Thank God someone finally said it (in Katie Couric’s anti-gun Under the Gun documentary no less). “They’re coming for your guns” doesn’t necessarily mean armed goons will come knocking on your door demanding firearms surrender. It can also mean that the government bans a previously legal firearm and demands you surrender it. As we saw in post-Sandy Hook New York, when the SAFE Act banned “assault weapons.” Connecticut, too, where gun registration has created a ticking time bomb: tens of thousands of scofflaw gun owners owning millions of unregistered firearms. People who just might, someday, get a visit from Johnny Law. Directed to do so by President Hillary Clinton? Come to think of it, what’s the worst damage she could do to Americans’ gun rights? Share your nightmare scenarios.

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

Recommended For You

87 Responses to DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Hillary Clinton…What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

  1. Its going to be a bloody day for law enforcement when the fraction of cops who go along such a scheme get a rude wake up call and realize they are out gunned and out numbered by 100:1.

    • Hopefully, it will be a bloody day for lawmakers long before it becomes a bloody day for law enforcement. After all, the 2nd amendment is not about shooting deer or criminals. It’s about shooting tyrants and their lackeys. George III had a nice big ocean protecting him from the anger of his colonial subjects. The petty tyrants in DC and various state legislatures have no such benefit.

  2. Appoint three gun grabber SCotUS justices that overturn Heller. That she can do entirely on her own initiative. That alone is enough for me to vote for Trump just to make sure she never sees the inside of the Oval Office.

    • I concede to pwrserge … this is the ultimate nightmare of nightmare scenarios that a President Hillary Clinton could accomplish.

    • I usually vote for dead people or the Libertarian candidate but this might just get me to bend over for the Donald.

      • This time around, failure to vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, and a vote for Hillary is a vote for tyranny. Sure, Trump is not my ideal choice, but at least we can fix what he may do wrong. We cannot fix what Hillary has planned without another revolution….and I prefer that we avoid that.

        • Notice to all “cucks”:

          Not only does Donald J. Trump support the 2nd Amendment he will expand it with the help of Congress and sign “National Concealed Carry Reciprocity” into law the minute it reaches his Oval Office desk.

          Vote Trump!

        • ^ No. He won’t. He simply won’t.

          He does not have a single principled cell in his body. Everything he promises is negotiable.

    • They are going after the second amendment like they went after health insurance.

      They mean business and this is, I think, HRC’s main priority and why they all want her in that office.

      Look at how they want after health insurance, literally for decades, and they used every dirty trick in the book. It’s exactly the same here.

      We should be very concerned about this, my question is, why? What do they have planned that requires us to be disarmed first?

      Forget the tinfoil hat here, I think this is a question we do not need to learn the answer to.

      This attack on the second amendment must be stopped. And then the ACA needs to be undone.

      No small task.

      Vote Trump Hard.

      • Yup.

        For Obama gun control was a “nice to have” – His “must haves” were medical industry upheaval, LGBTQAXYZ “rights” and making Iran Great Again. The rest was optional.

        For HRC, its gun control and completing Obama’s assault on the medical industry.

    • Wrong. Overturning Heller only allows legislative bodies to pass laws. Some will and some won’t.

      • Yes, and when the Demokkkrats slip a rider into a “must pass” bill, you’re shit out of luck.

      • It would also go a long way to opening the door for even more restrictive Federal legislation. I’d vote for a steaming pile of s&%t before HRC.

      • At this point it would take only one appointment to the Supreme Court to swing the court to anti-gun, and that is the currently open vacancy for Scalia’s seat. After that, all the anti-gun crap from the left would go into full swing in enemy territory. The rest of the country wouldn’t be subject to any of that until they could turn the Senate and the House. For now the momentum is on our side as far as gun rights goes, but that will go the other way if the Hildabeast can have her way with SCOTUS.

        I wasn’t a Trump supporter, but I am now, because not to do so pushes us down the road to tyrany and revolution, and no sane person would want that!

      • tdiinva,

        “Overturning Heller only allows legislative bodies to pass laws. Some will and some won’t.”

        You do realize that Democrats will control both the house and senate if Hillary wins the Presidency (coattails and all that). And what will be their first order of business? Appoint a young ultra-Progressive, anti-Second Amendment (but I repeat myself) Supreme Court Justice who will happily overturn Heller. After that, the second order of business will be to immediately bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court so they can do just that. Their third order of business will be passing Australian style firearm confiscation law.

        Anyone who believes the Democrats would squander a majority in the House and Senate — with Hillary in the White House — on something other than firearm confiscation has lost touch with reality.

      • Hillary’s leftist anti-gun SCOTUS appointees will turn the court anti-gun for the first time in history. That court will side with every anti-gun bill the Congress can possibly come up with.

        Confiscation will be done a few at a time, using Stalinist “Report & Reward” tactics (coming soon to Aus. because of excessive non-compliance). They will come unannounced and grab you at work, lock you up, no bail, speedy trial, long sentence. Turning in a gun possessor will earn squealers big dollars, even if they are a burglar, the maid, the kid next door, your mother-in-law…….

  3. What’s the worst damage President Hillary Clinton could do to Americans’ gun rights?

    Yes.

  4. No one is coming for your guns.

    This is nothing but pure tinfoil paranoia spouted by terrorists groups such as the NRA to sell more firearms.

    You people are nothing but brainwashed slaves of the gun. You people are too brainwashed to realize your more likely to murder a loved one or commit suicide with your own firearm than protecting yourself.

    How is Britain a tyranny?

    How is Australia a tyranny?

    How is Europe, Canada or Japan a tyranny?

    These countries have better economic, education and healthcare and little to no gun deaths.

    Criminals would not have firearms if you did not. The only reason foreign criminals have “illegal” guns is because most of the illegal firearms foreign criminals get were traced to have come from this country.

    The paris attacks and charlie hebdo ones were found to have been in possession of guns that were traced to the united states and provided by the terror group the NRA.

    Most of the gun violence in this country is caused by creepers with ties to right wing extremist/militia groups.

    This website ain’t nothing but a propaganda piece of the gun lobby.

    • Yeah… No. 80% of homicides in the US are gang or drug related. Me thinks that those clowns have much closer ties to Black Lives Matter, than the TEA party.

      As for how the UK is a tyranny? Just look at how the government suppressed the systematic rape of over 1000 minors by a politically protected “minority” group because they didn’t want their plan to Islamize Britain disrupted.

    • “The paris attacks and charlie hebdo ones were found to have been in possession of guns that were traced to the united states and provided by the terror group the NRA”

      Please provide proof.

    • Bullshit line after bullshit line.

      These are lies.

      They are coming for our guns and they are coming for your 401k next buddy.

      You have two choices. Bend over and submit, or stand behind us and hand out mags.

    • I watched a documentary the other day on National Geographic about the illegal gun trade. They had a bunch of “ghost guns” on there – but guess what – the best untraceable weapons were made by guys in the Phillipines with hand tools – and they were functioning replicas of the real things, available for something like $400. So saying if we didn’t have guns, neither would the criminals, is idiotic at best.

      The citizens in those countries also have no choice if another Mao or Stalin or Hitler is appointed power.
      If you don’t like Freedom, please stay out of/leave the U.S. for one of your utopias listed. I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.

    • So which is it:

      “Nobody is coming for your guns”, or,
      “Criminals would not have guns if you did not.”

      That ultimate end doesn’t really work both ways, you see?

      Either you do want to get rid of them and do want to take ours, or you don’t, and you’re not.

      At least you only contradicted yourself in the same post, versus the same sentence; I usually hear, “Nobody’s coming for your guns, but nobody needs an X.”

      Next you’re going to tell us that we’ve always been at war with East Asia.

    • “Slaves of the gun”

      Funny, that’s what I call people who’ve been disarmed by their governments. Look around and see whether the guns in your country (and there are guns) are pointed toward you or away from you. If more are pointed at you, you aren’t free. You’ve never been free. And you’ve doomed your children and grand children to slavery they will not have the tools to escape.

    • Most of the countries you mention have fairly widespread legal gun ownership. The UK and Japan are the exception. In the UK you can go to jail for saying bad things about Muslims. Japan has a suicide rate that is 25% higher than the US murder + suicide rates. None of those countries have large parts of their cities controlled by criminal gangs.

    • How is Britain a tyranny?
      —————————-
      The fact that a Gay man can go to jail in the UK for pointing out that Islam is anti-Gay, and thus be convicted of insulting a religion, means, by definition, it’s tyranny there.
      That you don’t recognize those bars, only means you have been so far removed from the waters of liberty that a drought of the soul has withered your concept of freedom. You can’t even recognize the concept of liberty, so those that hold it dear to their hearts, have no avenue of dialog with you. Explaining color to someone born blind is impossible, just as explaining liberty to you would be impossible.

      • How is Britain a tyranny?

        Xanthro forgot that Brits cannot use any weapons whatsoever to defend themselves under any circumstances, especially in their own homes. God forbid that you pick up a cricket bat and beat off home invaders who unequivocally demonstrated their commitment to rape your wife or daughter because you will go to prison. If that isn’t tyranny, I don’t know what is.

    • Tyranny comes is many ways. In the UK the government has sanctioned employees of the BBC to enter and search your home to verify you are not watching live TV programs without a special license. They even had special vans with a dish they would drive around intimidating the masses stating they could see who was watching and which program and in what room. They even ran commercials showing the van driving around at night. We already have a generation of men that have been neutered and hide in their safe space. The Dems will over regulate us until we fold.

      • I had a German friend of mine who got in a heap of trouble. She borrowed a TV. The German tax man showed up at her door, and per the law, she was required to let him search the house. No warrant. No probable cause. Just a “random” shakedown. He found the TV, and because she hadn’t paid taxes for it, she got to pay a huge fine and back taxes. Being a military cop station there for 7 years, working with host country police, you would not believe the crap I saw. Free country? Not really.

    • You came to a firearm enthusiast website, sat down and wrote all of that, and are expecting that this might in some small way contribute to an outcome that you desire…you know, like the butterfly effect? Really?

    • The NRA is a terrorist organization? Really? Funny, that’s how I feel about the Brady bunch, Moms against whatever, and all of the other anti-Constitutional groups out there. The difference between us is that I know they aren’t the same as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.
      I want to thank you for your post…just when I begin to let my guard down and think there might be some chance of rational discussion with an anti-gunner, someone like you comes along and posts your drivel…and then I am quickly brought back to reality. There is no compromising with people like you.

    • Yawn. 2ASux most likely. Just leave already. Mother Jones message boards are probably begging for you to come back.

    • In case you haven’t noticed, the EU is on the verge of economic collapse. They would have collapsed 60 years ago if American Taxpayers had not been footing the bill for Europe’s defense since WW2..

    • You guys addressed most of his bullcrap. I just add one thing. I am NRA member. And I don’t appreciate being called terrorist! Not even by some brainwashed keybord commando.
      If 5 million of members and tens of millions of sympathizers really went and started using their firearms in terrorist way there would be no gun grabbers left by the end of next week.
      NRA is not perfect and sometimes it feels like they try hard not to win. But it is still the oldest and largest human rights protecting group in US.

    • No one is coming for your guns.

      If this is true, explain why I can’t have an automatic firearm made after 1986? I really wanted one just for fun to shoot out behind the pond dam, but now I can’t have one. It’s because they came after them and now they are banned. Ownership of one without harming anyone, or even intent to harm anyone = 10 years in prison with felony and felony = no capability of owning guns after you are released even though you hurt no one. In CT and NY, they can’t own what you people call “assault” weapons. Which to me, is no different than regular weapons with exception to a few cosmetic features. In NY, they can’t own a pistol with over 7 rounds in the magazine. Why not? Because you people “came after their guns.” Do you get it now? No one is going to come for our guns by means of someone knocking door to door. They are coming for our guns by small incremental laws. I can have a rifle with a 16″ barrel, but if it is 15″ and I don’t have the correct paperwork I get to go to prison for 10 years. It is absolute insanity and it is not us who are insane.

      This is nothing but pure tinfoil paranoia spouted by terrorists groups such as the NRA to sell more firearms.

      Ok. Recap. NRA is 5 million members in the US. Gun owners. Some organizations and individuals donate to the NRA who aren’t even members. The NRA isn’t a handful of billionaires in a small room scheming (e.g. bloomberg). They are made up of millions of members from all over. Each of us donate our membership fee to the NRA. When you say the NRA is a terror group you are saying 5 million gun owners in the US are terrorists. And … come on. That’s ridiculous. It is you who are being a tinfoil hat guy right now saying gun owners in a America are terrorists. Furthermore, the NRA doesn’t sell firearms. Any firearms. At all. The bulk of their members are gun owners, not gun manufacturers. Gun manufacturers attribute to a drop in the bucket in comparison with their members. Have you ever thought to ask yourself when considering legislation that you believed only helped gun manufacturer’s sell more guns, that the proposed legislation also aligns with the common gun owner?

      You people are nothing but brainwashed slaves of the gun. You people are too brainwashed to realize your more likely to murder a loved one or commit suicide with your own firearm than protecting yourself.

      So because I own a gun… I am more likely to murder a loved one than use it for protection? That is absolutely ludicrous. This is not the Lord of the rings here. My gun isn’t one ring to rule them all and when I hold it, there is no mystical powers or dark magic working on me. It is a chunk of metal with springs, wood, alloys, rubber, and plastic. The gun is a simple machine that does not define the individual holding it who makes the choices.

      So because I own a gun… I am more likely to commit suicide with my own firearm than use it for protection? Absolutely not. If I was going to commit suicide I absolutely would not want to use a gun. It would be really messy (closed casket messy) and it’s possible to make a mistake and not die. Or… to not die right away and seizure out on the floor with my eye’s twitching around in my head while I bleed out. Pass. If I were to commit suicide I’d use a can of dust spray from the closet and fill up a bag over my head. I’d pass out and sleep my way to death with no suffering. The gun is not the best instrument for suicide. I’m not sure where you guys got this magical idea.

      How is Britain a tyranny?
      How is Australia a tyranny?
      How is Europe, Canada or Japan a tyranny?

      Others already addressed this above. The point is, you can break the law in simple ways with no ill intent for anyone and go to prison for a very long time. We are importing this in America daily and none of us like it. It is difficult for me to explain to you the concept of freedom, and others have done so above better than I could have, so I’ll have you discover this one for yourself. You can start by looking up the definition of tyranny. Then look at laws within our country and theirs and see how unreasonable and arbitrary they are becoming.

      These countries have better economic, education and healthcare and little to no gun deaths.

      I spoke to 4 different Canadians a couple weeks ago. They said their healthcare sucks. They had to wait forever to get an MRI. Had to pay for ambulance services anyways, and pay like ridiculous high taxes. They said if you are poor then it is great for you, because you don’t have to pay.

      Why focus on just gun deaths? Why not overall deaths? What is the mesmerizing focus in regards to deaths performed by gun vs. performed by others? Why a knife death is acceptable but a gun death isn’t? Completely irrational.

      “These countries have better economic…”
      What?? They people aren’t even entitled to the sweat on their own brow. That sweat belongs to someone else.

      Criminals would not have firearms if you did not. The only reason foreign criminals have “illegal” guns is because most of the illegal firearms foreign criminals get were traced to have come from this country.

      The paris attacks and charlie hebdo ones were found to have been in possession of guns that were traced to the united states and provided by the terror group the NRA.

      1 of the guns used. 1 of the guns was from the US – AND we don’t even know for sure if it came to the US and then went back to its place of manufacture in the former republic of Yugoslavia. That firearm (An M92 AK pistol) would have been manufactured semi-automatic and was illegally modified by the terrorists, likely, to make it fully automatic. No surprise. Terrorists don’t obey laws. I saw no source anywhere that the NRA was involved. The majority of the firearms were procured from manufacturers in Europe… so your statement that the only reason criminals in foreign countries have guns is because of exports from the US is totally delusional.

      Most of the gun violence in this country is caused by creepers with ties to right wing extremist/militia groups.

      Uh… no. Most is inner city gang violence. The “rate” of violence, not overall violence numbers, but the rate is orders of magnitude higher in the cities than in the rural areas of the state. The larger the city the higher the rate. And we are talking about rates – not totals.

      This website ain’t nothing but a propaganda piece of the gun lobby.

      No, this is the truth about guns. I’m sorry you can’t handle it – or that it contradicts the world you have built around yourself. I hope one day you can tear down those walls and rebuild them with more facts.

      • It’s difficult to learn the facts when you’re too busy parroting your favorite politician’s rhetoric.

  5. There will be no going door to door. They will outlaw certain firearms, that way you cannot take it to the range, out in public, etc. If you do, you will be arrested if Johnny Law is there. They can get people one at a time, in increments, so that no one raises any real hell. You get arrested or a warrant out for something minor, they pull some records, and now they have an investigation for illegal weapons and you’re done.

    Look at the Bundy ranch guys – yeah, the .gov let them all (mostly) leave the ranch and didn’t arrest many, if any, at that time. Now they are going and arresting the people who were there, one by one, and charging them. That’s how they do it.

    • That’s right. They’ll slowly tighten the definition of what a “prohibited person” is under the guise of “common sense” (another term for ‘gut feeling’ btw) – until “prohibited person” is pretty much anyone who isn’t one of “The Only Ones”.

      Criminals won’t budge, they’re already prohibited – they’ve got this down.

    • That’s what I’ve always thought- the antis are too smart to declare door-to-door, even if they managed to wrest authority away from citizens. Simply declare certain guns illegal, and if you are seen in public with them, you will be arrested. They’ll start with the so-called “assault weapons”, followed by any sem-auto rifle, graduate on up to semi-auto pistols (which could include DA revolvers), pump shot guns and finally mags in general, leaving you with single shot shot guns and rifles. They won’t come for the others, but God help you if sunlight ever beams on your gun.

    • Guns alone are meaningless. The will to use them is what counts.

      And yes that may mean firing the first shot.

  6. HRC has been very clear as to where her beliefs\allegiances concerning the second amendment lie.

  7. [Archives]: Published year 3000: Ancient history: [Topic]: The American Empire: There is no exact date on which historians agree on where the American Republic ends, and the American Empire begins. Some argue it occurred shortly after World War Two, while many agree it wasn’t until after the second American civil war. (Click here to review battles of the Second American Civil War.) Whatever the case, in this time period it is well agreed upon that the republic died and the empire was born. This occurred out of the culmination of many decades of progressive politics and growth of the federal government. It came to a direct confrontation and lead to the second American Civil War, (2017-2027) under the tyrant Hillary Clinton. The war first began over Clinton’s attempt to confiscate privately owned weapons from the population. The war flared up and down for 10 years, with an eventual victory for the federal government, after the final operation dubbed “the American Cleansing” whiped out over 1/3 of the population, and included the first use of nuclear weapons by a state upon itself. (See the nuclear fallout of the 2020s). The Empire then solidified its rule, lasting another 400 years. It spent much time in financial troubles, and suffered many global humiliations. (See World War 3 and World War 4). It was eventually destroyed in 2476, when it was ransacked by Russian and Chinese hoards. (See World War 5). The area today is made up of several diverse republics, modeled after the original American Republic. (See, Nations of Continental America.)

    • You should expand this and create a novel from it. I love alternate history novels and this looks like it could be a good one.

    • If you do write the book, do please spell “horde” correctly. (“Hoard” is for accumulating a lot of items, or the big pile of items, “horde” is for large numbers of marauding barbarians.)

  8. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

  9. We have seen evidence of what will happen when government enacts unjust gun laws in the middle of the night. The non-compliance rate for the NY SAFE Act is estimated at 90%+. That would be about 1.5 million newly minted felons in my home state. What has Cuomo done about those new felons? Nothing. What surprises me is that this criminal is still in office. Yet, if he were to begin confiscation, arrest, and prosecution, what would NYers do about it? Would they be single individuals alone against the system or would they ban together and fight injustice? Time will tell…

  10. what’s the worst damage she could do

    She might disrobe on national TV, causing all of us to scream, go blind and lose our gun rights.

  11. I really don’t think that the President of the United States, no matter who, has any authority to order state and local police to enforce state laws. Nor do I think, absent a shift in the Congress, that there will be any anti-gun federal legislation passed, no matter how much Hillary wants it. the greatest threat of a Clinton Presidency is of course the Supreme Court, and her power to nominate. She will not get the most progressive judges through the nominating process, at least not as long as the Republicans control the Senate, but that could change in the next eight years. If that does happen, though, Heller will not be overruled directly; the fact is that all nine justices agreed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, not a collective right to keep and bear arms. Further, given the strength of stare decisis, the basic holding of Heller that there is an individual right to keep functional arms in the home will not be overturned either. Instead, we will see an erosion of the right in several ways: 1) as with the denial of cert. in the Highland Park case, a confirmation of the right of the states to set the rules for carry outside the home, although a complete ban is unlikely. No federal standard will be set, absent some federal legislation on the subject, which, with a Clinton presidency will not occur. 2) Approval of “assault weapons” bans, both locally and on a state level for the Eastern Bloc states, California, and at some point Washington. 3) Approval of state gun registration schemes. The real harm that these erosions will cause is an essential elimination of the intermediate standard of constitutional review, where “public safety” (which is nothing more than “rational basis” dressed up to in fancy language).

    • I think the 10th Amendment will save those states who take exception from such federal overreach. Or at least it will be the battle cry for those of us with a mind.

  12. No one came for our guns, but it wasn’t from a lack of trying. If gun owners just rolled over and accepted every gun control measure since forever ago, our guns would have been confiscated at some point.

  13. From my blog. This is the most comprehensive list I could come up with:

    • The Democratic nominee has called for “Australian style” gun confiscation if elected. Let me repeat that; The The Democratic nominee is in favor of door-to-door confiscation of legally owned firearms that are not turned in after a national mandate.
    • The Democratic nominee has stated her specific opposition the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald that interpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right. There is no doubt that should she be elected and quickly fills the currently empty seat, the Bloomberg organization, with it’s unlimited funds, with push a 2A case challenge to the Supreme Court ASAP.
    • Because of the recent death of Justice Scalia, the incoming President will be able to immediately either shift or retain the 5-4 majority that passed both Heller and McDonald. Given the ages of several other Justices, the incoming President will likely have the power to change the Court for at least a generation.
    • The Democratic nominee has stated she will spend “every day” of her Presidency thinking of ways to destroy the “gun culture,” e.g., “us.”
    • The Democratic nominee unconditionally favors banning “assault weapons” and other non-specified “guns.” Any new assault weapons ban would likely be modeled on the bill proposed after Sandy Hook, which is far more restrictive and far more specific than the Bill Clinton AWB. That is, it would ban guns by name, as opposed to by some vague set of specifications, e.g. wording such as “…this legislation bans the possession all guns derived from the AR-15/M-4/AR-10 platform, or using any version, caliber or modification of the AR-15 lower and/or upper receiver and any other firearm using a operating system derived from a current military platform such as the AK-47, the M1A/M-14, etc., including but not limited to, the Ruger SR556, the Ruger AR556, the Ruger SR762, the Ruger SR22, the Ruger Mini-14…and on and on.
    • The Democratic nominee opposes concealed, open and Constitutional carry and will support Federal legislation to curtail or eliminate these Fundamental rights.
    • The Democratic nominee supports universal background checks that would completely eliminate the private sale of firearms, even to family members. Under the Bloomberg Model bill adopted in Colorado and Washington and the only bill that has been mentioned as a model, the definition of the word “transfer,” long defined by BATFE as “transfer of ownership,” the standard BATFE still uses, would be changed to “transfer of possession,” e.g. the physical act of handing a gun to anyone is defined as a “transfer” and as such must go through an Federally licensed dealer. Loaning a gun to a competition shooter whose gun has gone down or loaning a rifle to your friend for hunting season would be banned by Federal law. As originally drafted by Bloomberg’s antigun attorneys, the law was so broad-reaching that, technically, it would be illegal, a felony, to allow someone to “house-sit” in your home if you had weapons locked in a safe, even if the house-sitter had no knowledge of the combination nor any other way to access your personal firearms.
    • The Democratic nominee has called for the elimination of the law protecting firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits and has in fact called for people to be able to sue gun manufacturers for criminals’ use of stolen guns.
    • The Democratic nominee has called for a huge expansion of gun bans for “domestic violence,” to include the “sexual assault” allegations built into the “Yes Means Yes” legislation currently in place on most college campuses and written into law in liberal states. This is a massive expansion of gun bans and. based on the current laws circumvents 4th and 5th Amendments Fundamental Rights.
    • Previously, the the Democratic nominee has called for the registration of all handguns and federal licensing of all handgun owners.
    • The Democratic nominee has a NRA rating of “F.” From the NRA: “Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”
    • The Democratic nominee has received awards from antigun organizations.
    • The Democratic nominee has vowed to do everything in her power to destroy the NRA, America’s largest civil rights organization.

    Isn’t that enough? We have never faced an all out attack from the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial segments of the government, especially using “weaponized” agencies like the IRS, EPA, SEC, BATFE, OSHA, TSA and Homeland.

    The problem is that the Democratic Party has not just moved left, it has gone stone cold crazy. The Iranian deal and the lies that drive it are pretty much beyond belief — Israel is preparing for a new Holocaust. Europe is in the midst of a profound collapse. The Middle Easy has settled into a first-person shooter video game. And the biggest issue in America today is whether to allow men in the women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

    I think if Hillary has the votes, she will enact an assault weapons ban and an Australian-style buyback/confiscation, because somewhere along the line the Dems have decided,”What difference does it make?” I also believe that American compliance to those acts will be +/- zero. One other fun note, Mr. Farago, since people like you and me and Scoutten and Nugent and Gresham are out front and visible, I fully expect the shit to hit us first.

    Interesting times, as they say…

    Michael B

    • Sadly, I agree with your post. If HRC gets elected, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights will be under assault and potentially be rendered irrelevant for a generation. And then it will be too late…

  14. Man I almost threw up in my mouth Ralph…”they” are already coming for your guns. Goon squads in Commiefornia looking for guys caught with pot 40 years ago. Or declared to be mentally ill from an evil ex-mate. +1 Mack Bolan. Kinda’ similar to any armed self-defense…

  15. ‘It can also mean that the government bans a previously legal firearm and demands you surrender it.”

    It can also mean that government bans firearms that don’t yet exist, by implementing onerous regulations and requirements on the industry, there by keeping you from ever owning them in the first place.

    • …and the Heller Court (the one with Scalia alive in it) would say that your brand new invention was never in common usage, so it’s OK to ban it and make sure it’s never used at all.

      I shudder to think what a Hillary enabled court would say.

  16. Honestly, I don’t worry about “confiscation” too much, especially in light of the 9th Circuit’s decision today.

    Were just a thing to happen I would turn in something like my old Mini-14 and then turn around and sue.

    We’re not just protected by the 2A, we’re also protected by Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 the former explicitly bans the feds from enacting ex post facto laws while the latter bans the States from enacting said laws.

    The NY SAFE act requires registration, which I view as intolerable, but I don’t live in NY. The reason that mag bans and these AWBs at the state level grandfather the mags and guns that the effect is exactly because the people who write them know that there is no way to spin “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” in a way that any court in the land would allow confiscation.

    The real threat of them “coming for your guns” is that they layer a set of laws and regulations in such a way that it becomes nearly impossible to own/possess/realistically use a firearm. This is what’s happening in California and what was struck down in D.C. v. Heller.

    The threat isn’t an outright ban or confiscation, it’s the slow strangulation of rights via an ever increasing number of laws and/or regulations.

    • You know not of what you speak. An ex post facto law is one which criminalizes past conduct. It does not prevent the government from declaring that which was legal yesterday to be illegal today, as long as one is not prosecuted for what one did yesterday. For example, yesterday it was legal to posses a bazooka, today a new law says that it is illegal. If you are arrested and charged, you will be prosecuted only for possessing a bazooka after the law takes effect, not for your ownership of the bazooka prior to the effective date of the law. further, ex post facto has nothing to do with the civil law.
      Why governments typically grandfather in old firearms or magazines is because banning possession of previously owned items could subject states/municipalities to liability for a taking of private property for public purposes, i.e., to paying the owner’s the reasonable market value of the items taken/seized. So far, no suits of which I am aware have been filed seeking recovery for the value of now illegal 10+ mags in LA or SF due to the recent passage of ordinances banning their possession, with no grandfathering. The one escape hatch is that the mags can be “sold” to an FFL (um, not likely) or sold/transferred out of state.The Catch-22 is that the owner has to actually take the mags out of state in order to even advertise them for sale, or to sell them. Challenges are unlikely because the cost of a suit far outweigh the value of the various items subject to seizure.

  17. The worst thing that could happen? Imagine Waco and Ruby Ridge type incidents, every month.

    HRC will use her willing lackeys in F-Troop (BATFE) to shock and awe.

    The Australian buy-back only worked because there weren’t that many of those guns to begin with and it was paid for by an small increase on the Medicare levy in income tax.

    Trying to do the same in the US would effectively bankrupt the country.

    • Best numbers I’ve seen out of Australia suggest it was at best 40% effective.

      This strongly suggests most people simply ignored government edicts, as they should.

    • No the Australian buyback worked because there has never been a right to own a firearms for selfdefense in Australia, so there was never going to be violent resistance (there should have been). The thought process is complete different in Australia, one owns/owned firearms for hunting, sport or collecting.

    • The ATF is only authorized to enforce federal laws, and this means that Hillary would have to force new gun laws/bans past the Congress before the ATF could act.

  18. Don’t give the gun grrabbers any ideas! Don’t we get info from their media? They do the same.

  19. I predict they will use the health care law as well as other insurance mandates in an attempt to demonize and make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. ” You can own guns, but your health insurance and home owner’s insurance will sky-rocket.” When they control your health care they can control Anything they want!

Leave a Reply

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