Hillary Clinton Was For State’s Rights on Gun Control Before She Was Against Them [VIDEO]

Finishing our Bernie vs. Hillary posts on firearms freedom (or the need for a lack thereof), I present this little ditty. Setting aside Clinton’s use of the race card to demonize Sanders, it demonstrates that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has “evolved” on gun control. Several times. In this clip (not magazine) Senator Sanders’ peeps prove that Ms. Clinton had the same position on gun control that Senator Sanders now holds. What this clip doesn’t mention: Ms. Clinton has been – and continues to be – for a federal assault weapons ban. Which Sanders supports as well. In short, they’re both much of a muchness on gun rights. Who knew?

comments

  1. avatar Another Robert says:

    So they are all trying to convince the rubes that ol’ Long Tom is safe–quelle surprise! Still waiting for Hillary! to make it out to the duck blind…

  2. avatar PeterC says:

    A curse on both their houses.

  3. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    What ever fits her mood on any given day is what she is for.

  4. avatar Anonymous says:

    Hillary Clinton Was For State’s Rights on Gun Control Before She Was Against Them

    No she wasn’t. She was just lying. She lies about everything. She lied about the “sniper fire.” She lied about her emails. She lies about gun control. She just tells people what they want to hear so she can get elected and force her opinion down the throats of 300 million people. Nothing new.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      Ain’t THAT the truth.

      Hell, she didn’t even believe most of the ‘issues’ that are core talking points for the ‘progressives’. Go look at all her campaign advertisements and statements. I’ll have to check the actual dates but Hillary Clinton was vocally AGAINST gay marriage as well as still like used Confederate Flags in adverts. The later was further back than the former, but it still happened.

      Progressive politicians… they’re complete weather-vanes for the most hard core far left idiots in our society anymore.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Hillary was a “Goldwater Girl” in ’64 in high school, but went for McCarthy and McGovern later. So it didn’t stick. I was a Goldwater kid too. He’d still be far better than anything on the horizon today.

  5. avatar Dylan from CA says:

    I get the sense that Bernie Sanders has no interest in seriously pursuing any sort of gun control. Watching him speak on the topic in the debate it was quite apparent to me – he briefly and disinterestedly touched on a few anti-gun buzzwords (assault weapons, gun show loophole) and moved on as quickly as possible to discussing his plans for expanded social programs and addressing income inequality.

    Sanders isn’t stupid, he knows that gun control is a non-starter on the national level so he’s saying the bare minimum required of him as a democratic candidate trying to gain traction for the primary. I believe he will drop the issue altogether if he makes it to the general, or might even play up his (admittedly not stellar) pro-gun voting record. I don’t see him jeopardizing the goals that are actually important to him (free tuition for public universities, free health care, getting rid of income tax caps, etc.) to try to force gun control down people’s throats, especially with a republican-controlled congress. It’s too divisive an issue and one his heart isn’t in.

    You’ll notice he hasn’t followed the “do something” crowd in ramping up the anti-gun rhetoric every time there’s a high-profile shooting. Hillary, by contrast is going for broke courting the emotionally-driven hand-wringer vote. Bernie Sanders is no democrat, but he can’t very well expect to win running outside the two-party system.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      So what you’re saying is that Bernie Sanders isn’t coming for our guns. I seem to remember people saying the same thing about Obama.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I think he’s coming for our guns (or at the very least will happily go along with the other idiots in his party who are). From the post, I KNOW he’s coming for our wallets, straight out.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        “…fool me twice…………………………. the point is you can’t be fooled again!”

      3. avatar int19h says:

        Obama clearly believed in gun control, it was fairly obvious before he ever got elected. The argument was that he would steer clear of it, since he doesn’t want to jeopardize his healthcare reform and other economic issues he was running on. Which has proven to be largely correct – he went after it after he had everything that he wanted.

        With Sanders, though, it’s clear that his heart is not in it. Until a couple months ago, his platform had zero mentions of gun control. And I mean literally – you could run a full text search on his campaign website, and the word “gun” would come up like twice, and that was in reposted news. Since then, he has started to talk the talk, but he only does it when prompted, never on his own; and he’s clearly just repeating the shibboleths (“assault weapons” etc). Compare his statements on that stuff to his fiery speeches on income inequality and such, and it’s very clear where his priorities are.

        And unlike Obama, Sanders’ economic program is not something that can be done in 4 years, or even in 8 for that matter, even if there were full and complete cooperation from the Congress, which is pretty much impossible. If he’s elected, he’ll have to compromise like hell to do anything. The good thing is that he knows how to compromise and work out deals – if you look at his track record on voting in the Congress, he’s actually made issue-specific coalitions with other members in the past, quite often across party lines, on common issues. The nature of such deals is usually tit-for-tat – I vote for your thing, you vote for my thing (or don’t vote for my opponents’ thing). If Sanders has to work with a Republican-dominated Congress, gun control is the first thing I’d expect him to put up on the bargaining table. Heck, since he’s not religious about it, he might even be willing to go beyond status quo and e.g. relax some of the sillier NFA provisions in exchange for support for his other stuff.

  6. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    This broad flips and flops more than my high school girlfriend did……sorry for you ‘z that are looking for that come back line…no comparison

  7. avatar Mk10108 says:

    When you set upon a firing line, people of the long range shooting absorb all data presented. Distance, wind, temperature ballistics and ultimately the data concerning ones self. All this comes together when setting the squeeze in motion. When the sear breaks and the round goes it either impacts its mark or not. You can never recall a fired round.

    2016 is the people of the gun firing line. All the data is presented and if you wish to keep your rights, we need to BRASS. Breathe, relax, aim for a box, select and stroke your pen, sending Hillary into a private life where she can can spend her millions and no longer harm citizens of this country.

  8. avatar American Made says:

    Read “Ron Brown’s Body” by Jack Cashill, it details the story of the Clinton Clan’s longtime bagman and former U.S. Commerce Secretary who died in a mysterious plane crash. The book reveals that Diane Rodham alias Hillary Clinton while running for N.Y.’s Senate seat took nearly $3 million in campaign donations from Chinese arms manufacturer Norinco’s, USA subsidiary, Poly-Tech, which is/was owned by a former Chinese national named “Keng”. As most of us know PolyTech was one if not the largest importer of AK-47’s and SKS’s into the USA at the time. The fact is at the same time she was advocating banning ALL “semi-auto” guns and demanding an extension to the so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban (that was due to expire), Diane Rodham aka “Hillary Clinton” was filling her coffers with money generated from sales of the Liberals most hated firerarms and the Chinese government insiders. Can you spell “hypocrite”?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Cyril Wecht’s analysis led him to believe that Brown and another passenger survived the crash, which was in pretty decent weather, not the spin of “storm of the decade” that was proffered.

      Wecht’s study of the x-rays found a .45 cal. hole in the top of Brown’s head, with a “bevelled” wound channel that led down toward the abdomen. The other survivor, a young woman, apparently died of a broken neck on the helicopter ride to medical care.

      1. avatar American Made says:

        I feel sorry for the Air Force members who were killed which includes the young female officer you referenced and their family members, they had no choice but to be on that flight, As for Brown and his cronies, all Clinton appointees, I shed not a tear.

        Funny how many “corporate executives” looking to do business in Croatia “begged off” that “trade mission” (bribery excursion) flight at the last moment after being on the earlier legs. Just being included in a “mission” such as this is considered a sign that any proposals are a “done deal” add to that the mystifying death of the guy that maintained the airports landing beacons, one of which went “dark” as the plane approached the airport in heavy fog/cloud cover and the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

        1. avatar American Made says:

          One thing I neglected to add was: In order to be included on a Clinton-era “trade mission” no matter where in the world it was headed “one” (read: an individual or corporation) MUST have made a SIZABLE “contribution” (bribe) to the Clinton campaign, Presidential Library, or “charity” (slush fund).

  9. avatar Ing says:

    Kinda convenient, that states’ rights thing, isn’t it. When it helps their ability to restrict things they don’t like, they’re all for it.

  10. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Every year, the Libertarians make more and more sense….

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