You may have seen the NRA’s latest shot across Hillary’s ample bow. The gun rights org’s slickly produced spot says that, “she doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self defense.” Hold on, though. A claim like that simply can’t go un-challenged. So out of the east, in a cloud of dust rides one of the Clinton campaign’s most dedicated mouthpieces, the Washington Post and their lulz-worthy ‘Fact Checker’ attempt at, uh, correcting the record.
The NRA did not respond to queries, but Jennifer Baker, the public affairs director for the NRA’s lobbying arm, told PolitiFact North Carolina that the language was justified because Clinton has been critical of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia. That 5-to-4 decision held that the Second Amendment of the Constitution affords private citizens the right to keep firearms in their homes and that such possession need not be connected to military service.
In a private fundraiser in 2015, Clinton was recorded as saying that the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment” and called for reinstating the assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
Wait! Whose argument is the Post making here? If a “recovering lawyer” thinks the Court got Heller wrong — the decision that affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms in their homes — then the NRA was right. Right?
No so fast, bunky. You’re thinking about this too clearly. There’s far too much nuance and wiggle room here for WaPo’s industrious Clinton surrogates fact checkers to affirm a claim like that from the hated NRA.
Clinton has said that she disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, but she has made no proposals that would strip Americans of the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.
Well, no…no she didn’t. This is an election season after all and proposing firearms registration or outright confiscation of privately owned guns — even if you have the entirety of the mainstream media propping you up — wouldn’t do much for her polling.
Besides, the NRA commercial only said she doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self defense. Not that she’s talked about doing anything about it. So isn’t it at least defensible?
Not in the WaPo’s port-tilted view. In order to carry the candidate’s water, the paper hangs its rhetorical hat on the unknowable-ness of the future. Who’s to say how her nominees to the court would ultimately vote? It’s all such an impenetrable mystery!
Clinton is certainly in favor of more gun regulations and tougher background checks, and a more nuanced ad could have made this case. Conjuring up a hypothetical Supreme Court justice ruling in a hypothetical case is simply not enough for such a sweeping claim. That tips the ad’s claim into the Four-Pinocchio category.
Of course it does. As she said in a recent interview,
I’m not looking to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not looking to take people’s guns away….
Whew! What a relief.
Delete my comment or ban me altogether if you so chose. But there’s a special corner of hell reserved for this bitch and it’s my hope that she gets to see it real soon.
For a variety of reasons. . .
She’s incompetent , egotistical, compulsive liar, and those are her good qualities.
I read that as “she’s innocent,” at first glance. had to do a double take.
She’s like the lunch special at KFC, 2 tiny breasts and 2 big ol’ thighs.
#HILLARYFORPRISON 2016
Billy bob, you eat that lunch and you’ll get the shits.
Tell us how you really feel jwm. Don’t hold back.
My personal day dream for Hillary Clinton is to see her stripped of all money and forced to live in a small cracker box and live on $20,000. A year.
In Detroit.
Hell no we dont want her. Send her Chiraq were she can have all the gun control she wants.
Joe, if you send her to Chitcago, you’re just sending her home (where she belongs), for that’s where Rodhams come from.
I think a place that food, shelter and occupational interests are supplied by the government would be a first stop. It is the liberal ideal after all.
You mean prison, right !!
I say drop her off buck naked in the middle of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Should work itself out.
What did them poor folks in the congo ever do to you.
jwm:
9. You heartless bastich. I liked that movie. Now it will forever be associated in my mind with a naked hillary.
Where’s my brain bleach?
Are you kidding! That’s where she gets a lot of her money, propping up tin pot dictators.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/exclusive-clinton-foundation-got-100m-from-blood-minerals-firm/
Oh that would be no problem, according to her. Remember, she “understands” the struggles that everyday American’s face. I’m not thrilled with DJT, but at least he doesn’t BS all of us about he’s filthy rich.
She will burn in the fires of Hell for what she did to those kids at Waco…
^^This^^
I don’t like her but she is not Reno or Bill. Am I missing something?
My money and hope is on her having a negative catastrophic health event before the election. There I said it, now off to confession for me.
She said the “Heller decision was a mistake.” It’s that simple. The Heller decision ruled the 2nd amendment protects lawful purposes and self defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
“Wrongly decided” she said. She wants individual communities to be able to ban guns. You know, the original Ochlocracy, where minorities can suck eggs.
Even “bloomberg” the largest libturd rag there is – got it right:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/hillary-clinton-believes-pivotal-gun-rights-ruling-was-wrong-adviser-says
And yet Hillary is against it. Why would she want to overturn such a thing? Obviously so that liberationist federal level rulings can’t protect gun owning minorities in communities and states, so that the gun-hating majorities in those locales can walk all over their rights. It’s that simple.
“In striking down a longstanding handgun ban in the District of Columbia, the D.C. v. Heller ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.”
Because until then, it was unthinkable to anyone that the Second Amendment didn’t protect an individual’s right. Clearly the global socialist order has made indoctrination progress… I don’t think the Cold War is over.
Aaaaand she wants to look into the Australian
buy backconfiscation as a possible gun control measure.Declaration of Independence.
It depends on the definition of what is is
She does NOT need to abolish the 2A but can make it so it pretty much null and void if given the chance tp pick SCOTUS and Federal Judges and whatever she believes she can do with EO.
Given the growing number of weak spine Republicans, she horse trade her way to UBC.
So, no, she does not need to repeal in the literal sense, but she has plenty of tools at her disposal as POTUS to pretty make the 2A useless.
Chelsea Clinton speaking at one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign event’s is on record for saying and I am quoting here
“My Mom also recognizes the role that the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench the court had an inconsistent record when it relates to gun control. So when the next the court rules it will make a definitive ruling on gun control.”
If you don’t believe me here is the link
https://youtu.be/7tN1BzLBmxI
Please Share…
It is also interesting how the media spins Trumps comments regarding Hillary’s views on gun control….
I believe this witch really does support the Second Amendment…about as much as I believe she’s honest, straight and pro-life. The media will tell any lie necessary to get this evil creature elected.
The NRA is correct, and the Washington Post is wrong on this one.
Secretary Clinton has gone “full retard” on gun control.
1. Does not acknowledge the individual right to bear arms.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-wont-say-if-right-to-bear-arms-is-constitutional-right/
2. Favors “Australian-style” gun confiscation;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-australia-gun-ban-worth-looking-u-s/
3. Favors repeal of PPLCA to open “floodgates” of frivolous lawsuits;
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/keane-gun-liability-hillary-clinton/index.html
4. Would nominate SC Justices that “gut” Heller / McDonald;
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/27/hillary-thinks-its-a-great-idea-to-appoint-obama-to-the-supreme-court-video/
(President Obama, who relentlessly attacks gun rights & has been deemed the “Greatest Gun Salesman in History”)
Ms. Clinton is doing her best to “distance herself” from this now that she running for president in the general election, and the media will not hold her accountable — as the Washington Post so clearly proves.
I hope that huge pile of crap keels over & dies before the election–she is supposed to have a bunch of health problems–the world would be better off without Billery & Hilldawg
Other than printing her name at the end, they never mentioned her name. so the NRA could erase the name and make you “guess” who they were talking about.
Who are you going to believe, the Washington Post or your own eyes?
I know mob lawyers who don’t lie as often or as badly as the Washington Post.
They don’t have to, their clients are better behaved and more popular.
Ah, what a relief, now I know my gun rights will be respected no matter who wins. Anti-gun people must be pissed since they don’t have a major candidate now. LOL.
After the “Justice” Department told the FBI to drop the corruption probe of Hillery selling State Department favors it became clear to me that Hillary would never go to jail, as she deserves, unless Trump gets elected. Then maybe, or at least I can hope!
“Hillary would never go to jail, as she deserves, unless Trump gets elected”
Never going to happen, Obama will give full blanket pardon before he leaves office
It’s hilarious to compare WaPo’s fact-checking here on 2A to their typical job against typical Republican candidates with regard to abortion.
Same basic argument “I think a specific SCOTUS-case was wrongly decided” and in one case it turns into a giant debacle, and in the other it’s “Oh, because she didn’t say that the 12th piece of legislation she put on her desk would only allow people to keep rubber band guns in their homes, she’s not a danger to the second amendment”.
I wish Bill would give that old hag a ferocious case of the HIV.
Sure she believes in the Second Amendment. She believes the bizarro-world liberal version of it, which guarantees the government’s authority to arm its own troops, something that hasn’t been controversial since we’ve even had a word for “government”.
The Second Amendment states that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If you’re for infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then you’re not for the Second Amendment.
So basically, Wapo’s characterizing Hillary’s 2A stance as “If you like your firearms, you can keep your firearms.” Even if that were true, that’s backed by, what, her integrity? Got it.
Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is “for” gun rights is either a lackwit or a shill. Full stop.
Well, now, it depends on what the meaning of “for” is, doesn’t it?
I believe in ISIS. That doesn’t mean I think they should exist.
I’ve stayed away from ttag for awhile cause all the political bullshit.
Clinton said sometime ago that she supported a Australian type confiscation.
So what does that tell you?