“Of course Hillary Clinton does not want to repeal the Second Amendment. Donald Trump is simply peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories in an attempt to divide the American people and win votes. Along with the vast majority of Americans, Clinton believes there are common sense steps we can take at the federal level to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the 2nd Amendment. She also believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.” – Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin in Donald Trump Distorts Hillary Clinton’s Gun Stance; Trump may choose not to believe what Clinton says, but the fact is there is no evidence that Clinton wants to “take your guns away” or “abolish the Second Amendment.” [via huffingtonpost.com]
Home Quote of the Day Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Hillary Clinton’s Press Secretary...
OK thanks for the clarification Josh, she now has my vote…..
Dude……she’s a cunt whore. Now that the drug war is falling flat on it’s face, she has to come up with something to keep all her friends in the law enforcement complex and prison industrial complex employed. Did I mention she’s a cunt whore?
what is she, again ?? (I blinked a couple times while reading and missed it) Sorry
No need to apologize bruh, reading about that nasty bitch makes my eyes all watery and stingy and shit too. SHE’S A CUNT WHORE!
Really, that is all it took to get your vote for him to say Hillary never said that. Open your ears, she says she is for a model similar to what Austriala put in place which is a confiscation of all firearms that the government deemed to be not needed by it’s citizens. They ended up with sigle shot rifles and pump shotguns, they took all handguns, semi auto shotguns and rifles and most bolt action Guns. Hilary is a threat to the constitution and will put liberal justices on the Supreme Court which will interpret the 2nd amendment the way they want to make legal gun owners criminals if you have them. Hilary can flip and say she did not mean that just like she has flipped on what she said about fossil fuels, she campaigned to her liberal followers on how she wanted to close all of the coal burning power plants and shut down the remaining coal mines but then flipped when she needed the vote of West Virginia claiming that is not what she meant. Hilary is a liar, she jumped on Bush with Bush lied-people died. About the same as Hilary did not send help and people died in Bengazi.
You ever heard of something called sarcasm?
Slightly wrong in what we can use downunder.
Semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns are available on restricted classes.
Repeating center-fire rifles require a reason, usually listed on the form as “Target shooting at extended ranges and for the humane destruction of feral game”. I’ve used this more than half-a-dozen times and the applications have never been rejected.
Repeating rimfire rifles, single-shot rifles, air rifles, and lever-action shotguns are all in the least restricted class. Don’t ask about why lever shotguns are in this class. I think it was an administrative oversight.
Handguns are not my thing but I’m aware there is a caliber limit of 9mm (so no .40, .45 (except in black powder)), barrel length limits, and other restrictions.
Of course, this never seems to bother criminals.
WOW, Thanks for protecting our eyes today,
it’s so GREAT! NOT seeing a picture of the “HILDABEAST” attached to a story!!!
“She … believes Heller was wrongly decided”… Yeah… Tell me more about how she doesn’t want to take guns away.
Right. Her interpretation is the second ammendment is the only one that empowers the government and not the people.
That isn’t just *her* interpretation.
That’s the interpretation of the Progressive political movement as a whole.
Are you ready to get your mind blown?
Glenn Beck, who *hates* Trump with a passion took a look at the exit polls in last night’s election and has predicted Trump will win the 2016 Presidential election.
His primary reason for that prediction is that the exit polls showed a whopping 30% of *Democrats* hate Hillary so much, they will vote Trump.
As much as I despise the Hildabeast, we need her to not be charged by the FBI.
Go, Hillary! Go!…
Hmm, that’s interesting.
Of course, do we really see these people just handing over the keys willingly if it really looks like this is what the outcome is gonna be? Elections can have problems of all kinds… they don’t have to be fair…
Hope Trumpster has good bodyguards.
I do not favor him, but against HRC I will gladly vote like hell for him.
Here’s that article I referenced:
“According to data obtained at the polls yesterday, 33% of Democrats say they will vote for Donald Trump in November. Only 44% of Dems say they’ll vote Clinton. Twenty-one percent say they’ll support neither.”
All of a sudden, I now *LOVE* Hillary! 🙂
Wow, Glenn Beck said that?!?!? We may as well go ahead and call it. I can’t think of a more accurate and reliable source.
Seriously, Glenn Beck is an idiot. You may as well quote Bloomberg.
As much as I despise the Hildabeast, we need her to not be charged by the FBI.
The FBI can’t charge her. They just investigate and make recommendations (just like local cops). The US district attorney can file charges, or not, based on that recommendation, and the evidence…and, of course, Hillary’s political connections.
The best possible outcome for not-Hillary, would be if the FBI presents compelling evidence, the attorney general declines to prosecute, and then around late October somebody leaks that the decision was political. The majority of the US population doesn’t trust her. This would get that over 90%.
Clinton common sense gun law. You’re allowed one flintlock. The powder, lead and flints must be stored at the militia armory aka police station.
See, she’s not after your guns.
She just wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, not law abiding gun owners.
…and after she criminalizes the possession of all semi-automatic firearms, or any unregistered bolt, lever, pump etc., we’ll all be criminals, and she’ll just be keeping guns out of our hands.
Hillary doesn’t want to take our guns away. She only wants draconian laws saying we can’t have them then force an Australian style gun turn in. See. “She” personally isn’t going to take them away.
Boy, they just love them some ‘commonsense’ over there in progressive land don’t they.
You know that people from the state are lying when they repeat things over and over, This is an Alinskyite tactic BTW. There’s also the basic rule we all know that the things built by the state are always named to obscure what they do; ‘Affordable Care Act’, ‘Environment Protection Agency’, ‘Freedom Act’, ‘Progressive’ itself is a lie, etc.
Common sense, sure buddy, that sounds awesome. We don’t believe you and you haven’t presented any details. The devil is always in the details.
Can anyone even remember a law that was passed in your lifetime that actually increased the liberty and rights of the individual and not the state (ok, Heller was pretty good, not good enough mind). Very very few among the thousands and thousands of laws they constantly are pushing.
Here’s what I’d like to see for a change. Flat out repeal laws wholesale. Disband and end date whole agencies, like the EPA for example. Stop spending, cut programs, reduce the federal workforce, and slash taxes across the board. Leave us the hell alone and shut your lying mouths about commonsense, gun control and the whole lot.
Yea, I won’t be holding my breath.
“Say it three times, people will believe anything” –Donald Trump
The RKBA is important to him, the best. Beautiful.
I wholeheartedly agree with you but Heller was a verdict, not a law. Yes, laws were changed after Heller, but just remember it was not immediate nor voluntary. Politicians have never, in my lifetime, repealed or even simplified laws. They make cutouts and loopholes for special interests. They justify their existence by only making new ones or modifying old ones.
You know what should be required to pass a law? Repeal an old law. We the Citizens are not children. We do not need to have our hands held through life. Just because there are scum in the world does not mean we need a law against their atrocious acts. Let citizens be free to choose for themselves how to live their lives.
I say pass one, repeal two. There’s clearly way too many, I think we can go two for one for a long time and we all would be just fine.
Of course, this is a fantasy.
Roe v. Wade was a verdict, too. Notice how progressives treat that as paramount law?
Hardly. It invalidates laws, leaving us without those unconstitutional laws. It still is not, itself, a law. Thus, it is not subject to repeal. Going through 45 years ago, now, every time we get all excited about it, we lose the election. Someday someone will recognize the stupidity of seeking a sneaky way around it and either propose an amendment or get over it, it is settled law.
Sort of the same way Dems throw elections away trying to find ways around 2A.
There is no such thing as a law or regulation that “increases” individual freedom. Freedom is contrary to restriction. All laws and regulations initially restrict individual freedom. There may be additional legislation or regulation that lessens the initial restriction, but no law or regulation can increase freedom. Every single piece of legislation and every single regulation is by definition a restriction of some sort on individual freedom.
“There is no such thing as a law or regulation that “increases” individual freedom”
Eh, kind of. Technically they can write laws aimed at whatever they want to; make a law that says no laws may be made that infringe on 2a rights, make a law that says there has to be a balanced budget produced each year, etc. Pointless perhaps, but isn’t that exactly what the constitution is? Yea, technically not laws, they are a kind of super law, and as we see the ink on the paper itself has no real power.
And this really was my point, that they are not writing laws to increase our freedoms.
Look, your point is taken, but these are blog comments right, not legal briefs.
The gun banners’ new tactic is to smile and tell you sympathetically that they don’t want to take your guns; they just want “common sense gun laws.” The devils did it on the horrible Amy Shumer gunfiscation infomercial too. Smile warmly and say, “We don’t want to take your guns; we just want to borrow them for a while.”
I think it’s called a reach around.
At least there is an up-side to a reach around. What the liberals are trying to do is win a war without firing a shot. If they were honest about the end game then the opposition would be so unified against them that it would be political suicide.
It likely would not just be political suicide….
To paraphrase The Gunny, that would involve common courtesy. I don’t envision Hillary or her minions being that courteous.
It’s not new at all. And it’s the same BS that was played over and over with the ACA, ‘you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, you like your plan you can keep your plan’. Lies on top of lies. And with socialized medicine it was the same thing for literally decades going back to HRCs original push for it. And keep this in mind also; these people are unrelenting, they wanted socialized medicine and they kept at it and eventually literally shoved it up our collective asses.
Now that’s done they are quite literally coming for your guns. Literally. Creeping incrementalism. Alinsky tactics. Dirty pool. Well funded and organized.
Do not let your guard down, these people are in this to win.
The Constitution should have had a provision for requiring nominees for federal office or judgeship to make “Confirmed Pledge on Issues” statements which require automatic resignation for violating. A written, signed, videoed list of 1 to 10 items, not everything they ever say.
They’ve got that.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution…”
Never seemed to stop them.
But he is smiling. That means he’s sincere…. Therefore it must be true.
I’m voting Hillary for Prison.
COMMENTATOR IS NOW BANNED FROM POSTING ON TTAG
Yes that was over the top bad juju.
Certainly a proper trial, with a real investigation, evidence, testimony and eventual verdict on whatever I can’t see how life in prison isn’t a minimum.
That said, here is what concerns me the most. These people are literally obsessed with disarming us. To what end? What I mean is let’s say you meet someone on the street that you know to be untrustworthy. They demand your guns, wouldn’t you be worried what they have planned for you once you are completely disarmed and they are gatted up to the teeth and beyond with FA goodies of all shapes and sizes, not to mention *literally* millions of rounds…
The answer to this, what have they planned, is something we do not need to know. Us law respecting citizens with our constitutionally protected firearms want nothing but to be left alone and to live our lives. It needs to stay the way it is, there is no reason to make any changes to this arrangement.
I was wrong.
I estimated it would take a few months, if ever, for the Ban Hammer to be deployed on Stoop.
Nope, it was a few weeks…
Why would you waste your time to do this banned one? IP hopping can only go so far you know.
We like you. Well, we don’t like your name, or most of your comments, it’s not because we disagree with you but because you haven’t yet mastered how to make an honest intellengent argument. Say whatever you want – but try to keep it on the level yea?
What do they say? “Never go full retard.” You can go a great deal there – but don’t go the full way.
Coming from you, I’ll wear that as a badge of honor.
I guess now we will see the more presence from 2A, Tube Steak, and MDS.
Is there such a word as “commentator”? I’m thinking it would be “commenter”.
Yea – TTAG has had it backwards, but I know what is meant.
as in “He was a News Commentator”
Translation: We just want to speed up the process of taking away your rights incrementally.
“Heller was wrongly decided”
Need he say more? By the way, it was not Heller that applied the 2nd amendment to cities and states…
Right! It was 2A!
Beat me to it. All Heller decided is that people have a right to keep operable firearms in their homes in the District of Columbia (which is subject to federal law). McDonald applied that holding to the states. So what is wrong with that? Is she trying to reanimated the ancient argument that the Second is only a collective right, a conclusion that ALL NINE justices rejected? Boy, good luck with that Hillary.
So what we have is that the clarification is as ambiguous as the original position, i.e., an out and out lie, since Hillary, being a lawyer, presumably knows what Heller says.
OK. I have stopped laughing. That’s for the “clarification” Josh. Because I thought she wanted to repeal Heller because “the Supreme Court got it wrong,” but I was mistaken. She wants to repeal BOTH Heller and McDonald, or is it only McDonald? Josh, could you further clarify? Oh, wait. Is it that she doesn’t want to repeal either Heller or McDonald, she wants the SCOTUS to do that, I am after all Separation of Powers and all that….
This is way we all must #GUNVOTE @GUNVOTE Gunvote.org
Let’s hope the FBI does their job
“Let’s hope the FBI does their job”
As tempting as that sounds, I hope not.
Hillary as the nominee will dispirit the Left from showing up to vote.
We will be in real trouble if Bernie is running, the kids are very unhappy and want to ‘Feel the Bern’.
Hell, I just might stick a ‘Hillary 2016’ sign in the front yard,,,
Feel the Bern!!!!
Where is my free stuff? Raise the minimum wage! I need rich people’s money! Free college. Free health care. Free phone. Free food. I got rights! Rights to these things. If I don’t have them, then they need to be provided to me. Where is my free stuff??!
I’m 18, do I gets more free stuff than you?
I’m young, do I gets more free stuff than you?
We can trust him, right? He’s schwerin that it’s commonsense. Just like the other Josh Not-at-all-earnest. Wow, where do they find these guys?
“She also believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”
That’s what post-civil war southern Democrats said when they passed local laws prohibiting firearms possession by Negroes. For public safety!
The 14th Amendment put the kibosh on that nonsense. Supposedly.
That does it. I’ve made up my mind, and I’m going to vote for her.
Did you just state the true identity of 2ASux?
I this Josh needs to get his facts straight. Clinton likes the idea of the Australian gun ban on semi-automatics. She even on her campaign referred to them as “automatics” to provide misinformation to her “herd.”
Hillary Clinton lies. Uses her public position for private gain. And is emotionally compromised. The sole purpose of her wanting the presidency is to sit 30 feet away from where another woman gobbled her mans goo.
Probably. Probably for shaming of Bill. She and bill can walk over to that spot… again… and she can point at it and say – look, this is the spot right? Right????! And bill can put his head down and say… “…yes. This is the spot.”
You think Slick Willy feels shame?
Does anyone actually think Hillary cares?
Willie had HUNDREDS of side-boinks, we only just got to hear about Monica Lewinski. Why would she bug him about this one in particular?
Besides, she had two years after the failed impeachment to grill him, she certainly doesn’t need to do so today even if she wants to.
Can we get the video? You *know* there’s a video.
I’m getting pretty sick of the whole “common sense” term. It implies that if you don’t agree with me, then you are irrational. It is also interesting that she wants to overturn Heller and allow cities and states to pass their own laws regarding guns. Yet the feds are suing NC for their recently passed “common sense” bathroom law HB2. So cities and states can pass laws that nullify/infringe Constitutional rights and laws (2A etc) when it suits the Democrat party, but when county sheriffs, state legislatures etc vow to resist federal infringements of gun rights (thus upholding 2A), repeal Obamacare (10A) they are insurrectionists.
Indeed but remember, these talking points aren’t aimed at people like us.
They are aimed at the slow thinking progressive voter who only thinks about these things when the nightly news happens to be on, that is if they happen to not be staring at their facebook feed at the time, and this verbiage must be polling well as they continue to use it.
Democrats apparently just lap this stuff up like water. Common sense man, how can that be bad? It’s common, and sensible, those things are awesome. Like progress.
This is really as far as their thinking goes.
True- I always forget that she and her ilk are not addressing those of us who happen to think these things through. I’ve never even gotten a halfway intelligent answer when I ask her supporters how they feel about the fact that she may be indicted by the FBI: it is always a conservative/ Republican plot to discredit her. Or they have no idea that the FBI is even investigating her.
I hope the FBI tries to indict Hillary before the election.
A Democrat administration indicting a Democrat politician won’t be viewed as political. It will be viewed as justice and might even renew my faith in the justice system. Okay, it won’t, but it would be a start.
But, if Trump wins, any indictment will be viewed as a crass political move.
And, if Hillary wins, the indictment of a President-elect or a sitting President would be a national disaster, even worse than the Nixon impeachment.
Indict the crusty old bitch now.
I imagine a sitting president would simply pardon itself.
I suppose that might be assumed. So, once the people are pissed off enough, shall we also assume the VP can assassinate the prez (or that the Speaker can assassinate the two of them), and then pardon himself, since he is now prez? I’m thinking someone would stop that, not sure how.
Oh well-now we can rest EZ.
Here, let me fill in the subtext for you:
Clinton, June 20, 2015: Now, I lived in Arkansas (for waaay too long-can you believe those ignorant hillbillies?) and I represented Upstate New York (for juuuust long enough!). I know that gun ownership is part of the fabric of a lot of law-abiding communities (such as cops, and my secret service guards). But I also know that we can have common sense gun reforms(such as making law-abiding gun owners into felons) that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals (and soon-to-be criminals) and the violently unstable (such as anyone who wants to own a gun), while respecting responsible gun owners (such as cops, my secret service guards, and Joe Biden). What I hope with all of my heart is that we work together to make this debate less polarized (by suppressing the opposition), less inflamed by ideology (by making the opposing viewpoint a thoughtcrime), more informed by evidence (courtesy of by the Violence Policy Center, The Trace, Mother Jones, etc), so we can sit down across the table, across the aisle from one another, (and through the bars of federal prison) and find ways to keep our communities safe while protecting constitutional rights (which don’t include gun ownership).
Clinton, Feb. 29: If we can’t figure out how to respect the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners (which don’t include owning a gun), but keep guns out of people who have felony records (which will hopefully soon include current gun owners), who are fugitives (such as gun owners we haven’t caught yet), stalkers, have domestic violence restraining orders against them (which will soon include all men if I have my way), are dangerously mentally ill (as evidenced by wanting to own a gun), shame on us (well, mostly shame on you. I’m all right.)
Clinton, April 20: There is a Second Amendment (which doesn’t include private gun ownership unless you’re a cop. Or Joe Biden), there are constitutional rights (which don’t include private gun ownership). We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners (because like bigfoot, the easter bunny, and santa clause, they’re a myth, and you can’t take something away from someone that doesn’t exist, right?) .
stoopid is as stoopid does…… F Gump