In Hillary Clinton’s 2016 putative run for the White House, one rhetorical trend is already clear: speak only in platitudes, virtually never articulate principles. She wants everyone to think hard, and think carefully, and make hard choices. About which specific policies and the principles that inform those choices, well, that’s hard to say–with a single, notable exception. During a June 17th interview with Brett Baier and Greta Van Susteren, Van Susteren questioned Clinton about the 4th Amendment implications of domestic NSA spying, repeatedly and obviously inviting Clinton to express support for the Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement . . .
Clinton expressed vague concern, but refused to do anything as incendiary as support any portion of the Bill of Rights. She followed the same pattern in discussing Benghazi and every other question posed by Baier and Van Susteren in a 30-minute interview. She spoke much, but said little.
But this has not been the case where the Second Amendment is at issue. When that part of the Bill of Rights is the topic, Clinton is not shy about outlining specific polices. In another interview on the same day, in a “town hall” format meeting organized by CNN, long appropriately known as the “Clinton News Network,” Hill made her anti-liberty desires plain.
Via Brietbart’s Big Government:
“…a Maryland school teacher asked Hillary if she thought banning ‘assault weapons’ or ‘high capacity’ magazines ‘would do any good.’ Hillary said, ‘Yes,’ then expounded:
‘First of all, I think as a teacher or really any parent, what’s been happening with these school shootings should cause everybody to just think hard. We make hard choices and we balance competing values all the time. And I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook, and now we’ve had more in the time since. And I don’t think any parent–any person–should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reason–psychological, emotional, political, [ideological], whatever it means–could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers.’
Clinton went on to say, ‘We cannot let a minority of people… hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.’
‘My view is, yes we need to thrash this out in the political realm. But the vast majority of Americans–even law-abiding gun owners–want background checks that work, information that is shared immediately, and an awareness that we’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens–including our children–from that very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence, and now with automatic weapons, can wreak so much more violence.’”
So many fundamental errors, lies and misrepresentations, so little time:
(1) The only way to lawfully “thrash this out in the political realm” is to amend or repeal the Second Amendment. Even Clinton knows that’s impossible, so she advocates passing and implementing unconstitutional laws that will destroy the lives of the law abiding until they are struck down.
(2) There is no such thing in accurate firearm nomenclature as an “assault weapon.” While the term has been written into some anti-gun legislation as a catch-all phrase that essentially means “any scary-looking gun we don’t like,” its use is always misleading and inaccurate.
(3) No actual automatic weapon has ever been used in a school attack, and while such weapons are technically legal, they are among the most highly regulated firearms available in America. One does not walk into a gun store and walk out with one ten minutes later, and one does not own one without the kinds of intensive and intrusive background checks, registration and express federal permissions gun banners want for everyone and every firearm transaction.
(4) None of the policies Cllnton advocates would in any way have deterred, hampered or stopped any school killer. Even many of the legislators writing bills with those features have admitted it. Magazine size limitations, so-called “universal background checks,” “assault weapon” bans, and more are nothing more than feel good measures that will do nothing but harass and persecute the law-abiding.
(5) School killers do indeed represent a “very, very small group…prone to violence.” This particular group of criminals is very difficult to identify and stop. Criminals don’t obey the law. So politicians like Clinton wish to turn law-abiding Americans that pose no threat to school children or anyone else into criminals.
(6) And what is this “viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people?” The Second Amendment. Clinton is directly advocating ignoring or abrogating one of American’s most fundamental unalienable rights on what she represents as a majority/minority consensus. Presumably, not even a vote is required. And who are these terrorists? The Founders? Every gun-owning American? Every American who may not own a firearm but standing on principle, supports the entire Constitution, not just the portions useful to their political party?
One of fundamental principles of American democracy is that there can be no tyranny of the majority. Fifty-one percent or more of the population may not do away with the rights of the minority. This is, in large part, why the Bill of Rights exists, to protect not what everyone loves and thinks grand, but to protect ideas, practices, beliefs and speech that enjoy less than universal support. It also exists to make permanent single-party rule difficult to attain and maintain.
Hearing any politician argue for the tyranny of the majority in any context should not only send a chill up the spine of any honorable American, but should absolutely disqualify that politician from political office in our constitutional republic. To so much as think of such a thing is to imagine the destruction of liberty and the triumph of despotism.
Unfortunately for Clinton, she has a very long rhetorical trail of anti-gun statements and beliefs. In fact, even before her latest gun control gaffes (Gaffe: noun. when a politician accidently says what they really believe), Clinton’s strident anti-liberty views left even Clinton News Network’s John King and Peter Hamby unable to adequately protect her from herself.
“On May 7th CNN’s John King played a video of Hillary Clinton saying, ‘We have to rein in what has become [an] almost article of faith, that anybody can have a gun anywhere, [at] any time.’
King quickly added, ‘She’s talking in the context of mental health,’ but then he expressed obvious concern that this soundbite is going to make a great anti-Hillary commercial…
…Hillary was not talking about mental health issues at this point but about ‘fully licensed’ and ‘fully validated’ gun owners. She said so herself.”
CNN’s Peter Hamby did his best to help Clinton but she was so obvious, so Hillary, he had no choice but to observe that Clinton’s anti-gun record was “going to be something of an issue for her I think.” If any media outlet bothers to review its own coverage of Clinton, Hamby’s parsing will shine as an extraordinary self-parody. As much as she will try to present herself as a moderate, seeking only “sensible,” “common sense” gun control measures, her record speaks loudly otherwise.
Clinton’s 2008 presidential run is a blueprint for her 2016 tactics. McClatchy’s David Lightman explained in a March, 2008 article:
“When Supreme Court justices debate the legality of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns in coming weeks, their file will include a legal brief from Vice President Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and 54 other senators asking that the law be overturned.
But they won’t find anything from Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York or Barack Obama of Illinois. They didn’t sign the rival brief from other members of Congress who back the tough handgun restrictions.
The Democratic presidential candidates’ silence is part of a pattern. For years, the national party has downplayed its historic sympathy for gun control for fear that emphasizing it would be politically costly.”
Fortunately for the cause of liberty, the Supreme Court didn’t listen to Clinton and affirmed the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, individual right in the landmark Heller decision. As much as Clinton and most other democrats avoid strident, public anti-gun advocacy, their true colors bleed through. Lightman again:
“A rival brief, signed by 18 Democratic members of Congress, counters that lawmakers long have had the right to regulate — and ban — ‘the use and possession of certain weapons.’
Clinton has a long history as an outspoken supporter of tough gun-control measures, but she, too, has moderated in recent months…
At a January debate, she called herself a ‘political realist, and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street.”
“Political realist?” No. Clinton is a political opportunist willing to say whatever is necessary to any audience to advance her political fortunes. In this, Clinton is a common leftist politician. Like Barack Obama, she rhetorically supports the Second Amendment–sometimes–but she has never seen a restriction of the Second Amendment she does not support, and is of a kind with President Obama, the most effective inadvertent gun salesman in history.
Why is Clinton fit to be president? She was First Lady; she was a carpet bagging senator from New York; she ran for President once before. Her ghost writers wrote two books about her, and she was a Secretary of State without a single accomplishment that can be identified by anyone, not the State Department, not her supporters, and not even Clinton. However, if elected, she would do no less than Barack Obama to make life difficult for the law-abiding gun owner, just as she would make life easier for criminals, including school shooters who, plotting mass murder and usually, suicide, tend not to care overmuch about obeying gun laws.
Even though her views and preferred policies on many other topics are as ephemeral as integrity at the IRS, a brief summary of her clear beliefs on guns—by no means exhaustive, is easily available through nothing more taxing than a brief Google search.
On making self defense in the home essentially impossible (Good morning America, 06-04-1999):
“If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.”
Mrs. Clinton, speaking to children at the South Side Middle School in Nassau County, 07-15-1999):
“We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
On gun registration and licensing (CNN.com 06-02-2000):
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license handguns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer [one of the most staunch gun grabbers in history], would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. ‘I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun.’ ‘I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Clinton twice voted against the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (03-02-2004 and 07-29-2005) which prohibited lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of guns and ammunition for so-called “gun violence” and the misuse of their products by third parties about whom they had no knowledge or control.
On how to deal with “gun violence” affecting African-American men (NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, 07-12-2007):
“I think it’s important to remember that the crime rate was driven down, & gun violence was driven down in the 1990s because of a combination of policies, like 100,000 police on the street and getting assault weapons off the street…Assault weapons are back on the street. We’ve got to go and do what works again. In addition to having policies that will get guns off the street…”
On the DC handgun ban that gave rise to the Heller decision, one of the few times a progressive has given lip service to anything resembling federalism (Philadelphia primary debate, 04-16-2008):
“I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court. [skip]
“I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”
The New York Times (05-09-1999) featured Clinton’s emotional appeal for gun control:
“Stepping up the Clinton Administration’s campaign against gun violence, Hillary Rodham Clinton used an emotional White House ceremony today to call on Americans to press Congress to ‘’buck the gun lobby’’ and pass several gun control measures. [skip]
“The Senate is to begin debate next week on a number of gun control measures, some of which mirror proposals offered recently by President Clinton. ‘The senators need to hear from all of us,’ Mrs. Clinton said. She urged voters ‘’to give them the encouragement to do what they know is right and to remind them that there are many, many millions of American voters and citizens who will stand behind political leaders who are brave enough to buck the gun lobby, wherever that may take us, so that they will vote for the measures that we know will save lives.”
The NYT also noted that Hillary:
“….has also been more forceful than the President in directly taking on the powerful gun lobby in the aftermath of the Littleton killings.”
In a 06-07-2011 opinion piece, Forbes.com noted:
“Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans‘ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”
In a 07-10-2012 op-ed, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris noted that as Secretary of State, Clinton had gun control goals that transcended the borders of the United States:
“Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.
The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.”
Can there be any doubt that had Clinton been successful at the UN, she would be citing that treaty destructive to American sovereignty and liberty as her single greatest accomplishment? From 1999 to the present these few but entirely representative examples of Clinton’s own words and actions mark her as a dedicated and predictable progressive gun grabber.
Too many Americans make the mistake of thinking the Second Amendment is secured, but progressive politicians waited and schemed patiently for a century to impose Obamacare. They never took their eyes off the prize. They will do no less to obliterate the Second Amendment. If elected president, Hillary Clinton will be, if nothing else, a leader in attempts to diminish liberty and to increase the power of the state.
No politician willing to impose the tyranny of the majority in any way should ever be allowed anywhere near the White House.
Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
I thank Ms. Clintoon for being so forthright in her views! A clear line in the sand if you will…
Now, lets see what the other side’s contender to the throne has to say. It should make POTG’s decision quite easy.
She will probably be more circumspect for the general election.
No matter. She can be beat in the head with it now. A classic mistake. Bravo Hillary!
And we’ll hear the usual “That is water under the bridge, she supports it now” rhetoric…. until she gets into power, then she’ll be back at destroying us all… even her own convenient followers not of the chosen ranks.
Again, too late for that. Some of the appeal that Obama had was that he could say whatever he wanted, and there was virtually no record to check against. He was very careful not to say anything too inflamatory on the RKBA until after he won his second term. Heck, even when Gifford was shot in the head, he knew that if he pushed hard for firearms restrictions, he could kiss his second term goodbye.
Do the Dems really think that gun control is a winning issue at the ballot box after what happened in CO? My guess Clinton won’t even run. She’ll amass a huge campaign fund doing these tours, and then she will use it to extract favors from whichever candidate she promises to give it to.
That’s kind of my expectation as well. There’s a lot more money and a lot less responsibility in book tours and professional punditry.
Sorry, you are mistaken. What you say only matters if the media uses it against you. Or, didn’t you know it’s the media that decides elections in this country. And the media wants you to vote which way now? You can answer that question all by yourself…. The media will elevate Clinton to the level of the Mona Lisa, the Venus the Milo, Kennedy and Sister Theresa.
It’s two doors into one room politics anymore: regardless of which party you back or go with, both will go into office and begin working to strip rights away. This fires up the opposition, who puts their person into office. Who does not restore the rights, but begins stripping rights from the other side.
Regardless of which door you pick, you’re still in for a beating.
@Becca Putman, I’ll agree that if left to its own devices, big godvernment will enevitably erode Constitutional rights. But, with the right leadership, that process can be slowed down and in some cases reversed. The candidates do matter.
The shoe may or may not fit, Becca, but what that sounds like is someone who purports to support 2A rights rationalizing their support for “Hillary!” already. If there really is no difference, I propose that the folks that recognize that humor those of us who think there is a difference and vote for the Republicans for national office.
That is a great idea except the ones saying there is no difference in the two parties are the Libertarians, not the Democrats.
Can’t blame them for seeing past the BS, Mike.
Avatar for the Hildebeast!!
Avatar for the Hildebeast!!
Please God almighty….use an avatar!!
How about this one for an avatar?
There is an undeniable temptation to resort to mockery, and cheap shots based on snide anti-women remarks. Thats exactly what the progtards want, as thats all they have, vs the facts – see- “gun bullies- are women-bullies”.
Hate to sound like the speech nanny here, but if we 2A rights believers are going to take HRC on, we need every weapon, and most important, also not to shoot ourselves in the foot at same time, by alienating the reasonable rational women who agree on not just 2A rights but the moral and competence failings,
who just might be turned off by the cheezy resorts and angry-white-male prototype, that has been too effectively branded upon gun-rights folk, fair or not.
Cheap shots also diminish TTAG first, as there are in-numerable sites elsewhere that take joy in that kind of nonsense,
and way more important,
vastly underestimates the danger of this absolutely corrupt pol gaining the WH.
Its not about skin color, nor is it about sex. Its about the leader of the free world, and her moral failings and incompetence proven as disqualifications to hold the job, which should be inherently obvious,
so sitting back and snarking misses the very real danger that she will be propagandized into the job, as another absolutely corrupt and anti-American radical was, by the Dems and StateRunMedia.
Who would have EVER thought a junior Senator with less than one term, no work experience, and a questionable background would EVER have been elected for POTUS, not just once but twice.
Those on the right, and the rational middle made that mistake twice.
Lets not do it again.
Three strkes and America is out.
Come on man… stop being the turd in the punchbowl. I don’t care if you’re female, male, white, black, or none of the above; a photo of a disliked politician looking hideous is as American as apple pie.
[email protected]…..I don’t know if you’re referring to me but I don’t care if the avatra is a square box with the initials HC in it.
I just don’t want to see her F’ing mug. It raises my blood pressure just seeing her and I doubt I’m the only one. TTAG could consider the avatra as a public service health issue for it’s members.
Thank you rlc2. Hannibal, stay the hell away from a keyboard if that’s the attitude you’re going to take. Like it or not, this isn’t a game, it’s a very real struggle for our most fundamental rights. You’re hurting every one of us (yourself included) by trivializing this and pretending a tasteless remark is perfectly acceptable, even though it could paint us all in a very bad light, reinforcing the (incorrect) stereotype of gun owners as racist, sexist OFWGs in the eyes of the fence-sitters and low information voters.
doesky2, you’re a pathetic loser. Either don’t look at the picture, or gain some self-control instead of demanding that TTaG remove photos that make you angry. There’s a great thing called personal responsibility, you idiot.
A great big (self edited ad hominem) back at you for not having the IQ to discern a plea from a demand.
I’ll now exit this thread while you continue to sniff her throne.
Using “progtard” is descending into mockery…
Oooh! Ooooooh! It burns! It buuuuurns!!!!
Everybody needs to make damn sure not to sit this next election out, no doubt about that.
On the plus side, she’s got two more full years to stick her foot in her mouth and talk about how poor they are and so on, so by the time the election rolls around, Joe Biden will look more practical to the Democrats.
Again, one of the most used catch phrases to equate gang bangers and law-abiding gun owners is to use the term, “get them (guns) off the street” as in street crime, and somehow having the average voter believe that the proposed laws are “doing something” to make that happen. My guns are in the safe or legally carried as a CCW. They are not on the street.
Those laws are equivalent to saying you are pointing your gun at the criminal but when the trigger is pulled, the lead only hits law-abiders.
Fast and Furious could not have happened without State being read in, nor could the truth of the military weapons given to Mexican Army be revealed, and the massive losses to the narcos from top-down corruption, or simply deserters taking their rifle with them, for that has State Department, DEA and CIA all over it too.
Sec State Hillary Clinton was in Mexico peddling the already discredited 90% of guns used in crimes in Mexico come from US local gun stores, two weeks before the Brian Terry murder.
Read Katie Pavlich’s book- HRC was part of the deliberate plan to create propaganda to cover for the “under the radar” gun grab promised to Brady by Obama during the elections.
But, to the progtards and StateRunMedia, after the big shrug, comes the marketing plan…after all, “whats the difference”?
And god forbid you dont play along….SEXISSSTTTT!
Now that’s a scathing expose’.
“she advocates passing and implementing unconstitutional laws that will destroy the lives of the law abiding until they are struck down.”
Not that I don’t agree with your Article, but background checks wouldn’t destroy the lives of anybody. Unless your insane.
Think not? Wait until a Clinton-approved form of “universal background checks” gets passed into law–and some ordinary Joe makes the mistake of giving his nephew a .22 for a birthday gift without jumping thru the government-imposed hoops.
Ken, I scanned the article three times and I must have missed that quote.
My question for you is, why did you cherry pick one thing, and dismiss the entire thrust of the article, by inferring “you are insane” if you disagree.
Seems OCD at best, trollish at worst. But maybe I missed your point.
Care to expand on that?
Personally- I think we are in the fight of our lives here, as 2A rights believers.
Obama and the kids on his staff are too incompetent to git r done, but HRC and her enablers in the StateRunMedia, and corruptocrats in DC, are a whole nother ballgame.
It’s in the paragraph numbered 1).
FYI, “inferrring” is how he takes it; “implying” is what he means.
Here is how they get you.
In NY it is now a FELONY to own a magazine with more than 7 rounds. You cannot buy magazines that hold more than 7 and if you previously owned one that could it cannot be loaded with more than 7.
The penalty is greater to be caught with one than be a child molester. Not joking.
So you get caught and they try you in a NY Kangaroo Court. You now have a record.
However, even if you only do probation and never go to jail, you are now a convicted felon. It will be on your record. Not only will you not be able to own a firearm but there will be many jobs that will not hire you because you are a convicted felon.
This is what they want for every gun owner in the nation. To make you a felon for owning something because it MIGHT be used for harm.
“Not that I don’t agree with your Article, but background checks wouldn’t destroy the lives of anybody. Unless your insane.”
Tell that to people in CT and NY who were law abiding guns owners one day, then their governments went POOF! and made them criminals the next day. The gun grabbers want background checks in order to form a gun owner registry, so that some day, when they have enough political power, the grabbers can find out who owns a gun and grab them.
The right to keep and bear arms “shall not be INFRINGED.”
For all of you highly intellectual nuancey folks who have a hard time understanding that, let me explain what the word “infringed” means:
Take two 5-8 year old kids, put them in the back seat of a car on a long trip (anything over 1 hour). Take a piece of masking tape and use it to establish a line down the exact middle of the seat, from front to rear. Tell the kids, “OK, this is the dividing line. YOU stay on YOUR SIDE, little Kenny, and YOU stay on YOUR SIDE, little Jenny.”
You will then get a very clear example of what “infringed” means. “MOM!!! He’s on MY side!!!” And that will include any minor accidental 1/100th of an inch crossing of the line, including the airspace above the seat.
If a 5-year-old can understand that, surely the “smartest woman in the world”, and all of her supporters and all of the Bloombergies and the Mommies can understand it.
“…shall not be infringed.” And we already have thousands of lovely laws and regulations which infringe that right, and guess what? CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS.
I have had it right up to here with your “reasonable” gun laws. You have my permission to put them where the sun never shines.
You think we can get Kenny and Jenny to secure our borders?
At least they would be able to understand the term “national border”.
One of my parents becomes ill and I go out of state to care for them, two weeks later I am a felon because I left my roommate/significant other/house sitter in the house with the gun safe for too long.
I transferred them without a background check.
Not caught maybe, not convicted but a felon by action (or lack of same).
“If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.”
In my house, the parents don’t react so well to the children telling the parents what to do. Maybe we’re weird that way.
I suspect not, though.
Your kids may not have big trust funds, either. Don’t worry, she’s not talking to you, she’s talking down to you.
Yep, that’s exactly what she’s doing. She’s a statist *and* an elitist, so she just can’t help herself.
Yes, Hillary is anti-gun. So we need to work very hard to keep the Congress gun-rights-friendly enough to counter her attempts at gun grabbing if elected. However, after what happened with Obama, I don’t know if Hillary will want to expend a lot of political capital in trying to maybe get a gun control bill passed. It might well fail and might really dent her presidency for the first year. But she will nonetheless continue to talk tough on gun control I think to her fans.
Bill Clinton, as POTUS, made a statement once to the effect that the government was not going to grab everyone’s guns on his watch because, get this, there was a “national consensus” that people should be able to have guns for hunting and such. No mention of the 2A, the Constitution, or rights, natural or otherwise–just a vaguely-defined “national consensus”, which of course could change over the course of a couple of weeks. Sort of like the definition of “is”. And Bill was supposedly a ‘moderate-to-conservative” Democrat. Any doubt that Hillary!’s view of the basis for civilian firearms possession is anything but an even weaker version than Bill’s?
Heh, we should refer to him as SCROTUS.
Mrs. Clinton’s view on gun control has been well documented time and time again, she has made it no secret that she wants to ban guns, especially those that are capable of having 10 or more rounds.
Simply put, this is why she will not get my vote in 2016. Anyone that is for more gun control in 2016 will not get my vote, I’ll write myself in if I have to. Wasted vote? Maybe, but I am TIRED of congress and our presidents that don’t protect and follow the constitution.
Same here. I will vote against any politician who does not respect the entire Constitution.
Like all of our ruling idiots, she lives in the Beltway, get rid of the Beltway, get rid of the problem.
“…after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook, and now we’ve had more in the time since.”
At that point, the “teacher” interjected “74”.
Hasn’t that figure been debunked? And where have we heard that one before? You don’t suppose that “townhall” had planted questions? Nawwww!
Do you remember the PSA with Gerald Ford?
“Boy do we need Scouting”
Boy do we need a well regulated Militia!
Hilary will not be the demtard nom for President in 2016. They rejected her in 2008 done, story over.
Bigger issue is who the Rep candidate will be. Better that even odds the RINO establishment will nominate another progressive fool. If so, the conservative base will again stay home and marxist dem ______ wins. Again. But by 2016 if this occurs this nation’s goose is going to come home to roost and it is not going to be pretty.
That is poor logic. Using your reasoning for Hillary not getting the nomination is like saying “Romney won’t get the nomination in 2012 because they rejected him in 08, end of story.”
Beside owning several “scary” firearms I have black powder, nails and a pressure cooker at home. So by Hillary’s reckoning I am a terrorist. Thanks for lumping me in to that group Ms Clinton. You do what ever you feel will keep the sheeple nervous girl.
She couldn’t protect herself from her own husband, I don’t know why she would be chosen to protect anyone else from anything else.
“if any party’s claim is such that: “I cannot defend you until you have surrendered the means by which you can defend yourself;” only the first half of the statement is true.” – TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg. 46
“Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)
If you live in, or are from, a blue-state you may be part of the problem, if you have a (D) after your name, the problem is part-of-you.
In Hillary World, the NRA members are terrorists and the Benghazi terrorists are movie critics.
Crazy? Welcome to the future.
Hillary and Barack want the Universal Background Check bill to be resurrected. It must be very frustrating for them to have to constantly call for a public outcry of support for this very important first step. The Bill Paying Billionaire’s millions and his minions work so hard to manufacture at least the appearance of widespread demand for federal legislation. Why is this seemingly moderate goal so difficult to achieve? Mark Glaze attributes their failure to a “messaging problem”.
The basic change a UBC will make will be to criminalize the transfer of firearms between private citizens who fail to get government approval. As first steps go, that is a big one. Adding another felony to the US criminal code should not be taken so lightly. With a population over 300 million and over 300 million firearms in circulation tracking who owns what is impossible. Federal registration will be the next step they call for.
“Clinton went on to say, ‘We cannot let a minority of people… hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.’
She’ll send you to re-education camp if you ‘don’t have your mind right.’
By her logic, we should not let her terrorize us. Yes?
We should not, yes!
How I wish a real, viable third party could become a reality in the next year. If recent history is any indication, the front runners for each of the three parties will be Moe, Larry and Curley.
Well, Hillary can do the work of two men — Abbott and Costello.
As hard as it is to believe, the two-party system is falling apart. Now spare me from the conventional wisdom that first-past-the-post systems guarantee two dominant parties. Wrong, *they only guarantee two dominant parties in any particular voting district* excluding the Presidency, of course. The only reason we have two dominant *national* parties are a combination of historical momentum, marketing,the (waning) reach of broadcast networks and rigged laws that effectively lock-out third parties. Even within the dominant parties, disruptive “sub parties” like the Tea Party and OWA remnants threaten Beltway control of the party levers.
Why would that be hard to believe?
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that third party ideas are accommodated and can win within the republican party.
Don’t get hung up on the trappings and vanities of a third party label.
Of coarse I’m assuming your idea of a 3rd party is libertarian in nature. Instead if you 3rd party idea is socialist/fascist in nature then I’d just ask why are you interested in duplicating today’s Democratic party?
At least we know what hildebeast stands for. Yeah a lot of folks knew what Barry stood for but Hussain ran more center. And hildebeast can’t handle criticism or roiling controversy. Whatever folks- we are truly at the major fork in the road.
As somebody significantly to the left of Clinton, anybody but her. She’s a right-wing authoritarian. Pro-war, pro-corporations (or crony capitalism if you prefer), pro control of everything by the government, and a government populated by her and her political allies. I mean, even before the gun control position, there was no chance I’d vote for her. She backed the Iraq war. I did not.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Ben Franklin
Don’t worry Hillary Clinton will not be president because I don’t think Obama will leave office in 2016.