CNN: Hillary Clinton Supports Gun Rights

Hillary Clinton (courtesy straightstoned.com)

“Donald Trump’s persistent — and false — accusation that Hillary Clinton would abolish the Second Amendment as president is renewing scrutiny of her position on gun rights,” CNN‘s Eric Bradner reports. Wait. I don’t think “reports” is the right word. Let’s go with “concludes.”

If we take Mr. Bradner’s rejection of Mr. Trump’s assertion at face value, we’re done! The Democrats’ presidential hopeful doesn’t want to abolish the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment prohibits government infringement on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, so . . . Hillary Clinton supports gun rights!

Yeah, no. Not even close.

Ms. Clinton doesn’t want to “abolish” the Second Amendment — a move that would be political suicide and, lest we forget, lies well beyond the scope of Constitutionally specified presidential powers. She wants to degrade and destroy Americans’ gun rights while leaving the Second Amendment ostensibly intact, a hollow shell providing political cover for civilian disarmament.

That’s an idea that even the Chicken Noodle News cheerleader can’t seem to escape, as he chronicles Ms. Clinton’s historical stance on the issue.

Testifying in a Senate committee in 1993 amid her health care reform push, Clinton told Sen. Bill Bradley, D-New Jersey, she was “all for” his proposed 25% tax on handguns and $2,500 licensing fees for gun dealers . . .

Once she entered the Senate in 2001, Clinton backed a series of gun control measures.

She backed Democratic bills to require the [federal] registration of all new guns, requiring photo IDs and safety lessons for all new gun owners and increasing the minimum buying age for handguns from 18 to 21.

Let’s file those ideas under common sense constitutional infringements, shall we? Moving forward (so to speak), The People of the Gun will remember that Ms. Clinton’s previous presidential ambitions led her to a wealth of weasel words on gun rights.

Once Clinton launched her 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, though, she backed away from some of those stances — including her previous support for national licensing and registration of handguns.

“What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense,” Clinton said at an April debate.

She declined to support Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns.

“What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arm. I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be (constitutional). But I don’t know the facts,” she said.

Here’s a fact: the former First Lady has backed away from backing away from her kinda maybe sorta what-do-I-know support for the Heller decision. Ms. Clinton now believes Heller was “wrong.” She’s committed to appointing Supreme Court judges who will overturn the decision, returning gun rights to local command and control.

Mr. Bradner singularly, spectacularly fails to consider the implications of Ms. Clinton’s desire to bin the Supreme Court’s Heller decisionestablishing Americans’ individual right to keep and bear arms.

Simply put, if the courts, police, politicians and bureaucrats operate under the assumption that Americans don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment is as good as abolished. Just ask Americans denied their gun rights in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Maryland and elsewhere.

Bottom line: Bradner and his CNN masters have well and truly drunk the Clintonian Kool-Aid, accepting the ridiculous premise that the government can infringe on Americans’ gun rights while not infringing on Americans’ gun rights. Because Hillary Clinton (and others) say so! Like this:

“I’m not looking to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not looking to take people’s guns away,” she said. “But I am looking for more support for the reasonable efforts that need to be undertaken to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

Ms. Clinton is coming for your guns. This may not mean an early morning knock on your door by federal agents. At least not yet. But it does mean that a President Clinton will do everything in her power to render the Second Amendment meaningless. In effect, abolishing it. Repealing it? Whatever.

comments

  1. avatar Friedrich says:

    That woman will say anything to get in the White House.

    1. avatar Clay-in-UT says:

      and so will CNN

      1. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

        And MSNBC, and ABC, and Huff Po, etc etc etc.

      2. avatar red Sox says:

        Because they know how important the 2A is to people and it could cost her the election. So the MSM are from here on out going to brainwash all lemmings that she is all good with guns. I expect to see them show her out duck hunting or some crap, hopefully it will be with Dick Cheney.

        1. avatar Tommy Hobbes says:

          I vividly remember John Kerry, replete with new Cammies, putting on a show of goose hunting in northern Ohio to show his friendship with hunters and sports shooters. It had as much sincerity as Christmas and Hannuka greetings from Taliban. Let’s not forget that Al Gore’s defeat was in good part based on his hostility to firearms. We have the power to vote. Let’s use it for the sake of our Liberties. As an aside, don’t we have sufficient legislation already? More legislation might make feel good politics for progressives, but it won’t halt the many murders in Chicago and elsewhere. Evil does not disappear with more restrictions on firearms for lawful users.

        2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          In the words of John Kerry (who, by the way, was in Vietnam): “Can I get me a hunting license here?”

      3. avatar IdahoPete says:

        It will help your blood pressure if you recognize that they are no longer the “nes media”; they are actually the “Democrap Propaganda Ministry”. (Standards and ethics as taught by Paul Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.)

    2. avatar Realost says:

      Well, it’s too bad conservatives selected that idiot Trump as their candidate.
      Should have selected a moderate like Kasich or Rubio.
      Hillary will win in a huge landslide.
      Trump is so awful at campaigning that the Congress will probably be all democrat too.

      Sayonara to Gun Rights, the Economy and the Supreme Court.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        And you.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Republicans campaigning as moderates don’t win. Nobody wants Democrat-lite, when they can just vote for the real thing. Kasich and Rubio would both have lost, too.

        Republicans seek out the middle ground thinking they’ll attract so-called moderates, independents and even some Democrats. It never works. Those people all vote Democrat on election day, while fed up conservatives just stay home. And the moderate Republican loses.

        GOP can only win with conservative candidates. Such candidates aren’t supported by the GOP Establishment, unfortunately.

        1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Yep. Trump is the legacy of those democrats light, like it or not.

          So many RINOs have failed to deliver on promises, or even try to, people are going trump out of frustration.

          In short, it’s those moderates what did this.

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Well, things are going to suck for conservatives for a long time, then. Trump is polling at 9% with people under 30. If he’s the face of conservatism and the Republican party going forward, it’s going to be ages before they have even a remote chance of winning an election.

        3. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

          disagree…GW won a few years ago and he was not considered a far right conservative on all issues. Nope, we have a horrible political candidate, and he will lose, and it is primary voters own fault…picked the wrong guy, bet on a loser. This country was/is ripe for a change in party, and GOP failed to deliver candidate, and voters went with “good t.v.” guy

        4. avatar california richard says:

          …and $9 trillion in debt, two failed war policies, an un-addressed fiscal and housing bubble, failure to pull funding on dem bills, etc, etc…. we learned what “moderate republicans” like Bush were all about. Ya, no, never again…… Demacrat light is an accurate statement. All of the above is how we got Obama, and now we got Trump and Hildabeast….. God have mercy on our nation.

        5. avatar Mikial says:

          Sounds like California is the perfect place for you. Are you going to try to keep Clinton out or not?

        6. avatar Ralph says:

          “Trump is polling at 9% with people under 30.”

          Was it hard for the pollsters to reach them in their mommies’ basements? Or did they contact them on X-Box?

          The beliefs of the most solipsistic generation in world history is of no concern to anyone. They’re living poor and they’ll die poor.

        7. avatar Kyle (in Upstate New York) says:

          A moderate conservative could most definitely win. The problem is that most of the so-called “moderate conservatives” have just been Democrat-lite, which contrary to what many think is not the same as a moderate conservative. A moderate conservative is still a conservative. They can argue the conservative positions on economics, foreign policy, gun rights, SCOTUS, healthcare, etc…and really tear the crap out of a Democrat.

          A Democrat-lite Republican, by contrast, is not a conservative and doesn’t know how to defend conservatism. As a result, they just come across as the same as the Democrat, only a more “lite” version.

          Bob Dole and John McCain both were Democrat-lite. They were not moderate conservatives. John McCain knew nothing about economics and let Obama walk all over him in the debates. He was a Republican, but no conservative. When Mitt Romney had his first debate with Obama, he managed to come across as a moderate conservative. He was an alternative political animal to Obama’s liberalism, but yet not a hard conservative. As a result, he shot up in the polls. What hurt him were the socially-conservative positions the base forced him to adhere to, which the Obama campaign hammered him on, and thus he ultimately lost.

          And I disagree, with all the negatives about Hillary, that a Kasich or a Rubio couldn’t have won. To the contrary, I think it is guaranteed that Trump or a Ted Cruz were definite losers, but that a Rubio or a Kasich could have had a real shot.

        8. avatar Realost says:

          Prior to the conventions, Kasich was beating Hillary by double digits in every head to head.poll.
          It would be game over for Hillary right now if Kasich had been the nominee.
          Kasich isn’t perfect but he would be better than Hillary. Now it is game over for gun owners, because Trump is an idiot blowhard.

          You stubborn “no-compromise” hard cases will be turning in your guns like everyone else when the time comes. The government will use insurance companies, banks and utilities to do the dirty work. Homes with guns will get no insurance, no mortgage and no utilities — too dangerous. Your house burns down and gun carcasses get discovered, you get your premium refunded instead of a big check to rebuild. Guns in the house, your mortgage gets foreclosed. Guns in the house, no water sewer or electricity hook up. Just a matter of time.

        9. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Lest we forget, Kasich and Rubio *did* lose.

      3. avatar Rmsingh says:

        Kasich and Rubio both have homosexual rumors around them for a while.

      4. avatar Publius says:

        Like it or not, but a significant portion of the population likes Trump. Things he has going for him? 1) He’s the only candidate who’s not a sleazy career politician 2) He’s the only candidate who wants to stop the Islamification of the US 3) He can’t be bought because he already has enough money to buy anything he wants a dozen times over.

        As someone with multiple degrees in Economics, I want to beat my head through the desk over his idiotic economic policies that seek to recreate FDR’s failed policies. However, I also don’t want to see the US turn into the Muslim rapefest that Europe has become and he’ll at least appoint better judges than Hillary. Republicans have spent far too many elections alternating between nominating Democrats to run as Republicans (like Romney) or finding the most batshit crazy religious fanatics they can find that the majority of Americans despise because they don’t want a Christian theocracy.

        They only have themselves to blame for Trump’s rise to power because the establishment refused to acknowledge what the people want and it took someone with more money than the establishment to get enough media coverage to overcome the establishment’s bullshit. That’s why Fox News hates Trump so much – they figured that, just like with Ron and Rand Paul, they could black him out and keep people from even knowing he was running. They forgot that Trump is already a household name and has more than enough money and connections to ensure that he’s always front-page news. It’s also hilarious to see the rabidly Republican establishment Fox News actively campaigning for Hillary and posting “poll” results that flat out contradict what every other poll in the nation shows just because Fox wants Trump to lose. I find the whole situation rather amusing…

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Even a troll can be right now and then.

      5. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        “Well, it’s too bad conservatives selected that idiot Trump as their candidate.
        Should have selected a moderate like Kasich or Rubio.”

        Spare me. Whatever candidate the Repubicans nominated the MSM would attempt to destroy his or her campaign, including deliberate twisting and misquoting of words, as they have done in the past elections.

        The MSM is naked about their propaganda. Look at this clip from CNN:


        “We couldn’t help her anymore than we have. You know, she’s just got a free ride so far from the media and we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”

        As for Kasich and Rubio…they both are unsuitable for office, both of them support illegal immigration and Common Core, and Kasich wants at least some gun grabbing as well. They both have taken money from some very sketchy sources as well, money with the expectation of a return.

      6. avatar Jim Macklin says:

        Senator Ted Cruz may be the most pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment person to ever run for the Presidency.
        Ted Cruz has defended the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court. Ted Cruz did not “discover” the Second Amendment yesterday, he has a long track record of the strongest support of the rights of citizens.
        He was the motivator behind 31 State Attorney Generals signing an amicus brief in support of the HELLER case. The State of Kansas picked Cruz in our primary.
        But we have Trump, courtesy of the media, same way the media selected McCain to be a loser.
        Right now we’re stuck with Trump and that isn’t all bad. Trump can be managed. He will have good people around him and he isn’t going to start a war.
        hillary is likely to start a war while she is throwing ash trays and pots and pans at bill. If women will vote for her just because “she’s a woman” how will women think of her as a domestic abuser and abused?

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      No, no. Hillary Clinton is a really good person. She means what she says and can always be depended on. Liberals can like guns and understand their importance to us all. She’s one of the liberals who are like that. Regardless of what the conservatives say, electing her will be good for the country. /SARC/

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    The evil hildebeast wants Aussie style gun confiscation. Period. Trump/Pence 2016…

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Actually, what she really wants is 100% disarmament and helplessness for anyone not employed by the government, but she’ll settle for an Australian-style system…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        … to start with.

    2. avatar Dan in NC (Now in CO) says:

      Agreed. I sincerely hope Sara Tipton is reading this story after voicing her namby pamby feel good concience story the other day.

  3. avatar Lucas D. says:

    Nice job, Clinton. You just made be spray black coffee all over my monitor.

    Which is scary, because I’m drinking iced tea.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      You should use your obummercare to get that checked.

      1. avatar Publius says:

        Who can afford it?

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Beats me, because I sure as hell didn’t bother with it.

          It’s not that big a problem; I usually have a little black stuff seep out of my mouth whenever Hillary tells a new lie.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    So I guess that CNN is a bigger liar than concernedamerican. If that’s even possible.

    1. avatar Tommy Hobbes says:

      The larger issue is that journalism schools and media policy makers need to pay careful attention to how they report on firearms in American life. It’s probably too much to expect a fair shake from MSN, but it would be nice…..

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “We couldn’t help her anymore than we have. You know, she’s just got a free ride so far from the media and we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.” Chris Cuomo, CNN host

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    The Clinton News Network also reports that Hitler supported Jews so much that he built whole towns for them. Whole towns!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      With the latest forced air furnaces!

      1. avatar Chief Master says:

        And state-of-the-art shower fixtures!

        1. avatar jwm says:

          And state of the art public transportation!

    2. avatar Bob says:

      And railway infrastructure to make it an easy relocation.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Great minds think alike, Bob! And they were gated communities with state of the art security!

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Don’t for get the free meals!

          Occasional thin, watery gruel in wartime is expensive, don’t you know.

          And who can forget participating in those medical studies by kindly Doctor Josef Mengele?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          And 100% employment!

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      And if you like your priceless art, you can keep your priceless art! We’re just here to “catalogue” it for safekeeping….

    4. avatar AD says:

      A bit off topic, but a good read is “The Arms of Krüpp.” I forget the author. It details the history of the Krüpp steel makers. They predate the Zazis by a lot but, as a huge employer and “kings” of German industry, we’re always intricately tied to German politics. They funded Hitler’s campaigns since a huge war would also be hugely profitable. Their treatment of the slave labor was… not good, as they had and endless supply from the regime.

  6. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

    Hitlerly Clinton supports the right of the government to decide which guns they will allow you to own. That is a pretty bold lie to make by CNN, yet somehow I’m not really surprised.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I might be concerned…if anybody actually watched CNN.
      (People waiting to board a flight at the airport don’t count).

  7. avatar Phrederick says:

    The Clinton Noise Network has already exposed themselves as nothing but shills for Killary. They’ve been blatantly cutting the feed every time someone says something even remotely negative about their idol. I’m not surprised they’re fashioning these blatant lies for her now too.

  8. avatar Mr A Max says:

    A lot of articles lately on Clinton. Fine and dandy except for the pictures. Been seeing to many pictures of this vile woman and it’s starting to make me feel sick. Like physical sick. I think we need to ban pictures of her.

    As for the article, wow…watch the liberals believe this horse crap too. No research into someone’s voting history and quoted statements; just the typical “see, they don’t wanna take guns away. She said so”. Type bullpoopy.

    As far as I care, being a Democrat is a mental illness.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    This is exactly why we need to license and register journalists.

    1. avatar Phrederick says:

      Give that power to the FCC or any other government branch and the first thing they’re going to do is shut down bloggers and aggregators like Matt Drudge and RF, which they’ve been chomping at for a while now. The power to license grants the power to censor by restricting access to journalist media or to suppress stories by threatening the removal of licensure. Politicians and bureaucrats would love that power.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        He said that “we” should license journalists. Not the FCC. We. I’m completely in favor of “us” licensing jurnos and other forms of professional liars. And limiting them to ten lies at a time.

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        Gonna go out on a limb here and say that jwm was probably being sarcastic….

  10. avatar BDub says:

    “But I am looking for more support for the reasonable efforts that need to be undertaken to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

    Question: Who gets to decide what “wrong hands” means?

    Answer: (well, we all know the answer)

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    Heil Hillter

  12. avatar strych9 says:

    Clinton fans are nervous. There now appears to be a good basis to believe that there is a second FBI investigation into HRC, this time for public corruption while she was SecState.

    On top of that, looking at the polls it seems gloomy for Trump but one must realize a few things that Clinton’s staffers certainly know. First, off polls this far out don’t mean a whole heck of a lot. Secondly, the most accurate polls are those of likely voters not registered voters.

    A glance at the recent polls shows an RCP average of +6.3 for Clinton. However, that includes three polls of registered voters. ABC/Wapo, NBC/SM and Economist/YouGov are all polls of registered voters and respectively they show +8,+10 and +7 for HRC. If those polls are removed from the average and we go only with the polls of likely voters we get Bloomberg, LA Times/USC and Reuters/Ipsos at +6,+1 and +6 respectively. That drops the average lead for HRC to 4.33%.

    It’s also interesting to note that out of these groups Bloomberg and Reuters/Ipsos have consistantly put Clinton so far out ahead of Trump, even in terms of very nearly all other polling that it’s safe to say that their sampling methods are screwed up. It’s also interesting to note that when they were both called out a few weeks ago, for having double digit leads for Clinton in every poll they did, which didn’t line up with the vast majority of other polling, that they switched from registered voters to likely voters and their leads for Clinton were immediately cut in half.

    Then there’s the other problem, which is that most polling skews left. Why exactly this happens is unknown, but you can see a perfect example of it in the Brexit vote. Polls taken the day before the actual vote had Remain winning by 10 points. The very next day however the polls that really mattered had a nearly 12 point swing in the opposite direction and Leave ended up winning by 1.89%. Even had Leave lost by 1%, the pollsters would have been wrong (and to the left) by 9 points.

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:

      Yeah you can’t get a valid poll surveying a 1,000 people in a country of 325,000,000. The polls are just to convince people Clinton did really win the election.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The NBC poll is of more that 10,000.

        Sample size doesn’t really seem to matter. Controlling the group properly is damn near impossible and for whatever reason people lie to pollsters. This is why politics employs focus groups.

        Personally, I think it’s that most people tell the pollster what the person thinks the pollster wants to hear/tend to lie about their true feelings to avoid perceived judgement but I have nothing to back that up. It’s just a hunch.

        1. avatar AD says:

          I mostly agree, except that it IS possible to cherry pick your sample group. For instance: we can survey 10,000 people for a pretty decent sample size (but all 10,000 are known NYT subscribers) Thusly we got the outcome we wanted and expected.

  13. avatar NorincoJay says:

    CNN went from my favorite news source to the grocery store tabloid section next to the National Enquirer. Truely sad times for honest journalism. Chris Coumo said it best “We here at CNN did our best for Clinton giving her a free pass.” Yes he did say that, though I did paraphrase.

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Here is the actual clip I think you refer to:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4

      “We couldn’t help her anymore than we have. You know, she’s just got a free ride so far from the media and we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”

  14. avatar LHW says:

    Yeah, and Monica didn’t eat Bill’s goo.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Hillary wants to sit and work 40 feet from where Monica and others gobbled her mans goo. Cannot wait to hear a jurno ask Hillary, knowing Bill had more extra martial affairs that one can count, how does it make you feel and does it make a sham out of your marrige to Bill.

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        A hard question for a democrat? Never happen.

    2. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Between those two options, Monica is a bombshell 10 comparatively. I would’ve done the same thing. Then again, being a president, I could’ve found some real winners with daddy issues and gone out like a champ.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think a much better question would be “How many interns would the First Dude have, and how often would he be swapping them out?”

  15. avatar Von says:

    “under the assumption that Americans don’t have an individual right” under the 2nd Amendment would also nullify to the rest of the Bill of Rights. This would give ALL power to the government and it’s self-assumed elite.

  16. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Love how she said the last time she ran that what works in NY might not work in Montana. When Bernie said that recently-substitute Vermont for Montana – Hillary called him a racist. Because he doesn’t think we have a gun problem, Hillary said. He thinks we have an urban problem. “And you know what that means” she went on-he thinks it’s “a black problem”

    Yes. Urban drug and gang activity is the root of most firearms violence in America. But you can’t say that at a Clinton rally.

  17. avatar LHW says:

    That poor gun needs ptsd treatment.

  18. avatar 2Asux sucks says:

    I cannot wait till Sara’s next article. If there is one.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      I agree. I wait with much anticipation for a total winning strategy for our gun rights from Sara.

    2. avatar MouseGun says:

      You should change your name to “Concernedamerican Sucks”, I’m pretty sure it’s the same guy (or gal).

  19. avatar Eugene says:

    Well her collusion has been felt because Obama just initiated the $2500 licensing fee two weeks ago, they have already begun.

  20. avatar Lance Manion says:

    I think a lot of voters will never admit they support Trump. But when they’re in the voting booth and nobody is looking, they’ll secretly pull the lever for him. When asked about it later, they’ll never admit it. If I’m right, the poll numbers will always be artificially low for him.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I’m hoping a lot of voters will get into the booth, reach toward the “Clinton” or “Trump” button, feel the bile come up in the backs of their throats and leave, or better yet, push the “Johnson” button.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        So, “go to polling booth, pull Johnson?”

      2. avatar Mikial says:

        And in doing so, utterly waste their Conservative vote on someone who has no chance of getting elected. Consequently, they will be giving Clinton one more vote ahead of Trump. Yup, great strategy and one that is guaranteed to give us another Obama in the White House.

        Idiots.

        1. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

          almost as bad as the idiots who voted for this clown in the primaries. There were better candidates, but GOP voters fell for the t.v. big mouth.

        2. avatar Mikial says:

          I understand what you’re saying, but we’re here now so what are you going to do? Condemn us all because you’re bitter and put Clinton in the WH or try to keep her out. Your choice.

        3. avatar 10mm says:

          MOST people don’t live in swing counties in swing states. Face it: MOST people could vote libertairian and not HAND the election to Hillary. If you live in Seattle, LA, Dallas or Pheonix, do you think your vote really matters? Most states are set red or blue.

    2. avatar Tommy Hobbes says:

      You could be right. An article in the British newspaper , Guardian , on Trump voters, said that many of them would not publicly admit to supporting DT, but would feel safe to express their support in a secret ballot. Significantly, several males said they’d vote for Trump but would not admit that to their wives. The other factor voters need to think on us whether Trump is sincere in his support of lawful firearms owners. Just sayin’….

      1. avatar jwm says:

        We know for sure that if hillary gets the office we get fucked. And not in a good way.

        I don’t like Trump. But i’m voting for him.

        1. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

          yup…2a gets my vote, which unfortunately, goes to this rude obnoxious dummy, who i am convinced will ruin the fragile economy, and who will flip flop on issues if his spoiled kids tell him so.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “We know for sure that if hillary gets the office we get fucked.”

          I like getting fucked. Nothing quite like watching her tits bounce when she’s on top.

          “And not in a good way.”

          Oh. Well… piss and rainbows then… but mostly piss.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “I like getting fucked. Nothing quite like watching her tits bounce when she’s on top.”

          You’re talking about *HILLARY”? I feel sick.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      There is probably a lot more truth to this than the NeverTrump crowd wants to admit.

      The effect is enhanced by looking outside the polls; not everyone is being polled, no matter how large the sample ends up being.

      Interesting read:

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/secret-vote-for-trump-seen-by-gop-and-dem-pollsters/article/2598805

  21. avatar Christian Tener says:

    How is everyone on this site not backing Gary Johnson?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Because he’s an idiot. And a johnson.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Because he picked an anti-gun RINO for his running-mate, and he hasn’t said anything positive on the matter of gun rights since at least 2012.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Libertarians love them some gun control!

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        Word.

    3. avatar W says:

      Because he is not a libertarian but he is a loser.

    4. avatar bob in IN says:

      Cause a vote for Johnson is a win for hilLIARy.

      1. avatar Mikial says:

        Absolutely true!

        Johnson doesn’t have a prayer of winning, so every non-Democrat who votes for him is giving Clinton another +1 vote against Trump. Get real people.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So, actually, the question would be, “How can *you* be supporting Gary Johnson?”

  22. avatar anonymoose says:

    If we take anything the Clinton campaign has said at face value, we’d be Democrats!

  23. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Hitlery does support the 2A, BUT for a reasonable and sensible definition as a collective right for the government to have guns.

  24. avatar Accur81 says:

    Well, I said Obama was going to be anti-gun all the way back when he was on the campaign trail in 2007. That’s when I started stocking up on guns and ammo. I’ve said Hillary is going to continue to be anti-gun, and the best move in the 2016 race is to vote for Trump, particularly due to SCOTUS and the selection of federal judges. Meanwhile, gun and ammo prices are still pretty reasonable.

    And I bet there will still be “gun rights advocates” who vote for Hillary or Johnson. California is a pretty good cautionary tale of Drmocratic Party control, for those who care to listen.

  25. avatar DerryM says:

    Personally, I like how natural Charlton Heston’s arm holding up that Kentucky Long Rifle looks grafted onto The Hildebeest. Hope that image makes it into a TV Ad, or a billboard in Times Square, or the front page of Guns and Ammo. You can do some mighty fine things with Photoshop!

  26. avatar Rick K says:

    Yeah, she’s da man on 2A.

  27. avatar KDB says:

    Please get it right it’s the “Commie News Network “

  28. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Bottom line: If you’re not absolutely certain Clinton is as anti-gun as they come, you’re a sucker (to put it charitably).

    1. avatar Doug says:

      If you ever vote for any Democrat for anything ever, you are harming our country. Too, too many evil policies and values.

  29. avatar Mikial says:

    Clinton, like all Democrats, and indeed, all Liberals, is a pathological liar who will say whatever it takes to get what she wants. Period. There is nothing else to discuss on the matter.

  30. avatar bawb says:

    Oh good, both major parties running pro-gun candidates. What a wonderful election year!

  31. avatar Doug says:

    Waiting to see video of Hillary crawling around on her belly in the woods wearing Kerry’s borrowed camo and Obama’s borrowed shotgun trying to find a deer.

  32. avatar John says:

    Look at your hands. They are “wrong” and should not have guns.

  33. avatar DaveL says:

    with no exceptions under any circumstances

    If you can only do it under certain exceptional circumstances, it’s not a right. I would have thought that would be obvious.

  34. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Clinton supports gun rights about as often as I walk on water.

  35. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Ohhh CNN….pull the other one, will you, mate? It has bells on it.

  36. avatar J0shua says:

    Why does she need to abolish something that in reality is only some words written on a piece of paper long ago that now serve only as a dying remremind of what our founding fathers wanted for us? Tragically, the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been all but forgotten by the common man, brainwashed and distorted, trampled under the foot of unconstitutional legislation by what can only be described as tyranical governance.

  37. avatar Ad Astra says:

    ‘ “But I don’t know the facts,” she said.’

    HOLY $&!T Hillary actually said something true!!!!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Exactly. Supposedly, she’s a lawyer, she’s been pushing this crap for 20-30 years, yet she still doesn’t know the facts.

  38. avatar Von Schmitto says:

    If you are 18 years old, own a firearm, and don’t vote against her in November, you’re the problem, not her.

    I may be wrong but I don’t think there is a swing state that gun owning voters can’t win.

  39. The Republican’s problem is that they carry only one demographic, white men. There has to be appeal to other groups… I don’t see that happening unless the GOP becomes less “conservative”.
    Not an impossible task, but the base has to accept reality. Many rough years ahead.

  40. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that she would be interested in exploring an Australian-style gun confiscation scheme for America.

    Once you make a statement like that, anything else you have to say about the Second Amendment is moot and there is no doubt where you stand on individual liberty despite what any CNN chucklehead has to say about it.

  41. avatar Tom W. says:

    Trump didn’t “appoint” himself the Republican Nominee. Out of 17 candidates, some good, most bad, “We The People” made him the Nominee.

    The MSM, living in their beltway bubble, would have bashed and attempted to degrade whoever the (R) Nominee was.
    It’s what they do.

    The Establishment is nervous on both sides (of which I contend they are both the same uniparty), and are now realizing a non politician is poised to piss all over their corrupt, elite, pork stuffed, usurping, power grabbing, globalist, socialist agenda.

    The Tree of Liberty Needs To Be Shaken And Pruned Before We The People Decide to Fertilize It.

    Trump is the Middle Finger candidate to the Establishment. And they deserve it.
    In the old days, most would have been tarred and feathered by now.

  42. avatar Socrates says:

    YGTBFKM!

  43. avatar Dr Bob says:

    If that photo is unaltered, it is clear that Jezebel is mocking Charlton Heston.

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