Previous Post
Next Post


By Regis Giles of

When Hillary Clinton announced last night that she was pro-second amendment, I couldn’t help but laugh and scream ‘BULLSHIT!’ She really thinks the American public is that stupid? Well Hillary, we’ve got news for you…WE AREN’T!

The Hilldebeest has stated in the past that Second Amendment supporters are a terrorist minority:

On Monday, during an interview on CNN Newsroom, Mrs. Clinton made clear that at age 66, she still hasn’t outgrown the zealotry of her youth. With anger characteristic of the political fringe, Mrs. Clinton said of gun control opponents, “We cannot let a minority of people–and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people–hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

Back in October 2015, leaked audio revealed Hillary stating the Supreme Court was wrong on their decision about the District of Columbia vs. Heller case at a small fundraising event in New York.

“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can,” she said.

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

[SIDE NOTE: Can anyone please tell me what an ‘assault weapon’ is?]

What was the Heller case and the Supreme Court’s decision on it you ask?

Well, if you had believed the 100-proof, grade A crap Hillary was selling you last night at the final presidential debate, you would think the Heller case was about protecting toddlers from guns:

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

The real story is that Heller had absolutely NOTHING to do with toddlers. The case was solely based on whether a 66-year-old police officer named Dick Heller should be legally allowed to own a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home.

Here are the facts of the case as told by the Supreme Court:

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

This case was focused on whether D.C.’s ban on handguns was constitutional or not. The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional.

Killery is recorded as stating that she hates this decision:

“And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

So please spare us, Hilldebeest. You’re no fan of the Second Amendment.

Further more she has refused to say bearing arms is a constitutional right. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, her buddy and Clinton Foundation donor, he asked her a very specific question:

I know you reject that but a specific question, do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?

To which she replied…

I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right as we do with every Amendment to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have commonsense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.

The proof is in the pudding, people. Hillary hates your right to bear arms and she is going to do everything in her power to take that away.

Yes, we ‘terroristic minorities’ are nothing but deplorable scum to her. But for now she’s willing to lie to you and say she supports your 2A rights, while making up fake Supreme Court cases to prove her point.

(This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.)



Previous Post
Next Post


  1. As one of the witch’s deplorables, I know that I’m in her devious sights. Her deceit knows no limits. To say that the Second Amendment had a ‘nuanced’ interpretation prior to Heller is pure rubbish. And to say that the DC law was aimed at protecting toddlers is nothing short of criminal. A pox on her and her rapist husband.

      • She misspoke.

        As if she isn’t bad enough, that insane twit she has for a VP is scary enough for me to vote for someone sane… like the leader of North Korea.

        We are indeed screwed. Trump is right. The system is rigged. When the media covers for people like HRC and takes things DJT says out of context, and the incumbent PTUS assails the oppositions candidate, we are starting with a deficit. I can only pray that a great many people care about the truth no matter who it comes from.

        According to new polls, the American people listed fear of gun controls higher than issues HRC wants them to fear. If such is the case, Trump may have more supporters than HRC believes. Very much like when Reagan called upon the “silent majority” to rise up.

        Both sides passed on BS during the debate. I hope that far more will see through the BS that HRC was spreading. Heller, 33,000 deaths, Russia doing all the hacking, until now, every politico has embraced the winner. God, does no one recall Gore’s meltdown during a post election debate? Or Obama blaming Bush for his every failure right into his second term? The list goes on. Of course, DJT spread his own layer of BS, but it doesn’t appear to be anywhere near as bad a Killary’s. More than anything, DJT has just been saying what the common people have been thinking and saying for decades.

    • She also lied about Dubya and the AWB — he told Congress to “Send me the bill and I”ll sign it”, which Congress declined to do. He had no control over what legislation did or did not pass in Congress.

      Hillary plans to rule by Executive Order.

  2. She believes that at around 8 or 9 pounds it’s ok to suck out their brains and crush their little skulls, but if they somehow survive to become toddlers their lives are so important that we must eviscerate the Second Amendment.

    Maybe it’s some sort of Spartan thing? The children who survive the Kermit Gosnells of the world must be protected at all costs?

    Until they grow up to be adults, take jobs at the State Department and she can just abandon them to be burned to death by a mob of Jihadis.

    Her concern for human life is very inconsistent.

    • Amen brother she picks and chooses what life is important and what life is not. She is beyond hypocrisy she’s got a real issue with power and control. I foresee a lot of problems for gun owners in the near future here. Unfortunately.

  3. I love the way that liberals such as this witch cherry pick the Supreme Court decisions that should be recogbized as precedent. Row v. Wade, a decision based on the imaginary ‘penumbra’ of the right to privacy? The witch says it was carved in and stone and must be preserved and given total deference.. Heller, a decision that rationally interpreted the unambiguous Second Amendment? The witch says it’s illegitimate and must be destroyed with all haste. Such is the hypocrisy and deceit of this evil creature. A pox on her and the rapist she’s ‘married’ to.

  4. It was a smart move on Hillary’s part. She introduced the name “Heller” and associated it with “Toddlers” for the millions of viewers who know nothing about the case.

    If she gets elected, this sets the narrative for attacking Heller and the 2A. All the more reason anyone who claims support for the 2A has to vote Trump.

    If you don’t you are just as big a cucking funt as Hillary.

  5. Of course she lied. Hillery would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit her in the ass! I hate her, not voting for her, however she still is going to win. The fix has been in since she drooped out of the race 8 years ago.

    • Don’t be ridiculous. Of course she knows the truth. She HAS to know the truth.

      The proof is in the fact that she has a flawless record in avoiding saying it.

  6. “We cannot let a minority of people–and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people–hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people”

    This sentence deserves a lot more airplay. She doesn’t say “cannot own weapons that can be used to terrorize the majority”, she doesn’t say “espouse a viewpoint that’s anathema to the American public” (either of which would be bad enough in itself)…….. she says “hold a viewpoint”.

    She’s talking about criminality of thought

    • Yep. I’d like to know how many of her Yale ’73 classmates flunked the bar exam.
      Was she the only “Yale Honors Graduate” to fail that year?

  7. It’s not only guns that Hillary and most other Democrats object to. Guns are just tools. What they really want is to deprive people of the legal right to defend themselves, using as much force as necessary, against violent criminals. In their eyes, it’s society that has mistreated criminals, not the other way around, and defending yourself is a continuation of that mistreatment.

    A late night customer walked in on an armed robbery of a convenience store in a suburb of Buffalo, New York. The robber was so focused on the store clerk that the customer was able to sneak up on him and deliver several blows to his head with a heavy flashlight. After a minute lying semi-conscious on the floor, during which time the customer confiscated his weapon, the robber staggered out of the store. The next time you get into an argument with an anti-gunner, ask him if he would object to the customer’s actions.

    • Boy, I REALLY hope that customer kept the weapon for himself! I know, I know…slave state. But good on him!


  8. Look Hillary doesn’t hate the Second Amendment she fears it, she fully understands it’s purpose and the intent of the founders as written.

    • Hillary is skeered of some coconut picking her off from 2 miles away with a Barrett. The Secret Service cannot protect her and she knows it. Better round up everything that shoots. Sorry hunters, your deer rifles are also too potent, you will be turning them all in.

  9. If one does the research on the D.C. regulation scrutinized and overturned by Heller, part of the original intent of the regulation was to protect young children from guns in the home. However, there were no young children at risk in the facts of the Heller case. So I’ll give HRC credit for a long and dubious stretch of reasoning as opposed to an out-and-out lie…she’s already told plenty of those, so there is no need to pile on here. What SCOTUS determined in Heller was that, regardless of the intent, the regulation was an unacceptable infringement on rights provided by the 2nd Amendment.

    It’s also worthwhile to point out, for the edification of HRC and followers, that Justice Scalia did not make this ruling along. 4 other justices agreed with Scalia to make a total of 5 in agreement and 4 opposed…we call that a majority, but I guess HRC’s law professors failed to get that concept across to her.

    • If she wins, she *will* appoint an associate justice of the Progressive persuasion to replace Scalia.

      That stacks the court 5-4 Progressive.

      Likely 2 more more associate justices will retire or expire during her administration and she will appoint 2 more Progressives of a young age.

      That locks the court 5-4 for *DECADES* Progressive…

      • Alarmist horsepoop.

        Hillary nominating someone does not equate to them getting appointed to the court. Nominees can and have been rejected before. Merrick Garland was nominated over 7 months ago and has not been appointed to the court yet – if ever. They haven’t even bothered to hold hearings on him. And McCain has taken the unusual step of vowing that the Senate will automatically block any and ALL of Hillary’s appointments to the court.

        Now, if the downballot effect of Trump is that the Republicans lose control of the Senate (which seems very likely), then the Republicans will lose some if not all of their ability to block nominations. That is the worst-case scenario. Current projections call for the Dems to have a 72% chance of winning control of the Senate.

        • FYI, under the current rules, it requires 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Even if the R’s lose control of the Senate, (again, which seems likely), they will still likely have more than enough seats to be able to block nominations if that’s the route they choose to take. The projections currently show that the Dems are likely to have 52 seats after the 2016 elections. That leaves the R’s with as many as 8 possible defections and still have the ability to block a nominee.

          Will they do it? We’ll see. But the predictions that Hillary will willy-nilly be able to nominate the most outrageous leftists to the court at will, are alarmist horsepoop.

  10. We cannot let a minority of people–and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people–hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    In other words, we should be able to take the rights of minorities? That’s what I got out of that.

    • If gun control is racist, what does that say about gun controllers?

      After all, the racist shit now infesting the White House thinks the 2A is for hunters in Iowa, but blacks in Chicago shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.

  11. “Well the D.C. versus Heller decision was very strongly and she was extremely angry about it I watched and she was very very angry when upheld and Justice Scalia was so involved and it was a well-crafted decision. But Hillary was extremely upset, extremely angry, and people that believe in the Second Amendment and believe in it very strongly were very upset with what she had to say.” –Donald Trump

  12. “On Monday, during an interview on CNN Newsroom, Mrs. Clinton made clear that at age 66, she still hasn’t outgrown the zealotry of her youth. With anger characteristic of the political fringe….” This is what I saw and heard at the debate. The type of hateful, especially man-hating, SJW from the ’60’s, that you avoided like the plague when in college. Guys hated them not because they were smart, but because they were unattractive harpies who spouted the nonsense like, as they used to say, a broken record. Her entire career has been to avenge this wrong, as she perceives it, because, after all, it is all and only about feelings – her feelings.

  13. Correction: Dick Heller was a Federal armed security guard, not a police officer. The pre-Heller DC law allowed police to keep guns.

  14. I am a longtime TTAG reader and a strong believer in 2A rights.

    I just don’t understand why Congress cannot come up with a grand compromise that would satisfy both sides of the debate. I think there is an opportunity to horse trade and still come out ahead for the common gun owner.

    Give the LEFT the crumbs that they demand. Let them have “universal” background checks that include private party transfers. Keep the existing restrictions on machine guns, destructive devices and AOWs. Allow for some form of basic gun safety/training requirement prior to firearms purchases (for new owners). Heck, earmark all background check monies to prosecute federal firearm law violators.

    In exchange for “giving up” on those issues, we should obtain a removal of the restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles/shotguns. We should also have a lift on magazine capacity limits. Lastly, we should obtain a removal of those silly keep-your-gun-unloaded-at-all-times laws that some states have implemented.

    Continuously refusing to give up anything means gun owners will never gain anything. I would like some suppressed firearms so that I can keep my hearing.

    • I’ve got one even better how about we add no more restrictions no more background checks no more b******* that isn’t listed in the Constitution and stop infringing upon our rights how about that one? Tell mrs. Clinton to go take a long walk off a short pier dumbass.

      • I’ll be a little more diplomatic. The problem is simply that the haters have permanently poisoned the well of goodwill beyond any semblance of hope or reality. Yes, sometimes compromise is a necessary and useful thing, but these people have shown not the slightest bit of interest in compromise whatsoever. Like it or not, we’re at the stage where there’s simply no point in knowing or understanding why the haters act the way they do, only that we’re just going to have to deal with it exactly like one deals with mad dogs. In short, I do not think you’re a dumbass as whats-his-name above me said, but your faith and trust is definitely badly misplaced.


    • Not only no, but HELL NO! Didn’t we get enough “compromises” yet? This is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us all the commonsense infringements and brought us where we are today. Our natural and constitutionally protected rights are not to be bargained with. No more conversation. Not another inch!

      The second amendment shouldn’t be supported by politicians. It’s to be obeyed. It says that our (The People’s ) right to keep and bear arms must not be touched. Any and all restrictions and regulations, “reasonable and comonsense” or not are infringements and therefore unconstitutional. It’s time to start getting rid of them.

      • Amen brother finally another person that is just fed up with all of these so-called regulations Hillary Clinton is a regulatory moron she puts regulations on regulations. There should be no background checks no 3-day waiting. None of this crap even works statistics prove that if you’re going to kill someone and you have it in your mind to do so or yourself you’re going to do it whether you have a gun a baseball bat which by the way blunt force trauma is the leading cause of death in this country when it comes to violent crimes involving assault and battery with a deadly weapon not handguns not shotguns and not the so-called assault weapons whatever the heck that means. The Constitution is very clear these politicians don’t seem to grasp the fact that they work for us and we are citizens not subjects they are not a king or a queen they do not rule s*** we tell them what we want and they do it or they get replaced end of the story.

  15. If Hillary applied what she calls reasonable regulations on constitutional amendments, we would have government censorship. Why is she concerned about toddlers, especially from gun owning families. After all they are deplorables, terrorists, and enemies of “progress”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here