Gun Tweet of the Day: Hillary Doesn’t Want Your Guns!


It seems incredible to me that anyone who’s paying the slightest bit of attention to gun rights in the United States would believe that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. If nothing else, Ms. Clinton hasn’t met a gun control law she doesn’t like, including a renewal of her husband’s “assault weapons ban.”

And yet the Democratic Party line on gun rights remains the same: we don’t want to stop Americans from owning guns. We just want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In other words, no one wants to take your guns! Their “proof”? No one has knocked on a gun owner’s door to take their weapons.

Yes, well, what about New York’s SAFE Act, which banned the possession and sale of an entire class of firearms, forcing owners to sell or transfer their “assault weapons”? New York, the same state Ms. Clinton represented as a Senator. Nary a peep of opposition was heard from Ms. Clinton or any of her fellow Democrats when Empire Staters were forced to relinquish their guns. (As if.)

Which raises an obvious question: where does Mr. Freak Out Nation live and what guns does he own? More generally, what planet does he live on? Planet Progressive, where a statist’s agenda is couched in Orwellian terms like “stronger together.” A message worth freaking out over? We shall see . . .


  1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    You can thank Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan for that. Otherwise Obama would have taken our guns

    1. avatar gs650g says:

      I’ll give more credit to 5 men in black robes.

    2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      Actually it’s the members of the NRA who should be thanked. Our single issue drives members to contact their representatives and senators to save our rights.

  2. avatar Gilbert says:

    Liberals lie.
    End of story.

  3. avatar MouseGun says:

    I, too usually role my eyes, but when both talk about Alatralia’s actions, one can’t help but wonder.

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:


    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The Australian gun laws are an example of laws made in haste, ignorance, and with a good dose of vengeance thrown in for good measure.

      Justice is when you punish the guilty. Tyranny is when you punish the innocent. Since Port Arthur, there has been very little justice.

      1. avatar Omer Baker says:

        Are there laws written anymore that AREN’T made in haste, ignorance, and vengeance? Excepting those made for personal gain, of course. If something totally new is invented, let’s call it the floogalwidget, and it’s misused to kill, maim, or threaten harm to people, should a law be made to outlaw the misuse or the object entirely? If millions use this new device for legal and harmless activities, and killing and purposely harming and threatening harm on people is already illegal, how can using an object to do these already illegal actions make them more illegaller? I know illegaller is not a word, but it makes about as much sense as progressive policies.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      And just for reference:



      Obama couldn’t follow through on his desires to confiscate, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t very real. Those desires are very much shared by Clinton, and whether she’d be able to carry them out would be a major issue in her administration, should she be elected.

  4. avatar Dan says:

    Common sense gun control laws
    ..shall not be infringed.

    as per the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    I want a M60A3 🙂
    The only problem I’ve got deep pockets with short arms.

    1. avatar DaveW says:

      The 2nd Amendment, according to it’s authors, James Madison and George Mason, applied to personal (individual) firearms vs “crew served weapons” (yes, canons were in use and they were operated by a gun crew, not by a lone gun nut -sarcasm aimed at gun control nuts!). If modern weapons had existed at the time, George and the rest of the revolutionaries would not have stuck with single shot arms, and the authors of the 2nd would have still meant for the people to possess firearms. Twice, SCOTUS has said that only those firearms commonly used to prosecute a war were acceptable. That would include nearly every weapon ever designed since most civilian firearms started out as military arms. Soldiers returning from wars adopted arms they were very familiar with for sporting. Consider the common hunting arms.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Heck, if I had the dosh to get a M60E3, I’d send it off to have it rebuilt by US Ord into that fancy new M60E6 configuration.

  5. avatar Cole says:

    Hillary Clinton said about the second amendment, “if it is a constittutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations.” But yeah our guns are safe with her. She is a big fan of the 2A and the whole constitution. /sarc

    with comments like that why do people think she likes guns and doesn’t want to take them away. Also how can you even vote for her when she thinks she can regulate the constitution.

  6. avatar ACP_arms says:

    It’s the threat of making certain guns illegal and ‘taking’ them that way or banning certain ammunition. In other words making it hard to own and shoot a gun, that is how anti-2A’s take guns.

  7. avatar JayHu says:

    They always say this right before elections, and immediately afterwards proceed to propose sweeping all-out draconian legislation that would take us back to the damn 1800’s with lever action and revolver only, after marching every gun owner in like common criminals for finger prints and mugshots, with all firearms to be ‘registered’ — for later action. (Notably, just like how the Nazi’s disarmed their ‘citizenry’). THAT is exactly what they put forward as legislation. Didnt take our guns??? They sure as hell tried!!!
    You just knew after the democRat primary was over, she was going to go back to this again. “Oh, no one wants to take your guns” Bah Ha Ha. This is a Hillary messaging troll at work. We all know if they could take every single gun from every law abiding citizen that they would do so Gleefullly. Then only the political elite, the Police and government and the criminals would have guns = Police State.

  8. avatar NorincoJay says:

    NY Safe Act is even worse than that. You had to turn over to the police or get out of state all mags that held over ten rounds. It did away with the grandfather clause that allowed pre 94 mags and rifles. In response to the tweet about still having his guns. He has them in spite of President Obama. Our president did everything he possibly could to rid us of our natural right. We have the Republicans in congress to thank for us still having the ability to purchase and own MSR’s.

  9. avatar Frank in VA says:

    If you hear someone claim the Democrats don’t want to take your guns, play this YouTube video of Diane Feinstein for them. The key part starts at the 12 second mark.

  10. avatar JohnnyL says:

    This is true Obama and Clinton did not and will not come for your firearms. But don’t be fooled !! They will though try to pass new laws that will further infringe on your rights to buy or restrict future firearm purchases. Their goal is simple to just keeping chipping away slowly at your constitution rights. The days of the law abiding gun owner are over you must not be and continually be a politically active owner as well…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “This is true Obama and Clinton did not and will not come for your firearms.”

      Correct! Neither one has the balls! But they sure as hell mean to send hundreds of thousands of armored, machine gun equipped thugs to come after your guns, and to kill you if you resist.

  11. avatar Ing says:

    Of course they don’t want my guns. They also don’t want ME to have my guns, and I have a problem with that.

  12. avatar YZAS says:

    No one’s coming for your guns

    …we’ll just pass laws that make YOU turn them or get rid of them yourselves!

  13. avatar Matt in TX says:

    Come and take em.

  14. avatar gs650g says:

    They don’t want deplorable people to have firearms. It’s a matter of definitions.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      The timing of your comment is uncanny … see my comment below where I explain those definitions according to the Democratic party platform.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… the Democratic Party line on gun rights remains the same: we don’t want to stop Americans from owning guns.”

    That statement is true as long as you understand that:

    (a) “Americans” are all Americans who sympathize with the Democratic party, have a clean criminal record, and can satisfy Progressive requirements for physical and mental health screenings. No one else can own firearms.

    (b) “guns” for “Americans” are limited to muskets and single shot (break-action) rifles and shotguns. The ruling class can also own pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and revolvers. The elite class can even own semi-auto shotguns for skeet shooting in addition to pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles, revolvers, single-shot long guns, and muskets. All muskets and rifles must have at least 24 inch barrels; all shotguns must have at least 26 inch barrels, and all revolvers must have at least 4 inch barrels.

    (c) “Americans” who “own” firearms must keep them unloaded, disassembled, inoperative, and in a substantial safe at all times. The only exception: they can lock them in a case and transport them unloaded in the trunk of a car to a target range or to a hunting location. The ruling class must also keep their firearms in a substantial safe at home although they can keep them loaded and operable in the safe. The elite class can keep a loaded shotgun or revolver available at home outside of a safe. The elite class can also acquire concealed carry licenses (with a show of good cause of course) and carry their revolvers in public. Of course the armed body guards of the elite class can be armed in public as well.

    This is what the Democratic party means when they talk about their position on firearm ownership. Of course you will never hear them say this so concisely.

  16. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    At this point, Hillary Clinton is the barbecued pig on the Simpsons video clip below. No matter what is OBVIOUSLY true, just like Homer, the silly Democrats will proclaim to the sky “It’s still good!”

    No, Homer. It’s *#%^{d. But maybe you’ll be convinced otherwise when pigs fly.

  17. avatar JMike says:

    The ones who think they’re clever think we’re stupid. The others are naive or genuinely ignorant on gun issues.

  18. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    It seems incredible to me that anyone who’s paying the slightest bit of attention to gun rights in the United States would believe that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

    It’s propaganda for the ignorant, not for anyone who has been paying attention.

  19. avatar John L. says:

    Strictly speaking, I agree … Hillary Clinton doesn’t want my guns. She has other people to carry those … things … for her.

    However … she doesn’t want me to have them either, and therein lies the problem.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    “Which raises an obvious question: where does Mr. Freak Out Nation live and what guns does he own? More generally, what planet does he live on?”

    He owns an airsoft gun and lives on a planet where most of the atmosphere comes from a bong.

  21. avatar Mark says:

    Keep your eye on the feds, but don’t forget to watch your state government. We in WA are now under attack by the attorney general…..FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT

  22. avatar Badwolf says:

    Obama and Hillary want your guns. After 2 terms, the reason you still have yours is continuous opposition to Obama and Hillary.

  23. avatar W says:

    Faulty logic. FO Nation still has guns so he concludes that O didn’t want to take them.
    Expect no better from progressives.

  24. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    It’s hard figure out anything Hilary says these days with her coughing fits…

    Must be one of Bill’s extramarital gifts which keep on giving.

  25. avatar Chadwick says:

    Oh yes because taking them is the first step… Idiot! What about those garands? What about saigas? What about that awesome 7n6 surplus? What about not being able to use trusts unless you jump through even more hoops? Oh I guess none of that counts. I said I GUESS NONE OF THAT COUNTS, sorry I had to speak up because I forgot you had all that sand in your ears.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Yes, this, and the ban on Steyr AUG pistol-caliber conversion kits as well as the attempted M855 surplus grab of Spring 2015.

  26. avatar Stateisevil says:

    He must only own bolt action rifles and not care what lengthy processes or expense go into owning and using them. If that’s the case, he might be right, Obungo and Hitlery aren’t coming for our guns.

  27. avatar Buzzlefutt says:

    It is remarkable that Obama’s dreams of a disarmed populace were stymied at every turn by a Republican controlled congress and/or a Supreme Court justice or two that couldn’t turn a blind eye to the Constitution… so now Dems are trying to take credit for the results.
    Way to go Dems! Yea, I was so wrong about you. It’s weird. All this time you were calling me a deplorable bitter clinging domestic terrorist with weapons of war that no self-respecting sportsman needs I thought you didn’t like me! Your friends keep calling me names and talking about my genitals which is still a little confusing but who cares, let’s go vote!

  28. avatar Dev says:

    FreakOutNation is just a crappy propaganda site that bills itself as “making Tea Partiers cry since 2009”. Probably when they read the absolute garbage that the writers post.

  29. avatar DaveL says:

    That Obama has failed to deprive American of their guns shows he has no desire to do so, in much the same way that the high school chess club’s virginity demonstrates their total lack of sexual interest in the Victoria’s Secret Angels.

  30. avatar Tom W. says:

    NY and CT passed the same putrid SAFE ACT type laws, created hundreds of thousands of felons with a 90% or higher NON Compliance rates for those that simply said:
    You (the State/Fed) can’t have them.
    We The People are NOT going to register them.
    And go F yourself.

    God Bless Them

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Laws which equate to massive noncompliance open the door for selective prosecution, which gives the government agent *huge* power.

  31. avatar EJQ says:

    Hillary doesn’t want to take our guns. She just wants to stack the Supreme Court with Judges who will.

  32. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    The Big Lie strikes again!

  33. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    Of course Obama and Hillary don’t want your guns. They just want the Federal, State and Local governments to come in and take them.

  34. avatar Anonymous says:

    Fools. They are not going to confiscate your guns. They are going to ban your future purchase (e.g. Assault weapons ban) and they are going to make it impossible for you to legally pass your firearms down to your children. The only gun that they don’t mind you having (for the moment) is a manually operated long gun with a 3 round mag. And FUDDs are all for this, because all they are, are democrats/statists that like to hunt.

  35. avatar todd says:

    Nobody is trying to take your guns.

    They only want to make you register them, restrict transfers, ban certain guns, limit magazine capacity, prohibit carrying them, ban or limit ammo, require they be inoperable when not in use, require insurance to own, require you to buy high priced/low reliability “smart guns”, make other arbitrary laws, and, if they catch you violating any of these made-up rules, throw you in prison… at which point they will take your guns.

  36. They act like we bring the subject up out of thin air and off topic. It is usually a response to proposed legislation or a campaign comment so…they must want us to stop paying attention.

  37. avatar Jim S. says:

    Just because you haven’t been allowed to do something doesn’t mean you don’t want to do it…

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email