Hillary Clinton Endorses a 25% Tax on Firearms

I grew up in different times; a time when politicians could escape their past. Pre-YouTube, a pol could flip-flop on issues without irrefutable video evidence of previous positions. “That’s not what I said, exactly,” they used to opine. These days, moderators of televised debates and town halls play videos of candidates’ statements and dare them to refute them. Followed by the usual weasel words. But what lingers: the original statement. Which is just as well. In this case, (Senator?) Hillary Clinton approves of a 25 percent tax on firearms. There are other clips where she “defends” the Second Amendment, “but….” Bottom line: Ms. Clinton has always been in favor of civilian disarmament. And nothing she can say will convince anyone otherwise.

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Maybe we gun owners should give to the Clinton Foundation and she’d get off our rear ends.

    Seriously though, she should run for prison in 2016. With Eric Holder as her running mate.

    1. avatar pieslapper says:

      #HILLARYFORPRISON 2016

      Chains We Can Believe In!

  2. avatar Dingo says:

    Of course this is all dependent on the balance on power in Congress. If it’s a Democrat slam dunk, we will probably see her implement “if we can’t ban it, we will tax it.”

    I’m sure she has other tricks up her sleeve too – ammo only available from FFL? Ugggh!!!

  3. avatar Pascal says:

    IMHO, Hillary does not give a crap one way or another about guns or gun control unless she is trying to get elected and sees which way the wind is blowing.

    She is a politician in the truest sense in that her opinion is whatever the crowd wants at that time to get her elected.

    Politics is about how to lie to get what you want and then after the lie is told how to manipulate the words to stay with the lie. A good politician is one who can keep all the lies straight in their head and make few mistakes about which lie they told and when.

    Everyone better get used to saying “President Hillary Clinton” because standing on principle versus voting to win is what will get her elected.

    On the plus side, after she wins and is toiling away making gun control and becoming the next best gun salesperson, gun owners can feel warm and fuzzy about loosing on principle and knowing there are places like TTAG to complain until the next Presidential election when they will do the same thing again.

    1. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

      I get what your saying, but I just don’t see Hillary as the powerhouse liberal feminists have protested her as in the past. She’s very unpopular and unmotivating on the left. Democratic turn out is on average 2 digit percentage points lower than the past two elections. She’s nowhere near the “liberal rockstar” Obama was. “Male guilt” isn’t really a thing except for in Seattle. She can’t guilt men into voting for her like an Obama candidate did with the white vote. She’s just not a strong candidate. The GOP has racked up an unprecedented victory against the democrats during Obamas term, beating the dems out of nearly 1,000 legislative seats and governorships nationwide. If the right can manage to not commit suicide we can definetly win this thing.

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        Let’s make 2016 the year we send Hillary into the dust bin of history

        ?

  4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    I support a 25% increase for her future “20 years to life” prison sentence.

  5. avatar Anonymous says:

    …that would be a tax on the purveyors of violence…

    No – it would be a tax on law abiding gun owners 99.9% of which would have been law abiding for the rest of their lives. Most of the criminals would be using stolen firearms or purchased from the back of a sedan in a dark alley. They won’t be paying the tax. Once again, politicians expect law abiding gun owners to answer for the criminal acts of others.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      But…but…but…didn’t the feds finally convict Al Capone on tax evasion when they couldn’t make anything else stick?

    2. avatar Bob says:

      More directly, a tax on the less well to do gun owners. First thing you do as the ruling class is disarm the poor. Then you give them things so they become dependent on you. You addict them to a lack of responsibility.

    3. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      It works for the British, doesn’t it?

      /sarc

  6. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    “Bottom line: Ms. Clinton has always been in favor of civilian disarmament. And nothing she can say will convince anyone otherwise.” No she can convince many mindless, cnn loving, idiots. I would say the fact that she isn’t in prison right now is proof that you can tell any lie and get along with it as long as you control the media and have dirt on everyone in power.

  7. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    Well there is already an 11% tax on firearms and I do not see any gun owners complaining, so what is 14% more?

    Just Sayin’

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Your math is just a wee bit off. She wants another 25% tax on top of the 11% (or 10% for handguns) Pittman-Robertson Act tax. Plus, Pittman-Robertson is an excise tax based on the wholesale price of the guns. If she wants the additional 25% tax charged against the retail sales price of the guns (the retail price includes the excise tax), you will be paying a tax on a tax.

      Net effect: a gun that you paid $400 for included a P-R tax of $25 or $30, or thereabouts. The same gun after the Nasty Old Fat Broad tax will cost $500.

      Get it now?

      1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

        Ah, the NOFB tax!

  8. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

    ad hominahominahomina
    to the moon, alice!

  9. avatar Geoff PR says:

    I’d be open to making a deal on a 25 pct tax on firearms…

    *Provided*

    Silencers, SBRs and AOWs *off* the NFA and…

    Re-open the select fire books and nation-wide carry permit reciprocity.

    Deal?

    1. avatar Guardiano says:

      By reopen the select-fire books do you mean make them 100% legal like they should be? Let’s hope so.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        While that would be ideal, its not politically viable.

        By ‘the books’ I meant the registry…

  10. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Well she is a liberal and a self-professed “progressive” (another, more polite, word for fascist in my book), so supporting measures that disempower private citizens only stands to reason for someone like her. Truly, the internet is a wonderful thing. It’s ability to hang the rotting carcasses of albatrosses around the necks of lying politicians continues to amaze.

  11. avatar Bob315 says:

    I have read a lot of theories on what motivates the leftist on gun control. After a careful review of their actions, I can conclude that the only logical reason for their attacks on the 2nd amendment is this: As long as the citizenry is armed, they cannot force their agenda on the citizenry. They attack lawful gun owners, but refuse to enforce gun laws that would put career criminals away for life. They want to ban certain rifles, but yet rifles are seldom used by criminals. They want to penalize manufacturers for selling gums to lawful purchasers, yet they let straw purchasers get away with probation. I could go on. The point is that Hillary will not be able to do what she wants as President without forcing the citizenry to comply at gun point, which doesn’t work well when the citizenry is armed.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Sounds good in theory, but the reality is they’ve already forced their agenda on America, through nameless, faceless regulators, an obsequious media, duplicitous academia, and a compliant judiciary. What have your guns to slow down, never mind stall or reverse, their statist agenda?

      All they need are more mindless voters (products of our public indoctrination system), more corruption- accommodating illegal aliens, and a free-flowing spending spigot to get everyone invested in dependency.

  12. avatar bob in IN says:

    Would you negotiate with a pathelogical liar?

  13. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

    Just playing Devil’s Advocate here… we cannot see the speaker at any time during this clip. It struck me this could be dismissed as a video clip of Clinton taken out of another debate and used here. Is there any source file we could corroborate it’s authenticity?

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      I think you’re more like playing “vast right wing conspiracy” dipsheet advocate

      1. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

        It’s called checking your sources… one of the fundamentals of solid journalism. Go back to listening to Alex Jones and buy some more gold.

    2. avatar JT says:

      This wasn’t from a debate. IIRC it is from her sumping for gun control to congress during her time as first lady.

  14. avatar Roymond says:

    I’d rather see a 25% tax in all campaign revenues, regardless of whether they’re donations or what. After all, the politicians get to keep the money if they want, so it’s income.

  15. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    FLAME DELETED! Anywho the weather is stupendous around here…

  16. avatar FedUp says:

    To what purpose is the president’s official (apparently not actual) sperm receptacle testifying before the Senate on legislative proposals?

    As she testified before the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 30, 1993, Hillary Clinton was asked by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) if she supported the imposition of a new, 25 percent national sales tax on guns. Clinton emphatically endorsed the tax, stating: “I am all for that.”

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Hitlery and Bolshevik Bernie wants to raise taxes across the board, why is this a surprise.

  18. avatar Doran says:

    First people are politicians security.
    Second amendment discrimination.

  19. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Thanks for the video proving this rich white woman wants to make it more expensive for poor law abiding black people buy a gun to defend themselves with.
    She has armed paid for government security for life.

  20. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    If she really wanted to feel our pain, she would endorse a 25% tax on pant suits and cankles. It takes a village (idiot).

  21. avatar CLarson says:

    Leveling a ridiculous tax that amounts to a de facto prohibition for the poor incentivizes otherwise law abiding consumers to look for cheap alternatives on the black market. This will make it harder to stop the real criminals from getting guns because the black market will balloon to met demand. We should call this tax a black market gun dealer subsidy because that is what it really is.

  22. avatar Aaron says:

    It dosn’t matter what she says or does, or said or did in the past. She has a very good chance of being elected as the next president because she is a dem who has a uterus,

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      ….and the RNC which does not have a brain.
      Remember boys and girls to vote for the helicopter candidate.

  23. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Hillary is just being a statist. Move along, nothing to see here.

  24. avatar John in CT says:

    You came close, but you didn’t give the finishing blow:

    Not only is Hilary in favor of citizen disarmament, she wants to make it even more difficult for specifically low net-worth individuals (ie. the people who live in less-savory parts of the city/state/country) to defend themselves and their families from would-be evildoers.

    The “friend of the lower to middle class” is really anything but.

  25. avatar Frank says:

    What would your everyday Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Democrat say of there was a video of a Conservative politician supporting a 25% tax on newspapers, magazines, internet usage, cell phones, cable TV etc (Free Speech, 1st Amendment)? We have to protect the children from those pesky Free Speechers…….

  26. avatar Tym O'Byrne says:

    Just got the ok from the “boss” to buy another weapon! Thanks to Hitlary’s big mouth! lol.

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