very-angry-hillary_1

Remember that Hillary Clinton believes in the Second Amendment. We know this because she’s told us so. And we’re assured by purported “fact-checkers” that she doesn’t want to abolish the 2A. Then again, some of her biggest boosters aren’t so sure. So what are gun owners to believe? Well, with the help of the industrious hackers at Wikileaks, we now have a window into some of her thinking on the matter…not the bullshit soothing campaign pablum she’s been putting out for public consumption.

In an email released today, Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign press secretary, had this to say last year on her plans once she’s installed in the Oval Office:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

The imposition of UBCs would be a largely cometic move which would, in practice, do little to nothing to prevent actual “gun violence.” Criminals, by definition don’t comply with transfer laws anyway, so they’d continue their business as usual. Such an order would only inconvenience and ensnare law-abiding gun owners, which a Clinton administration would likely view as more a feature than a bug.

As for imposing product liability on gun manufacturers by executive fiat, that would be more problematic. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act indemnifies firearms manufacturers against liability when crimes are committed using their products. An executive order nullifying a duly enacted law would provoke an immediate lawsuit in response and likely an injunction until the matter could be fully adjudicated, probably ultimately by the Supreme Court. A Court which, by the time the suit reached it, would have a newly installed member nominated by, that’s right, Hillary Clinton.

It’s been predicted that if gun makers can one day be sued for crimes committed using their lawfully-produced products, it would eventually result in the end of the gun manufacturing in the United States. That’s an outcome Hillary and her supporters on the anti-gun left have long dreamed of.

 

120 Responses to Wikileaks Email Reveals Hillary’s Plan for Executive Orders Imposing Universal Background Checks, Gun Manufacturer Liability

        • If Hitlery is elected there will be general unrest around the nation. Her actions after the start of the unrest will determine where the populace goes from there. All of the weak links who think general strife in unlikely do not know history. When you push a people in a direction they refuse to go eventually they push back. Most police officers I know tell me they will disappear before they allow a tyrant like Hitlery to destroy our nation. Many of the ones who stay will refuse to uphold illegal executive orders. The left coast thinks we are the great unwashed and should be led by the enlightened. HOOEY.

        • Go ahead tough guy? Thanks for your support. I’m sure we could totally count on your support. Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed but these days it’s important for gun owners to unite. His comment wasn’t threatening just saying the truth. It’s gonna take a true patriot (politician) to stand up for us. Go vote for Hillary, I now know you want to.

      • Article V, The Constitution of the United States of America. Read it. Love it. Work for the convention.

        For further reference read “The Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin.

        • Why would anyone think that new Constitutional Amendments would matter when large swaths of government (at all levels) ignore the clear rule of law (which includes the United States Constitution and individual state constitutions) right now?

          To think that additional U.S. Constitutional amendments would change the landscape is just as foolhardy as thinking one more gun-control law will reduce violent crime.

          Until people actually step-up to enforce the clear rule of law, nothing is going to change.

        • If you bothered to research what he referenced then you would know why it would work. It gives power back to the people and the States and takes it away from the federal government. Like adding term limits to how long judges and people in Congress can serve. They cannot ignore that. Has a President ignored the Constitution and ran for a 3rd term? There will also be major consequences if they ignore the new amendments. Such as requiring the government to balance the budget and if they don’t then funding will be cut by a certain percent until they do. Also another one is reversing and restriction executive orders.

        • What you are overlooking is that the SC can rule any constitutional amendment to be “unconstitutional”. The only way to re-gain the nation is to begin, all over again. Make moot all current offices, appointments and elective officials.

        • “They cannot ignore that. “

          **COUGH**

          Perhaps you missed the part where Cliff mentioned they ignore the Constitution at will NOW.

          This sounds like the ‘make it illegaler’ gun control type arguments. Let’s see; we have a government that is not only a-Constitutional, but openly anti-Constitution, and we have people that think the answer to that is moar Constitution.

          Trying to wrap my head around that “logic.”

        • The nay-sayers claim that new Constitutional amendments will be ignored. That depends entirely on what topics are targeted and what the phraseology is. Some of the Bill-of-Rights were phased very loosely; e.g., the 3’rd and 4’th. So, the courts had great leeway to interpret them as they saw fit. Conversely, other Constitutional terms are very concrete; such as the terms of office of Senators, Presidents and Representatives; limits on re-elections of Presidents.
          Insofar as new amendments touch on topics that are very concrete, the 3 branches of the Federal government could not dare defy them. It would create a “Constitutional crisis” that the People at large would not ignore. I very much doubt that a majority of SCOTUS, or a majority of both chambers of the Congress or the President would take such a chance. Admittedly, I might underestimate them. Very well. If the People demure from such concrete violations of unequivocal provisions then we will see what happens. Perhaps our Republic is one which we can not keep.

        • Of course, the founding fathers probably thought (and intended) “shall not be infringed” to be “very concrete”, too; and yet, here we are.

        • Just to be completely repetitious, the Constitutional Convention proposes amendments, not entirely new constitutions. The SC can, and will, declare an amendment “unconstitutional” when it suits. Let pretend that an amendment re-instating the slave trade was ratified and became the XXXX amendment to the constitution. You don’t think the amendment would be ruled out of bounds? Indeed, the SC would likely enjoin congress from even submitting such an amendment to the states. Pick your favorite cause ce’lebe’ that would horrify the left; same result.

      • I’m not calling for any kind of armed rebellion so don’t get this twisted. In 21st century America, people don’t have the stomach to “get drastic” they are afraid to be uncomfortable and unwilling to suffer for a cause they believe in. In fact, when was the last time Americans REALLY believed in anything beyond hand outs, starbucks, and a fast internet connection. Youngsters now swipe right on tinder instead of having the balls to ask a girl on a date. In times past Americans were cut from a tougher fabric. That fabric no longer exist.
        The worst part is the few of us who have the balls to stand up and be counted will be labeled right wing domestic terrorists or worse. When DC gets to out of hand and goes buck wild, crying all over social media will be all the resistance they will be willing to put up.

        • And that’s the problem. …you talk but arent willing to do. Don’t worry, some of us will do while you hide in your basement

        • “In times past Americans were cut from a tougher fabric. That fabric no longer exist.”
          That as always been true.

          But in all the previous wars since the 13 Colonies up through today that could be said as well.
          No one jumped into any of those wars willingly.
          No sane person would.

          They have to be duped.
          They have to be lied to to force them to fight.
          They have to see that there was no possible alternative.

          Our leaders would know how to manipulate the sentiment of the population through the media.
          The main stream media is propaganda arm of the federal government.

          The US came close to in situations of the land owners in Nevada and Oregon.

          No one wanted armed conflict.
          You knew that the BLM, ATF, and FBI were preparing for only localized conflict.
          Were they prepared if things got out of hand and spread to other states?
          Hell no.

          Two things start armed conflicts:
          1) an itchy trigger finger.
          2) not knowing far your opponent is capable and willing to go.

          The problem is that once fighting starts no one knows how far the conflict is going to go.

          The reality is that it does not matter if 3% or 30% of the population
          is willing to get into armed conflict with the federal government.

          For a sustainable resistance against the federal government would require an
          enormous amount of communication and mobility.

          And the federal government OWNS entire electronic communication spectrum.
          It OWNS the US highways.

          And I know how far the federal government is willing to go to stay in power.
          The Northern union army completely wiped resistance in the South.
          The Northern union army practically exterminated the whole race of Indians.

          This federal government is the same federal government that would not think twice
          about stacking the bodies of every civilian, coast to coast in order to stay in power.

      • Which is just another way of saying it’s time to tune in, drop out, and enjoy how the Muzzies lower “get drastic” threshold ultimately benefits us.

      • Bulldoze them into the Potomac, in support of Chesapeake Bay fisheries.

        On the premise that “everybody’s good at something”, and given that they have, to a man and woman, proven completely useless at absolutely anything else; simple process of elimination would indicate fishfeed to be their one true calling.

  1. Good luck with that lawsuit thing. Any executive order will stand until years of litigation is finished. A win is a win. Even if executive action is ultimately overturned, the damage will likely be complete.

    The courts have been placed at the top of the government triumvirate/troika, wherein executive and legislative branches are controlled by jurists. Doesn’t matter what/which laws are enacted by Congress, the legislative branch must operate only within court-approved rules, policies and procedures. Same for a President who falls out of favor of the courts. There are no longer three co-equal branches. Marbury v. Madison initiated the power swap.

    • “Good luck with that lawsuit thing. Any executive order will stand until years of litigation is finished.”

      Vote Republican (even if they’re RINOs). A solidly Republican House and Senate can (should) start articles of impeachment the moment she tries such an obviously unconstitutional gambit. The Constitution is not about suing another branch of government you have an issue with – remedies exist within the framework of the document itself. Congress has the authority, nay the obligation, to bring impeachment proceedings against the president or federal judges/justices, if the situation warrants that action. There is no provision int he Constitution for the people to be burdened with an obviously unconstitutional action while the courts try to decide the issue. That’s the crap thinking that has got us to the issue of 20,000+ unconstitutional anti-gun/anti Second Amendment laws still on the books today.

      In an impeachment trial by the Senate only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sits in judgment, not the entire liberal-biased body. She can stack the SCOTUS all she wants, until she gets to replacing the Chief Justice she has no leverage in an impeachment.

      • “… until she gets to replacing the Chief Justice she has no leverage in an impeachment.”

        I think we are at the point now where Hillary’s handlers would ensure an “accident” of some sort would happen which would create a vacancy at the Chief Justice position.

      • “A solidly Republican House and Senate can (should) start articles of impeachment the moment she tries such an obviously unconstitutional gambit.”

        They should. However, if the GOP keeps the Senate in 2016, it will probably be by a slim margin. Go try to convince 5-7 Dem senators to can their gal just after she’s been elected. For any reason. Just like the corrupt Justice Department now covers for high level bureaucrats who abuse their power. Worst of all, a large portion of US voters just let this banana republic garbage pass. We are officially dysfunctional.

      • “A solidly Republican House and Senate can (should) start articles of impeachment the moment she tries such an obviously unconstitutional gambit.”

        Repubs control both houses; six out of eight years. How’d that work out, about controlling the president? Both parties are big government interventionists. They both want control over everything. Repubs are different only because they say they will be more efficient at it (which they have yet to prove). Where did all those tea party Congresspeople and Senators go? The were told on day one, sit down, shut up and do as you’re told. They were also told that they had completed their mission to hand a majority to the GOP, but they did not earn the right to have influence.

    • Actually it would likely be an injunction against the EO. Like the recent court fights over Obama’s immigration EOs. All the recent court fights were just over the injunction halting the implementation of the EOs. And the courts sided with the challengers, which is quite typical.

  2. I forget the name of the saint who once said God sends us the leaders we deserve; both in the chuch and in the secular world. It is incredible how our politicians can be very smart in some things and at the same time very contra educated on other things.

    They’re policy goals would destroy the nation/society that maintains their standard of living and social status. If any politician tried to effectively ban guns by ending their manufacture, making them too expensive, there would be civil war. They would no longer have subjects to maintain their lifestyle and status; which is how it basically works now, and how they see us….we’re their subjects.

    • This is why dark ages happen. Those with power, believing they know better than G-d, create a political and social environment that gives them greater power over the “lesser” classes. This has happened all through history. The current power class, the progressives; seeing how religion takes away their ability to control people, destroy belief in a higher power; strong families, based on a man and a woman, make people independent of government, so they destroy traditional families; belief in following the law, following the rules, block them from whole sale re-writing of laws and statutes that give them more power; so they promote “moral relativism” and if it “feels good, do it”.

      What those with power forget in their addicted frenzy for another fix of their favorite drug, more power, is that it is the very things that block them from having absolute power over the “masses” , that are the very things that give the society the stability and the prosperity to allow those few at the top to even be able to have their mad visions of absolute power over the many.

      So the end result of those mad few, finally creating the environment for absolute power, destroy that environment, which is their traditional culture, which is their traditional society, in a mad orgy of violence, blood and death.

  3. They will do it.

    And when the first test case reaches a Progressive bias SCOTUS it will be ruled constitutional.

    They will argue automobile manufactures are not held liable for criminal use of motor vehicles, but it won’t matter. The Court will twist and gyrate however needed to come to that conclusion, but it won’t matter.

    Stock up now, gang, while they are available.

    The only hope of reversing it will require a conservative President and a number of vacancies on the Court.

    Vacancies created however it needs to be done…

    • So many people believe politicians and govt employees are stupid, dull, lack a functioning brain. Once the manufacturers can be held liable for criminal acts by someone using a gun (the order will dictate that there is no distance of time, relation or location than can insulate the manufacturer), guess who will be included in that order? Can you say “owner”?

      The people you despise are cunning, conniving, deceitful, devious, and get great joy in making the minions underestimate them.

  4. Funny how when something the people wants becomes illegal or to expensive, a criminal element always intervenes to supply the items no matter what it is. Alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, gambling, etc.. It doesn’t matter what the government wants, it’s what people want and they’ll get it one way or the other.

  5. I’ve been saying for years, the manufacturer liability thing is the cornerstone of the gun control endgame.

    If they make it too expensive to do business in the industry, businesses will leave the industry, and it can’t easily be outsourced since foreign-made arms are subject to administrative regulation (see: ban on russian import ammo/firearms) based on executive fiat and with no legislative oversight.

    • Not ‘gun control’ endgame, but full-on fascist command economy endgame. How many industries at this point get their marching orders almost entirely from the feds as opposed to free markets? Medical/O-care/FDA, automotive/CAFE/NHTSB, agriculture/subsidies/quotas, heavy industry/EPA/OSHA, R&D/Federal Grants/Military research, aviation/FAA/Military, energy/EPA/Green Initiative

      The only difference between socialism & fascism (and the oligarchy/despotism they naturally decay into) is whether industry is formally absorbed by state owners, as opposed to consolidated into the most politically-connected ones. When the government can concoct some crazy thrice-removed legal argument to shut down gun manufacturers, they will have gained a tool that can shut down any industry in existence at will, should it fall into disfavor. At that point, you had better produce what the federal suits tell you to produce, in what quantity, and at what price (dictated by invasive anti-competitive bid rules like mil contractors are subject to), or risk being shut down because someone somewhere could do something with your product that results in some type of liability.

      Having sped right past the event horizon, we fall helplessly towards the ultimate inversion.

      • Holy shit. I had never even considered it like that, but you are absolutely right. My God that’s terrifying….

  6. I still haven’t heard a convincing argument for the feds even having constitutional authority to do UBCs period, let alone by executive fiat. States, probably/maybe, but definitely not at the federal level for non interstate commerce ostensibly protected by the second amendment. Not saying that necessarily means much within our dying system as it stands, but such an initiative would rank highly on the next train of abuses and usurpations justifying the next phase.

    Hillary has made her proclamation, now let her enforce it.

    • And once again everybody skips right past the FACT that the NICS system itself is unconstitutional. “…the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      If you concede that the government the Second Amendment was intended to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce any list pf persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of those lists?

      • Thanks, Cliff H, I wasn’t skipping past that, but you said clearly what everyone here needs to keep foremost in mind. The so-called “gun show loophole” is merely the fact that private citizens can and do sell guns to one another at gun shows in accordance with the Second Amendment (in many States). It is no “loophole”. It is the exercise of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms.

        Every “gun control” law or EO at every level of Government violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. No ifs ands or buts.

      • I think I can argue that NICS is not unconstitutional as it currently stands. Let me try! NICS places no restrictions on “the people” protected by 2A, but on businesses licensed to sell firearms. I can go and purchase any firearm I like, with the design being there to clear me instantly. Worst case, in 3 days. All that is stupid, because it accomplishes nothing at great expense, but not unconstitutional. *UNTIL* we decide to have and enforce UBC, which does interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus, I believe, BC is not unconstitutional but UBC would be.

  7. Universal background checks would indemnify the manufacturers, and in fact would place the blame soley on the government via NICS as all sales would be approved by your US government.

    • In which alternate reality?

      We already have near-total universal background checks. The few person-to-person sales that might, maybe, possibly be collected would do nothing to change the idea of holding manufacturers liable.

      One really attractive feature of holding gun manufacturers liable it that it would set both legal and political precedence for holding manufacturers of every product or service accountable for any illegal acts committed by the owner/user of the product or service. For instance, Nike could be held accountable for crimes committed by people wearing Air Jordans. ‘Bout time.

      • Yeah, that would last about a week before the question came up, then another 6 months while they tried to find a way to lie around it.

  8. As an experiment, I scanned this article and all the comments for the word “Trump”.

    Ordinarily, I would have seen dozens of folks speak up, saying “As bad as he is, Trump is our only hope of retaining control of the Supreme Court to prevent the erosion of gun rights”. And sadly enough, that statement is true.

    But today, not a peep from anyone about Trump. I think it’s obvious to everybody that after today’s revelations, Trump could not get elected dog catcher in Cody, Wyoming.

    And for those of you who missed it, back in 2005, the newly married Trump was recorded saying:

    “I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

    (At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set).

    “Your girl’s hot as s—, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

    “Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

    “I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

    “And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

    “Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

    “Grab them by the p—y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

    I’m sorry, but nobody survives that. He’s done.

    • Since when is being a masher a death penalty offense? It isn’t as if he raped any of them. You’d think he is as bad as someone running a brothel full of enslaved sex workers or something. Ben Franklin was a notorious masher, as were all of the Kennedys. Multiple presidents had mistresses, including Jefferson (who, coincidentally, owned his mistress). Yet you think this is a death knell while at the same time Clinton subverted the Sanders candidacy and is scheming to deprive Americans of one of their most sacred Constitutional rights? Yeah, Trump is an ass and a big mouth, but he isn’t a traitor.

      • You’re missing the point. Shrillery’s a Dem; Trump’s representing the Republicans.

        Only Dem’s can get away with that kind of sh!t politically unscathed.

        No one cares about HRC’s insincerity but the 11 year old recording will hurt Trump’s numbers and he was fighting an uphill battle as it is.

        To get back to the topic at hand, Shrillery has been consistent in that she is no fan of the 2A. Once in office she will use her exec. powers to erode our rights as fast and as deeply as she can get away with using any means imaginable (and unimaginable).

        Those who would sacrifice their freedoms for security deserve neither – and Shrillery’s counting on that.

    • What do you think the percentage of American Men is that HASN’T had a similar exchange with other men about women? Being generous that might possibly be ten percent or less. Bill Clinton has sexually violated many women and HiLIARy has tolerated, protected and enabled Big Creep’s sexual avarice. If Trump is “Done” over this Big Creep should be in Prison for his behavior.
      If you’re in that ten percent, IdahoBoy, I applaud you for being a better person than I, and most every other man that posts here, and I sincerely mean that.
      Vote Trump!

      • Yep. Had similar conversations myself with friends over the years.

        The problem here is the degree of vulgarity and the fact that the conversation was shared with a member of the liberal press who took the opportunity to share only after Trump became a candidate for pres.

        In politics it’s all about the optics. Shrillery’s transgressions don’t exceed the bar – her closed door comments aren’t as shocking as Trump’s.

        • Yes, it is purely a manufactured issue for political purposes just as ignoring Bill and HiLIARy’s transgressions (across the board) is a manufactured cover-up for political purposes. It’s a “tempest in a teacup” over an issue eleven years ago and probably happened whilst Big Creep was actually boinking some other woman.

        • You have no idea what her closed door comments might be, she has spent 15 years and more making certain there were no records of anything she says or does. Witness the entire email server debacle, entirely to hide her communications from *everybody*, and the panic to violate the law by destroying the server after it was subpoenaed by Congress! You cannot find anything she had to say while a Libyan ambassador was being burned to death, she sorta was off the planet at that time. She is a CRIMINAL! Get used to it, we may have 4 years to understand it completely, by which time she’ll be a multibillionaire and America will be in ruins. Because Trump acted like a teenaged boy in heat, 11 years ago. Really mature of *us*, huh?

      • I wasn’t in that 10% until I became the father of daughters.

        I’m just saying what little chance Trump had is gone.

        • You evolved when you fathered daughters. I expect many other men improve with age and life experiences, as well. I did, and have no children, but I will not cast a stone at Donald Trump over this because I know I am not “without sin” in the matter. Even Jimmy Carter, a near saintly man (but utterly incompetent President), admitted, “I have lusted in my heart.”

          As to how it will affect Trump’s Election prospects, I would not conclude anything just yet, but I respect your reasons for the concern/conclusion you stated. This happened eleven years ago! I will give Mr. Trump the benefit of accepting HE, too, may have evolved, and practice forgiveness. For me the overall bottom line is Trump is still a better choice than HiLIARy and I will still vote for him.

          This is an opportunistically manufactured “tempest in a teacup” serving a political agenda and if voting for Trump is a strike back at those who created and hypocritically use it, I am delighted to strike that blow. The ONLY force that will ever hold the Clinton’s accountable for their corruption and immorally treasonous conduct is the American People using their votes to rebuke and reject them in November.

          All Best to you and yours!

    • Nonsense. Everyone knows Trump is a heathen. In contrast the hildebeast is a traitor. And a souless one at that. Trump/PENCE 2016…

    • He hasn’t lost my vote, nor my wife’s. Of course, I was career military, and my wife was beside me all the way. I could teach Trump a thing or two about “crude”.

  9. Furthermore, this would open the door to similar lawsuits with other products; golf carts with a max speed limit of 20 mph is sufficient – any fatal accident involving a 2000+ Lb car traveling over 20mph involves liability by the manufacturer

  10. It’s been predicted that if gun makers can one day be sued for crimes committed using their lawfully-produced products, it would eventually result in the end of the gun manufacturing in the United States.

    Correction: “…It’s been predicted that if gun makers can one day be sued for crimes committed using their lawfully-produced products, it would eventually result in the end of manufacturing in the United States

    Once the gun makers are getting sued, by creating a precedent so will car makers and any other product produced also get sued.

    • Your new Stanley hammer will come equipped with a non removable large (4″ dia.) soft rubber sponge, attached to the head.

  11. I remember when Slick Willy was in office, and all the rabidly anti-gun things that Hillary used to say back then.

    She can’t fool me. She hates guns more than Obama.

  12. At the risk of totally derailing this topic….. How does this reveal of Clinton’s ‘plan’ affect those of you who said you can’t/won’t/never vote for Trump? Are you now more likely, even slightly, to check the box next to Trump? Are you now going to consider, even slightly, one of the other names on the ballot that aren’t Clinton or Trump? Does this new information change your voting preference at all?

    • If the supreme court wasn’t guaranteed to have vacancies, sure. This go around, no way. The Republicans could be running Adolph Eichmann’s reanimated corpse and they’d still be be getting my vote. I’ll take stupid over amoral and traitorous any day.

      If Trump loses, we lose the supreme court for a generation. Additionally, the Republican establishment will say “told you so” and go back to business as usual. This will ensure us another crop of Cruz/Rubio/Romney losers next go around. If you think the right was pissed this election cycle, just give them another four years of declining living standards, leftist efforts to gut this country and Republican lip service. It seems the bastards won’t be satisfied till we find the American Putin or Franco. It’ll serve them right if we do.

      • Trump cannot win. He never could win, and now more than ever he cannot win. So those of you who supported a Trump nomination, are the ones to blame for Hillary’s coronation. Any other candidate would have been better and done better than Trump did.

        FiveThirtyEight currently shows Trump with an 18.6% chance of winning. And that’s BEFORE the impact of his newly-revealed groping comments are factored in! Over the next week or two, look for Trump to drop below 10%. Especially as other Republicans continue to repudiate him.

        What’s worse, having Trump on the ballot has greatly increased the odds that the Republicans will lose the Senate. 538’s prediction on who will control the Senate is 52.2% D, 47.8% R. Before this election cycle, the Republicans looked like a lock to hold the Senate. Now, the odds are against them. And, again, that’s before the effects of the latest controversy are factored in.

        So the pro-Trumpers have likely brought about the doomsday scenario — not only will Hillary win, but she will have a Democratic Senate to work with.

        Thanks, Trumpers.

        • Yep, definitely the fault of the Republican base that they didn’t sit down, shut up, take what they were given and like it. Trump is a symptom, not a cause. If you piss on the peasants long enough eventually they aren’t going to care who’s running things, as long as it’s not you. The Republican establishment had more than enough warning that they needed to come correct. They’d pulled same con enough times they thought it would keep working indefinitely. They failed to recognize that outside of the Washington cocktail party and lobbyist set, Americans are very very angry.

          If nothing else, this election has made it clear that our masters in Washington simply consider elections to be the coronation of the standard bearer for one of two groups of competing elites. As a man once said, it’s a big club and you ain’t in it. The only vote that counts involves a rope and lamp post.

        • Let’s all not forget how the wise Republican elite said Comey was going to play it straight and professional with the HRC investigation. I’m a member of the stupid party.

          Prager for 2020….but in the meantime I’m voting Trump.

        • “Trump cannot win.”

          You sure? GREAT! Then it won’t cost you a thing to vote for him, and you can point that out to your friends while you encourage them to vote for him, as well. I mean, hell, if he can’t win, that relieves you of the responsibility of voting for that lying bitch, right? Since you absolutely *know* that she will win, you can make your objections known by voting for someone who cannot win, right? Like Trump.

    • Not at all. My personal high standards and principals are more important than anything that could happen to the community or nation. If the country falls, it will not be because I support politicians as corrupt as the two presidential candidates, or any of the members of the legislature. I would rather be right, than win through corruption.

  13. A Hitlery victory is assured. Boobus is too stupid not to pick the worst of the two options. The elite will not allow a Trump victory anyway.

  14. I’m missing the part in the “leak” about effecting UBCs via EO.

    Not that I wouldn’t put it past Clinton to try, but doing so would be explicitly contrary to law, and would get immediately challenged/defeated in court, and would likely get Clinton impeached.

    (I’ll give Obama this much credit: he never crossed the line of legaliry with his EOs.)

    • It’s not there. Seems that where the election is concerned, the TTAG has devolved into nohting but a litany of misleading headlines.

  15. Let’s just say she loses. Trump does his 4 or 8 years and then what? Another rabid liberal runs with promises of free shit galore and the support of the masses. And we are screwed again. The 2A is not being honored and when it goes the rest are not too far behind.

    A republic if you can keep it. Famous words.

  16. “… if gun makers can one day be sued for crimes committed using their lawfully-produced products, it would eventually result in the end of the gun manufacturing in the United States.”

    Well, it would result in the end of federal firearm licensees manufacturing firearms in the United States. Rapidly filling that void would be countless small machine shops cranking out tens of thousands of firearms every year.

  17. The States should sue and refuse to comply with these illegal orders. They did on the illegal environmental regulations. State authorities can refuse to work with the ATF completely. Heck arrest them if they start harassing State residents doing nothing wrong.

  18. Slightly off topic but. Anything that Trump has said offhand in the past in private conversation. Is virtually no different then most if not all males have said at one time or another in the course of general nonpublic conversations. Im sure women think about some men in the same way too.
    So it should all be irrelevant to an election. Except to the holier then thou out there, who are full of crap anyway.
    Hillary is pure evil and has stated her intentions towards the 2A many times.
    The Supreme Court is the only issue that really counts in this election for me.
    You want a chance at rule of law. Vote Trump.
    A court that writes laws according to their “feelings”, with no regard to the Constitution. Vote Hitlary.
    It is that simple.

    • “Is virtually no different then most if not all males have said at one time or another in the course of general nonpublic conversations.”

      Really? So most if not all males have physically molested women and gotten away with it because they’re “a star”?

      It’s one thing to express thoughts about what you want to do. It’s a whole ‘nother thing to actually do it and expect to get away with it because of your celebrity, which is what Trump was admitting to.

      You can think what you want about what he said, but what you think isn’t what’s relevant here. It’s what women think. They are over 50% of the adult population in the US. Why don’t you ask some women what they think about Trump’s statements that he “can do anything he wants and they’ll let him” and that he can “grab them by the *****”? See if they brush it off like it’s just “boys being boys”…

      Trump cannot win without women voters. Trump will not win women voters. Ergo – trump cannot win. This revelation is far more damaging with women voters than it is with the good ol’ boys club. He is toast.

      The only thing good that can come from this, at all, is for Trump to step aside and let Mike Pence run as President. I bet Pence could win handily.

      • “Really? So most if not all males have physically molested women and gotten away with it because they’re “a star”?”

        Nah, nobody said that. Most if not all males have engaged in silly macho verbal exchanges with their peers decades earlier. Just a very few males have actually assaulted women repeatedly, while married, in plain view, without apology. Like Bill Clinton.

  19. Since Clinton and Fallon are known as prolific liars, always take what they say with a grain of salt. Rely on your instincts for what they would do. We know that she is a gun banner and listed the NRA as the enemy she is the most proud of. Her position is obvious. One should not be misled by her words.

  20. The Republic is about 40% lost now. If Hillary gets elected, we will lose all of it within her first term.

    Civil war is coming with either.

  21. News flash, if the gun manufacturers can be sued for criminal use of their products, does anyone really think the lawyers won’t push it into car, knife and every other manufacturing field.
    The breast implant lawsuits opened the floodgates.

    • We just might see lawyers caught up in this. Get advice from an attorney. Commit a crime based on that advice. Get convicted. Sue the lawyer out of business, or maybe the federal government will step in and jail the lawyer as an accomplice or co-conspirator. Get advice from a lawyer, ignore it and get fined or jailed. Sue the lawyer because the attorney did not ensure you followed advice.

  22. I cannot wait for the liable lawsuit floodgates to open up!

    Gangbanger shoots your family member – sue Glock.

    Car wreck – sue Ford.

    Choke on a biscuit – sue Pillsbury.

    Burnt coffee – sue Cuisinart.

    It will be glorious!

  23. The UBC by EO is a smart move, legality of it aside. As it currently stands the NICS is overburdened, add a UBC and it will be overwhelmed. Issue another EO casting aside the current three day limit, to ostensibly allow NICS time to get their job done…….

    • By *my* executive order, I will not comply. What does she do now? There is no way to enforce such an EO, no one should pay any attention to it, let’s just make her a laughingstock right at the start.

  24. So how many Americans will lose their jobs if she allows gun manufacturers to be sued and they all move to Mexico or China? What is the military going to do, buy guns from China? Yup, Hillary is all about the middle class . Just let all their jobs go to Mexico.

  25. Wouldn’t Obama have already done these EO’s if it was really doable? If Hillary tries this stuff off-the-line, it could cause her to lose the Congress totally, plus give plenty of moral grounding to the GOP to completely block any liberal court nominee since she’s so willing to toss the law out the window.

  26. BREAKING : Donald Trump said some off the record – ” Locker room guy talk ” …a full 11 years ago.

    Ignore all Hitlerys crimes as we ( media ) spend the next week on what the bad man said.

    I guess we’re all supposed to wear flannel PJ’s , sip coco ,and turn in our guns while voting for Hildabeast , to ‘ prove ‘ how sensitive and hip we are .? …. I’m gonna vote for Trump twice !!

  27. Neither can be done by executive action. I even Obama recognizes he lacked the authority to do that.

    A President can ignore the law but he can’t create laws without The legislative authority.to do so. While liberal judges may be willing to uphold a broad interpretation of existing executive authority most liberal judges won’t buy The creation of laws by executive fiat.

  28. By that logic she could make an EO. flat out banning the selling whole classes of guns in the United States. A total de facto ban on future sales of firearms. Just imagine an EO AWB that involves the total and complete ban of ALL semi auto rifles and handgun including the ownership of currently held ones with confiscation. After a couple years when SCOTUS is packed with freedom haters it will be ruled constitutional. Then when reality happens and it doesn’t work as planned she will use the her pen to set up camps to send gun owners to be killed. And when the people react to that accordingly the use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil to quel an uprising that she started with her policies.

    All the while the courts saying everything she does in constitutional and that people who oppose her should be executed publicly without trial. That is our reality. Everyone here should now expect to be killed by a government thug or nuclear fallout.

    • Well, maybe, if you allow it to happen. I do not intend to allow that to happen to me, so it doesn’t worry me.

  29. “…not the bullshit soothing campaign pablum she’s been putting out for public consumption.”

    Contracted Latin and curse words in the same sentence. This is why I read TTAG! Way to go Mr. Zimmerman!

  30. It’s been said many times that Obama is the greatest gun salesman alive. If H. Dipshit get elected, that will change. There will probably be more guns bought and sold from the time of election, to the time she takes office, than in the last 10 years!

  31. I’m glad I live in state in a free where gun civil rights are supported.
    Those of you who reside in slave states should worry.

  32. I think there is an important irony here. Citizens United confirmed the right of a corporation to free speech. Doesn’t it also infer that corporations have 2a rights too? Including the right to revolt against a government that is tyrannical?

  33. I’m sorry, I read as much as I could stomach then skipped to the bottom.

    Can someone with a grasp of reality answer something for me. Suppose that all of this works and that gun manufacturing in the USA ends. A few will go overseas, I would hope, but I have two questions. Where will the US Military and USA LEO’s get the firearms and parts that they need?

    Second, if manufacturer liability were the law of the land, wouldn’t that put GM, Ford, Chrysler, anheuser busch. Coors. etc., etc., ad infinitum out of business almost immediately?

    Seriously, I want to know?

    • There will always be carve-outs for military and LEO. Most likely, there will be an import ban on ammunition and firearms.

      As to other products, that will take a court challenge. Probably along the lines of different law for different products. But govt will claim that there is no other product like guns and ammunition. If I was arguing for the government I would note that it is still possible to make ammunition at home, so 2A is not impaired.

Leave a Reply

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