeb Bush? He is sitting on 4%. His position on gun control is really the stairs quo. No federal action. It is a state issue. Not to my liking but it is a defensible conservative position based on States’ rights.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The obsession is because Jeb is wrong in so many ways and yet is backed by the big money donors. It is imperative that we do everything possible to see that no matter how much money he gets that 4% never increases.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Nobody is pointing a gun at your head and telling you to vote for him in the primary. I have a theory of about Jeb. He doesn’t want the job and is taking a dive. But uf you want to stay home and let Hillary win then you deserve to lose your gun rights.

        1. avatar foodog says:

          I think he would take it, if it was easy- but now that its not, he can slide and go back to trading on his name, getting put in soft investment banking VP in charge of bribing pols positions, Board member collecting fees, lobbying on demand, and basically keeping the Bush Inc trust fund going. Someone has to take care of his Dad and Mom, and he is the oldest.

  19. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Petulant? More like vile, loathsome, evil cockroach that we can only hope will go scurrying when the indictment gets handed down for violations of National Security Act crimes. An indictment means the end of her ambitions and she has been told by advisers that she needs to lawyer up now.

  20. avatar Bob says:

    “call for legislation that prohibits domestic abusers from buying and possessing firearms.”

    So these super dangerous domestic abusers, which must be convicted felons to be on this fancy list, will also be then prohibited from engaging in any further relationships? What, no?

    Is this just about the guns and control again? ‘Cause if you really cared about what you claim you care about you’d be doing something different than what you are suggesting.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Two things, Bob:

      1. In many (too many) jurisdictions you do not have to be convicted of ANYTHING, felony or otherwise, to lose your Second Amendment protections. Often it is enough just to be accused of domestic violence.

      2. While it may be true that 12,000 “stalkers” retain their Second amendment protections to keep and bear arms, so do the 12,000 people they are allegedly stalking. IMO every TRO issued should come with an automatic Temporary Concealed Carry Permit that matches the duration of the TRO.

      An addendum to #1, and I wish this would be repeated more often on this site and everywhere else – You do not have any Second Amendment Rights. You have a natural, civil, and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms. If the Constitution goes away tomorrow, or in November of 2016, your RKBA does not change, only your supposed Constitutional protection of the right.

  21. avatar Ed says:

    Why has this EVIL criminal not had handcuffs slapped on her bloated wrists yet? Bengazi alone should have put her on trial, nevermind this whole E-mail joke. Sick pompus egotistical cun…..oh yeah, we cant say that here…but the shoe sure does fit.

  22. avatar NDS says:

    ….anyone “attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed ‘in the business of selling firearms,’”

    This is what concerns me, I and many like me often buy, sell, and trade firearms (aka Gun Whores) – the “significant number” portion is worrisome. These are people that consider a couple pistols and a rifle an “arsenal” and 1000 rounds of ammunition unimaginable.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      A thousand rounds of ammo is unimaginable. If I had that little, I’d be a nervous wreck. Just thinking about it is making me feel queasy.

  23. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Well, that oughta be good for at least another half-dozen or so fund-raising letters from the NRA…

    Every time a Clinton opens their mouth about guns, the NRA makes another million bucks. Wayne should give them a “lifetime fund-raiser” award.

  24. avatar MiniMe says:

    With this criminal harpy’s political numbers in the toilet, it was just a matter of time before she started spouting even more communist hate.

    Color me surprised, not.

  25. avatar Anonymous says:

    Hillary who? Are we talking about Monica Lewinsky’s ex-lover’s wife?

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Yes…wait for it…..the one that wants a desk 40 feet away from where another woman gobbled her mans goo.

      By any reasonable measure should immediately disqualify her.

  26. avatar jwm says:

    So, she’s decided she can’t be president and this is her withdrawal speech?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You wish… most people aren’t paying attention to this stuff.

      1. avatar jsj says:

        Yep. And 90% of them will march into the polling place and pull the lever for whatever candidate their party has offered them. Many won’t even know the candidate’s name until they get there. If they bother to read past the D or R that is.
        Jefferson more than once commented on an informed populace being necessary for survival of the country. From what I see on a daily basis, we’re screwed.

  27. avatar Gunr says:

    It’s just sickening listening to her rant on and on! All of these frustrations the anti gunners put forth against honest folks, just trying to keep their family’s safe.
    Why can’t all this anger be directed at the criminals instead? Shame on you Hillbilly!

  28. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I’ll say this about the hildebeast-it was entertaining on Saturday Night Live. If you vote for it you’re going to hell…

  29. avatar lowell says:

    Must be a day that ends with “Y.”

  30. avatar John McPherson says:

    This from the woman who extorted a senate seat from the Dem party in return for keeping quite about hubbys affairs. Wow, no shit.

  31. avatar Gerald Scott says:

    I’m not worried about Hillary Clinton. The next President, for better or worse, will almost certainly be a Republican, and all this attempted trampling on our gun rights will come to an end. I have already changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. I have serious issues with both, but simply cannot support a political party that does not support the Second Amendment. Also, I am digging into my life savings to buy 3 more guns that I have wanted for a long time, to add to my collection.

    1. avatar jsj says:

      “The next President, for better or worse, will almost certainly be a Republican, and all this attempted trampling on our gun rights will come to an end.”

      Don’t let your guard down.
      Without an Obama figure in the WH to oppose, some of the weaker republicans will almost certainly propose “reasonable” gun control measures if more shootings occur and pressure increases. Depending on which R is in the WH, they may well sign them into law.

  32. avatar PsyHawk says:

    If Breitbart.com is to be believed, it looks like Obama is working on executive orders for gun control:

    ==================================================================
    The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.

    “It’s a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.

    Earnest said he would “quibble” with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.

    “I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Earnest said.

    He admitted, however that he had no details for what the White House was working on, but asserted that the process was a “scrub” that was “ongoing.”

    Earnest welcomed Hillary Clinton’s own gun control proposals announced this morning, but admitted that he hadn’t seen the full details of the proposal.

    He also pointedly criticized the “gun show loophole” for allowing criminals and people with mental problems to buy weapons, blaming organizations like the National Rifle Association for blocking action in Congress on the issue.

  33. avatar Dan says:

    Well when the fourth one passes the first time someone hits me with a car I am suing the car manufacturer

  34. avatar Mark Bennett says:

    I’m not American therefore I can’t vote, but if I could…… I do pay and support the NRA though.

    Please everyone pull hard and fight strong and keep that ugly old witch out of the Whitehouse.
    She wants to grab the power from you whilst making sure she becomes the most powerful person in the USA.

  35. avatar DerryM says:

    All these things Hilary C is “proposing” are just strawmen and misdirection. They won’t work to stop closet crazies from buying guns legally and committing mass-shootings.
    Moreover, if some or all of these things were enacted into Law, it would soon enough become obvious they do not work. Then what? Next, Hilary and the anti-gun organizations start screaming for something MORE drastic, as the ONLY way to stop this violence.
    It’s a freaking game of upping the ante on gun control gy passing ineffective laws until the only “sensible” thing left to do is enact a National Registry, or convene a Constitutional Convention and try to repeal the Second Amendment. It will never, ever stop until we get to the point of outlawing firearms in private hands. As long as The People pose any sort of armed threat to the Government, the Democratic Socialists cannot control us to the extent they think necessary.

  36. hillary swore an oath to defend the Constitution as Senator and, I think, Secretary of State. By proposing such laws she HAS committed treason. The only way she can win if the election is rigged and we know that has never happened. How can anyone take a gun by using guns and say it isis for their own good? The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government and that sounds like were we are going. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

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