Gun Control

Hillary Clinton on Guns: Not a Big Fan

The presidential candidate, who once supported licensing and registration, says resistance to gun control "terrorizes" the nation.

|

CNN

If Hillary Clinton ever gets around to telling voters her positions on controversial issues, it is not clear what she will say about gun control. Over the years, her stance has ranged from support for gun licensing and registration to an NRA-esque desire to "enforce the laws that we have on the books." Still, her disregard for armed self-defense is a fairly consistent theme. Here are some highlights since she ran for the U.S. Senate the first time:

June 1999: "If you own a gun," Clinton says on Good Morning America, "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."

July 1999: "If you have guns in your home," Clinton tells middle school students on Long Island, "tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters." Addressing the National Education Association in Orlando, she says, "It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns—and we have to act to prevent that."

June 2000: Clinton endorses a bill introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would requiire licensing and registration for handguns. "I stand in support of this common-sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun," she says. "I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing."

August 2000: Clinton endorses a DLC position statement that says the government should "require 'smart gun' technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons."

January 2008: Asked during a Democratic presidential debate whether "you've backed off a national licensing [and] registration plan," Clinton says, "Yes." She avers that "we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books" but adds, "I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again."

April 2008: "I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn't reflect the common sense of the American people. We will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands….

"What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose, I think doesn't make sense."

May 2014: "I think again we're way out of balance. We've got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time. And I don't believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people."

June 2014: "I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation," Clinton says while promoting her memoir on CNN. "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." She says she favors "background checks that work" and twice refers erroneously to mass shooters with "automatic" weapons.

Even when she was trying to come across as a supporter of the Second Amendment while running for president in 2008, Clinton declined to say whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban, which was then facing a challenge before the Supreme Court, was constitutional. Here is the exchange she had with moderator George Stephanopoulos on the subject at a Democratic debate in April 2008:

Stephanopoulos: Do you support the D.C. ban?

Clinton: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe.

This case you're referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, we don't have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate.

And Vice President Cheney—who, you know, is a fourth special branch of government all unto himself [laughter]—has actually filed a brief saying, oh, no, we have to, you know, we have to prevent D.C. from doing this.

So—

Stephanopoulos: But what do you think? Do you support it or not?

Clinton: Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Stephanopoulos: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?

Clinton: Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts.

But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them.

Barack Obama, by contrast, explicitly said the D.C. law—which effectively made it illegal to keep long guns as well as handguns in the home for self-defense—was constitutional before the Court struck it down. Then again, by insisting that guns be stored separately from ammunition, Clinton shows that she does not much care whether people are able to use them for home defense.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

280 responses to “Hillary Clinton on Guns: Not a Big Fan

  1. Oh goody. We’re going to have a conversation. I love those.

    1. Hillary’s idea of a conversation is more “sit down, shut up”.

      1. And “turn around”.

        1. “just the tip”

        2. Lean forward.

          1. Relax when you feel the pressure…..

    2. By conversation she means “listen to me lecture you like a shrill old harpy about the wrongness of your views.”

      1. What do you mean, LIKE a shrill old harpy. She bloody well IS a shrill old harpy.

      2. Holy shit, she actually is a progressive.

      3. That fuckin’ bitch is Girl Hitler……..

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rF-BO2N8hvY

      4. “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,” Clinton says while promoting her memoir on CNN. “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.”

        Funny how a minority of people are allowed to ‘terrorize’ the majority with this bone-headed ‘gay marriage’ bullshit. Funny how she dudn’t complain about that. And make no mistake, it is a minority.

        1. Make no mistake: the majority of Americans favors gay marriage now.

          http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

          And, frankly, if you’re scared of gay marriage, you’re even more stupid than the people who are scared of private gun ownership.

        2. Ve vill now hef a thoughtful conversation on how to not allow those with other viewpoints be allowed to hold those viewpoints.

    3. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing
      http://www.work-mill.com

  2. I really should buy that combat shotgun I’ve been thinking about.

    1. That was my first thought when I read this article.

      “Self, it has been almost a year since you’ve bought a gun. Think about it!”

      1. I’ve been resisting buying any new guns in an attempt to be responsible; I really shouldn’t be buying guns that I’m really not going to do much with. But man, the gun grabber scum make it so hard to be good.

        1. Yeah. I still haven’t shot my HK USC yet. It’s a gun safe queen for now.

          My kids make it really hard to have hobbies. Unless buying guns and not shooting them counts as a hobby.

          1. It can be a hobby. But it’s kind of a stupid one. I’ve done the same thing until I stopped myself and said “this is stupid, just sell the ones you never, ever play with and be done with it”.

            And I feel better for it. Though it is nice having a fucking arsenal, just because.

            1. An arsenal is like a garden. If it’s not growing, you’re doing it wrong.

              1. Having an arsenal in California is like a garden: you buy your guns and then after a period of time like ten days they’re ready to pick!

                Having an arsenal in Texas is like a take-out restaurant: you order it and somebody brings it to you and you take it home.

                1. The bigger difference is that in California people will say you have a garden with two plants. In Texas you don’t have a decent restaurant until you can feed a couple of dozen visitors.

              2. I am SOOOO stealing that line…

            2. On the other hand, is stamp collecting, beer can collecting, or coin collecting stupid?

              1. To me, yes. I find the accumulation of useless junk to be pointless and a waste of time, space, and money. If other people enjoy it, more power to them, but collecting has never held even the remotest appeal to me.

                1. I find the accumulation of useless junk to be pointless and a waste of time, space, and money.

                  I agree with you Epi. I have more guns than I probably need, so I don’t buy more. I do keep stocking up on ammo though.

                2. Then why have you spent your adult life collecting venerial diseases, Epi?

                  1. It’s more than collecting. It’s cultivating. Soon I will unleash my mutated STDs on the world and I will rule you all with an iron fist! HA HA HA HA HA!

                    Did I just say that out loud?

                    1. Iron penis is what you meant to say…

              2. Depends. Are the beer cans empty or not?

          2. My kids make it really hard to have hobbies.

            Mine still has memories of the gun game we used to play when he was little. Dance You Little Fucker!

        2. If the progs keep pushing hard as they have been during the Obama years then you isn’t be needing more guns. For attrition of progressivekind.

    2. If you can accept the weight a Mossberg 590A1 is a lot of fun. The longer barrel model holds nine 2-3/4″ shells and comes with a bayonet.

    3. I just bought my first shotgun. Rem 870 12 ga. Don’t have an 18″ barrel yet though.

  3. And Sullum breaks the alt-text streak. Put him back on the bench.

    1. Nah, designate him for assignment.

        1. PUP List

          /football terminology in beisbol season

    2. Hang on – there is alt-text now visible…and not too bad either.

      1. My god. It’s happening…

  4. We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    1. We’ve been over this. The word “militia” clearly refers to the National Guard. So the 2A gives the government the right to keep and bear arms, not the people. Don’t you know anything?

      1. I know you’re just joking sarcasmic, but this is one of my favorite quotes:

        “To deny that the right protected is one enforceable by individuals the following set of propositions must be accepted: (1) when the first Congress drafted the Bill of Rights it used “right of the people”” in the first amendment to denote a right of individuals (assembly); (2) then, some sixteen words later, it used the same phrase in the second amendment to denote a right belonging exclusively to the states; (3) but then, forty-six words later, the fourth amendment’s “right of the people” had reverted to its normal individual right meaning; (4) “right of the people” was again used in its natural sense in the ninth amendment; and (5) finally, in the tenth amendment the first Congress specifically distinguished “the states” from “the people,” although it had failed to do so in the second amendment.”

        Don B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment , 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983), note 16, at 218

      2. Yeah, their going to keep riding that dead horse until it trots out from under them. An unkind person might almost think that they had a lot of plans that depended on disarming the citizenry…

    2. Don’t you see the word “regulation” in the Second Amendment? Clearly it says the government has the right to regulate guns!

      /prog

      1. It just came to me that “prog” is a combination of “Prat” and “Frog”.

  5. I’m gonna level with you guys. I thought I was Ready for Hillary. But I’m not. I’m feeling a bit ill seeing her face all over this site this morning. If she could somehow win we’d be looking at a decade of her increasingly decrepit visage. Say what you will about Obama, but at least he’s not such an eyesore.

    1. Not an attractive lady.

      1. Which means she’s like really smart and stuff, unlike those attractive women on FOX.

          1. Of for the love of bejeebus, mahhhh eyyyeesss!!!!!! Arghhhs!! What the fuck you do that for!!!!

            Don’t click that link, don’t click it!!!!

            1. Safe for work, but bad for the soul.

            2. Thank you Hyperion, for the risk you took and the peril you’ve saved the rest of from having to face.

              1. YEah I didn’t heed Hyperion’s warning and selfless act.

                I am now a shell of a man, a used up vessel, a husk, unfit for Earth, not ready for heaven, living with Hell in my mind’s eye.

                The horror. The horror….

                *wanders off haphazardly*

          2. Why did I do that again?

            I really should read the responses before blindly clicking.

            1. I’m getting a lot of mileage out of that picture.

              1. OK, that last comment is subject to misinterpretation.

                What I meant to say was:
                This is the 5th time I’ve posted that pic on HyR, and it gets better each time.

                1. Sure it was. Why don’t you go take another fap break now.

      2. Well, not exactly ugly.

        More like exactly what you’d expect an aging apparatchik to look like.

        1. Eventually will have a fur hat, a big overcoat and wave at a parade from the Kremlin Wall?

          1. Kremlin Wall

            You spelled “National Mall” wrong…

            That would be so awesome! I’d almost welcome our horrid overlords just to laugh at the look….but I don’t think I could take being manacled in some basement….

            1. Depends on whose basement we’re talking about…

        2. Hell, “Ugly” is the LEAST of her flaws. Arrogant, stupid, careless, vindictive, absolutely convinced of her own brilliance in the face of all evidence, vapid, tiresome, petty, and possessed of the morals of three year old weasel.

          And that doesn’t even get into the claptrap she professes as a political philosophy.

          1. Why you insult weasels?

    2. I thought I was Ready for Hillary. But I’m not.

      If your anus isn’t prolapsed, you’re not ready for Hillary.

    3. She’s like the portrait of Dorian Gray. Not Dorian Gray, but the actual portrait.

  6. So, Hillary is saying we should be taking a federalist position on abortion, since what works for New York City might not work in Montana? I had no idea she was for overturning Roe v. Wade…

    Also: I complimented today’s alt-text literally 4 minutes ago. COME ON!

    1. Why won’t you think about the PENUMBRAS?!

      1. ALT-TEXT has penumbras? Are they also the same color as the background?

        1. If alt-text has a penumbra, is it a drop-penumbra? Does it work with IE 9?

      2. I actually already accepted that piece of legal handwaving just to get to the point of comparison in my previous comment…

    2. Well, she would have back in 2008, but now, of course… you’ll just have to give up your guns.

      I… man, shit. I can’t even make anything funny out of this. Man. The next 18 months are really going to suck, aren’t they?

  7. “I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but”

    SCREECH!

    1. “Get your but off my Bill of Rights.”

  8. Wait…bring back the Paul articles.

    1. This is a good Monday topic. Dozens of opportunities to blow off some steam.

      1. Or to weep at the obvious awfulness of a popular presidential candidate.

        How far we’ve fallen, Columbia. Liquor should help.

  9. “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.”

    The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

    1. hold a viewpoint

      “We cannot allow a minority of people espouse their belief in a religion which, practiced according to its original doctrines, terrorizes the majority of people.”

      1. “We cannot allow a minority of people espouse their belief in a religion which, practiced according to its original doctrines, terrorizes the majority of people.”

        You mean like… all the Abrahamic religions?

    2. Shut up and make me my gay pizza or my friends are going to burn your business to the ground, you terrorist.

    3. It’s projection.

    4. There was a time when a minority of people in this country held a viewpoint that slavery should be abolished, and that viewpoint no doubt “terrorized” the majority of people at the time. I guess Hill-dog would have been fine with slavery if she’d been around in the first half of the 19th century. Afterall “majority rules” and all that.

      1. If her and Willy could get a time machine and go back to 1800, I’m sure they’d own plenty of slaves and not have a problem with that. I bet they’d name one Barack and have him get their coffee. Half the female slaves would probably have children that look an awfully lot like Bill.

        1. That’s just exercising their natural right of droit du seigneur. It’s not oppressive, because it’s them doing it.

          1. This is the BEST. FUCKING.THREAD.EVAAR!

            Thank you,

            Your loyal admirer

    5. Agreed, Hillary. I’m glad that you’ve come around to my views on disarming police and eliminating weapon bans.

  10. “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,”

    Absolutely, yes. If you’ll open up the pocket constitution I brought you to around the middle, and read from the Bill of Rights starting at around the second paragraph… say, didn’t you swear an oath on this thing, or something similar?

  11. ” resistance to gun control “terrorizes” the nation.”

    I was waiting for when ‘terrorism’ was going to be redefined as ‘passively objecting to state control over your person’.

    I also love how ‘failed laws’ of the past, like the Assault Weapons Ban, are described as ‘progress’, covering up their lack of crime-preventing results with the suggestion that they only needed to *go farther* for the magic gun-free utopia to arrive.

    How do they even sell the “it should be illegal to have ammo stored near your gun” as a ‘common sense crime-prevention measure’, again? Politicians have this amazing ability to just slap the label, “Common Sense” onto some brain-breakingly stupid shit. cue some handwaving about “they do it in England!”, which naturally is ‘common sense’. Be more like England.

    1. +1 you have a greater chance of being killed by your own gun

      1. “being killed by your own gun”

        ‘being killed’

        i love the way the passive voice works. the gun just ups and kills people!

        that statistic naturally treats all the suicides as “someone stole your gun and shot you” for purposes of convenience.

        1. They use the passive voice because they are animists. The gun itself is supernaturally evil. It’s not just a piece of metal. It makes people violent. Its siren song entices them. And it can actually do things on its own. Just being around it is terrifying to them, because they think it’s…alive. It has power. BOOMSTICK HAVE BIG MAGIC

          They’re fucking cavemen. We’re dealing with people who have the approximate sophistication level and reasoning skills of a caveman.

          1. You’re being a little harsh on Cavemen. They were smart enough to utilize fire. These people would have been trying to ban it, by discussing how the cave drawings made 5 years previously were being misinterpreted and how man holding fire meant only tribal leadership.

          2. We’re dealing with people who have the approximate sophistication level and reasoning skills of a caveman.

            “I’m just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me.”

          3. We’re dealing with people who have the approximate sophistication level and reasoning skills of a caveman.

            *Throws down boom mike, points*

            NOT. COOL.

        2. Hell, they treble the number of gun deaths by baking in suicides, a trick only slightly less mendacious than “1 in 5 women in college…”

    2. …”they do it in England!”, which naturally is ‘common sense’. Be more like England.

      Especially ironic considering we fought a revolution to break away from those limey fucks.

      1. trebly ironic in its reference to Thomas Paine

    3. Hi gilmore,

      What’s the homicide and suicide rate in the uk and how does it contrast with those rates in the U.S. This must be one of those special situations where one country has a homogeneous population compared to the U.S. And we can’t be instructed at all by relative outcomes.

      1. Homicide rates: UK 1/100K US 4.7/100K

        Suicide rates: UK: 11.8/100K US: 12.6/100K

        So what’s the relative outcome? Show your work.

        1. The UK also has the higher overall violent crime rate, though how much higher is up for debate due to the different reporting techniques. There’s also the fact that damn near no one was murderered annually in the UK before they banned guns. But yeah, guns are the problem.

          I’d buy the whole “homogeneous population/different culture” argument before any argument as to why progressive gun control meccas in the US are awash in violent crime, whereas rural areas with the highest per cap gun ownership almost universally have no crime whatsoever. Apparently retards like AmSoc, Shannon Watts et. al. think that these guns are funneled from “easy access” areas to heavier gun control areas, and only become animated killing lifeforms sometime in between.

      2. Hey Amsoc

        Please explain why the murder rate in Maine is lower than the UK, why the violent crime rate is something like 30 times lower in Maine, there is a 50 + % gun ownership rate, there are no bans or waiting periods for gun purchases here, and we are a “shall issue” carry permit state?

        The difference in sexual assault rates makes it look like the UK is a UVA frat house.

      3. Hi amsoc,

        At what point did you find that backing statistics that don’t support your argument is not a good way to win an argument? Or have you?

    4. I also love how ‘failed laws’ of the past, like the Assault Weapons Ban, are described as ‘progress’, covering up their lack of crime-preventing results with the suggestion that they only needed to *go farther* for the magic gun-free utopia to arrive.

      That kind of reasoning works for progressives for stimulus programs, fiscal policy, financial and environmental regulation, and foreign policy. Why wouldn’t it also work for gun control?

  12. The typical libertarian solution to guns and drugs and stuff is simply to say you oppose substance control laws.

    However, that will leave open things like the bomb 😀

    I believe thi needs a libertarian answer to it

    1. English, please

        1. Obviously, the problem with our gun laws today is that they allow so many people access to Nuclear Weapons.

          Its one thing that we have these occasional ‘mass shootings’, but few people have acknowledged the growing problem of citizen-detonations of thermonuclear devices.

          It is clearly logical that we need to impose stricter limits on the second amendment to address these preventable atomic-bombings, as well as the increased use of Bazookas in cases domestic violence.

          Anyone who disagrees is obviously insane

          1. word, GILMORE. word

          2. I saw a hidden video taken by Bloomberg supporters showing one guy selling another guy an all black, pistol grip with folding stock nuclear weapon in the parking lot of a gun show! Until we close the loophole this will continue!

    2. My baby, she’s the bomb.

    3. However, that will leave open things like the bomb 😀

      I believe thi needs a libertarian answer to it

      Already done! 😉

      1. Clearly the individual for whom you provided a link is a gun-worshipping loony.

        Who hates the children.

        *returns to website to read more of tarran’s posts*

        1. *returns to website to read more of tarran’s posts*

          Good writing, even it I don’t always agree with them.

          1. Thanks, guys! I mean it!

            I had a lot of fun writing them.

      2. On bombs, jet fighters, etc:

        They are expensive to build, and of limited use. They require a significant amount of industrial infrastructure, including hundreds of factories,hundreds of engineers, and thousands of workers to build, maintain and support them. In the absence of significant consumer demand for these superweapons, all those resources would be invested in other more profitable ventures… It is far better that we allow these weapons to fail on the market place than to outlaw their ownership.

        1. There are a handful of billionaires that could afford to fund those types of systems (especially given that development and production costs would be perhaps 1/10th the government procurement costs).

          1. And those billionaires want nothing more than to strafe random villages with 30mm cannon fire

            1. It’s not random.

              You hit a few buildings, and the inhabitants take off running.

              You fire occasionally into the fleeing groups to spur them to flee as fast as they can.

              The inhabitants will spread out, with the younger children falling behind the able bodied adults, but getting ahead of the elderly and infirm. *Then* you strafe in earnest, concentrating on the main body of young fit adults and the rearguard of the elderly.

              And then you send a helicopter in to harvest the freshly created orphans.

              1. Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?

                Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don’t lead ’em so much! Ain’t war hell?

              2. This sounds like a good idea for a mobile video game.

      3. Nice. My “more reasonable” position has always been “whatever the police have, I should be able to have.” I see modern police as being much more akin to the domestic threat the Founders saw. Granted, that places much faith in the uniformed services that they will refuse to obey an unlawful or unconstitutional order.

        1. “SO YOU SUPPORT POLICE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEN?!!! SEE, EVERYONE, THESE SECOND AMENDMENT PEOPLE ARE NUTS!!”

          1. Police Report: “Suspects were pulled over for a broken taillight. Request to search vehicle and occupant anuses was denied. Suspect made furtive movement. Threat was posed. Nuked entire site from orbit…it was the only way to be sure officers would make it home safely.”

        2. I’ve always liked that principle as well.

          They tell us that we “don’t need assault weapons to feel safe”, so why do the police get not only the common firearms that politicans call “assault weapons”, but actual full-autos and beyond?

          If the police need these kinds of weapons to square off against some domestic threat, how is it OK to deprive citizens of the same thing? After all, we’re facing the same threats, right?

          1. NNS anyone?

        3. Fuck that. Where does it say that in the 2nd amendment, you fascist.

          1. Better question, cocksucker: where DOESN’T it say it in the constitution? The constitution is there to constrain the GOVERNMENT and what it can do to us, NOT the PEOPLE. So fuck you, commie kid. You’re wrong.

            And I love how you become a real constitutionalist when it suits you. You’d scrap the whole thing if you could, you little fascist cunt.

            1. I’m just giving you shit. I don’t think there should be a constitutional right to possess a firearm. I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea that people should have a right to own a gun– neither am I opposed to the idea that local communities should have the right to outlaw them. I know, I know… My apathy about gun ownership gets me thrown off the Libertarian Mothership with its hipsters and e-cigs. My loss, I guess.

              1. Funny. YOU don’t think there should be a constitutional right to own a firearm but the people who actually wrote the constitution, who pretty much made it all up from whole cloth, thought it was important enough to include that specific right.

              2. There’s not,/i and “constitutional right” to possess a firearm. There’s a constitutional restriction prohibiting the US government from infringing on that right.

                Common mistake. You should read more of the Federalist Papers.

                … Hobbit

                1. Tej,

                  So what?

                  Hobbit,

                  A distinction without a difference?

              3. Lying sack of dog vomit. You hate guns you just “kid” about it to “fit” in.

                1. I can 3d print my own AR-15 lower or even fully functioning firearm now. Metal 3d printed firearms are starting to proliferate, and there’s absolutely nothing you statist shits can do about it. You can’t stop the files from being torrented all over the interenet.

                  And even before that I was making firearms from home. With 30 minutes, some iron pipe and hand tools I can make a slamfire shotgun. Most of my guns now are unserialed home builds. And because we have guns, we’re not afraid of shit heads like you trying to come and take them. It’s a catch-22 like that. So keep clutchign your pearls AmSoc, you cowardly little shit.

              4. Who cares what you think? You were never on the “Libertarian Mothership”. As a socialist, you’re about as anti-liberty ideologically as one can get.

      4. Other than the state simply prohibiting it to people like it may do/does with guns or drugs ?

        Please tell me.

  13. The biggest threat she poses is nominating someone to the Supreme Court who’ll consider the 2A with something less than strict scrutiny.

  14. A former bootlicking employee of the Clintons interviewing a Clinton?

    Yeah, I’m going to take that seriously.

  15. “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.”

    Wait, a minority can’t hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people? That sounds pretty authoritarian and deranged, wouldn’t you say?

  16. Hillary’s not anti-gun. She doesn’t want you to have guns, but she totally wants terrorists in Syria to have guns. So see, she’s divided on the issue.

  17. I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation

    I was going to go off on this, in that it always means, when said by liberals, “you’re wrong and you’re gonna be forced to think how I think,” but a couple of you have done it well already.

    “Let’s have a conversation about this” is what your parents say to you before they revoke your car keys and ground out.

    1. Notice that they never want to have a “conversation” on abortion.

      1. It’s shocking that no reporter or debate moderator has ever called them on this.

        Wait. Nope, not shocking at all.

      2. They don’t want to have a conversation on guns either. Or race.

    2. Don’t call them liberals ! They aren’t. I know this is hard at first but I’m almost there.

      Libertarians are the real liberals …. descendants of the classical liberal.

  18. so basically, she’ll lie when taking the oath of office, if elected.

  19. Still, her disregard for armed self-defense is a fairly consistent theme.

    Well, she gets an armed guard. That’s all that really matters.

    We will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right

    Arbitrary words are arbitrary. Also: **reads second amendment** **scratches forehead**, I have never seen where there is an exception that would legitimately allow for “balance”, regardless of what “balance” means in her mind.

    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.

    100 million people with 300 million guns. And I hope both numbers grow.

    In closing,
    Fuck off, you evil, mendacious, totalitarian wench.

    1. I’d add that the people with guns aren’t the only ones who hold their viewpoint.

      Also, nice of her to throw around thoughtcrime as terrorism.

      1. Also, nice of her to throw around thoughtcrime as terrorism.

        I noticed this as well. Any halfwit opposing campaign manager *should* be able to make minced meat of her by simply using her own words in full context and discussing the implications. That said, I doubt the R’s have the will to do so.

  20. “You don’t need guns for self-defense – just have your bodyguards protect you while you sleep.”

  21. The whole “smart gun” thing idea is such bait for progressives. It’s “advanced”! Just mandate an expensive technological burden on other people, and the problem is fixed!

    OK, maybe not entirely fixed, but alleviated.

    OK, maybe not alleviated, but at least we’re trying to do something!

    1. It’s amusing to challenge them on this: ask them, if this technology is so good, you will demonstrate your leadership by having your bodyguards be the first to adopt it, right?

      Several years ago when the governor of MD proposed such a thing I was able to get a call through on C-SPAN to ask him that. I got great satisfaction from watching him squirm; he desperately wanted to say “fuck no, it’s just for you stupid peasants!” but knew he couldn’t.

    2. The GD frame lock in lightweight Smith and Wesson revolvers have activated themselves while firing thus rendering the firearm (1) inoperable and (2) inoperable with a round in the chamber.

      I own a GunVault password safe. The plastic gear in it broke a few years ago so it only now works with the key. If I owned a gun then I would need to keep it outside of the GunVault when I was sleeping to ensure reliable access if needed. Of course I only keep my SEIU union card in there but if I owned a gun.

  22. What this conversation needs is some Crazy Joe

    Biden kicked to the side, left to pitch donors for Obama

    1. Biden was never going to be a serious contender in Dem loony land anyway. So now the Dems are almost full in for the worn out old bag. The only ones left are O’Malley and Warren. I think the dems are totally fucked, but who knows, it is always possible that the Stupid Party will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again and nominate Bush.

      This is what the Dems are counting on. They’re going to run their entire campaign expecting to run against Bush. Softball question in the debates, Hillary and Bush agreeing on everything but disagreeing cordially about how they disagree and then Hillary is crowned queen for an easy 8 years, protected from any hard scrutiny by the liberal media.

      This is what they envision. Maybe a Bush can be king again in 8 years.

      If the country is really that stupid, they’re going to get just what they deserve, taking the rest of us along with them of course.

  23. Let’s face it. No matter if Hillary comes out as a bigger anti-gun warrior than Bloomberg, this cannot hurt her with Democrats. That’s the one thing that team blue are united in, is their hatred of the 2nd amendment. So there is only good for her in going full on gun hate.

    So here’s her pre-chosen platform that she can build on:

    Anti 2nd Amendment

    War on women

    Pro-abortion

    Pro-gay marriage

    Those are the big sacred 4 to get team blue votes. They’re the required. The rest you can make up as you go. The 2nd item on that list is losing steam so there could probably be a better fill in for it. Just pick the most divisive thing imaginable and that’s probably it.

    1. No matter if Hillary comes out as a bigger anti-gun warrior than Bloomberg, this cannot hurt her with Democrats.

      And blacks.

    2. No matter if Hillary comes out as a bigger anti-gun warrior than Bloomberg, this cannot hurt her with Democrats.

      And blacks.

      1. A bit redundant. I doubt it helps her with the small proportion of blacks who are not Democrats.

        1. Oops, I read that wrong.

          Coming out strong for gun control could cost her black votes? support for gun control is down amongst blacks:

          Over the past two years, blacks’ views on this measure have changed dramatically. Currently, 54% of blacks say gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety, nearly double the percentage saying this in December 2012 (29%).

    3. You forgot income inequality.

      1. I want a woman who demands $300,000 plus a private jet and a hotel suite for a speech, to fix the problem of income inequality.

        1. She has the right intentions. Does anything else matter?

          1. That she’s a Democrat. But other than those two things, nothing else seems to.

      2. The Defining Challenge of Our Time?!

    4. No matter if Hillary comes out as a bigger anti-gun warrior than Bloomberg, this cannot hurt her with Democrats. That’s the one thing that team blue are united in, is their hatred of the 2nd amendment.

      That may be true on the coasts. All those bluish states in between beg to differ.

      There are shit-tons of pro gun democrats.

      1. Would a pro-gun Democrat vote for a Republican? That’s the only question that matters.

        1. “Would a pro-gun Democrat vote for a Republican?”

          Maybe not, but pro-gun moderates would vote overwhelmingly for the Republican and the pro-gun Democrat might stay home.

          The Democrats lost two safe seats in the Colorado assembly entirely because they went after guns. One of those districts was 60% Hispanic and went for Obama by 20 points.

          1. Minor correction: They lost 2 seats outright and a *third* senator resigned rather than face recall and hand senate control over to the R’s.

        2. Would a pro-gun Democrat vote for a Republican? That’s the only question that matters

          Not necessarily, but they might stay home instead of voting.

        3. Would a pro-gun Democrat vote for a Republican?

          In MT…certainly.

          In Ohio, Nevada, PA….perhaps, but are likely to just stay home.

      2. This is why going after guns is a massive loser for Democrats and they’ve pretty much backed away from the idea since the ass kicking they took in Colorado.

    5. “. So there is only good for her in going full on gun hate.”

      No. Colorado. Nevada. W.Va. etc.

      Bad issue. If anything, drawing attention to her consistently anti-gun attitude hurts her in places she needs to win. and doesn’t help her in places that are already in the bag.

      1. As an early ploy, it isn’t a horrible one. She can rail about guns for a couple weeks, get the base’s panties wet, then drop it like an ugly orphan and forget she ever said anything on the subject.

        “What? What? Guns? Oh, that’s such a tired issue, and one I think we settled comfortably in our earlier conversation. Let me tell you what voters are concerned about in the now.”

        I agree with you though, staying on this course is fruitless. She might be able to do without Colorado, but only if she can count on other purple states.

    6. No matter if Hillary comes out as a bigger anti-gun warrior than Bloomberg, this cannot hurt her with Democrats.

      Actually there are a lot of blue-collar union members who go deer hunting every fall.

  24. What I favor is what works in New York.

    Define “works”.

    1. It works for her, and really, that’s what’s important. Her. Not you, fuck you. Her.

  25. Yeah, well what does she think about Roses?

    1. Everything was roses, when we held on to the guns.

  26. “I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again.”

    A lying sack of shit then and a lying sack of shit now.

    Fuck you and your Secret Service for life protection.

    1. It’s for a good cause. Somewhere in the middle east, there are some poor moderates who need those assault rifles.

    2. maybe deaths at hands of police?
      http://www.usatoday.com/videos…../25730719/

  27. I think Democrats have learned in recent years that gun control is a losing issue that will be extremely damaging to them in swing states like Colorado, Ohio, Nevada and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. I’m sure there are people on Hillary’s campaign that are smart enough to reaize how idiotic it would be to die on that hill.

    1. Exactly. Hillary may have once had beliefs, but those long ago withered in favor of ambitions. She’s smart enough not to make too much noise about guns while rednecks in Pennsylvania and Ohio care about them.

    2. She’ll put herself in a bad situation if she doesn’t go anti 2nd. The left wing of the democratic party demands this. She doesn’t have much to lose in doing it, IMO, because no Republicans are going to vote for her anyway and most dems are anti 2nd.

      I don’t think Hillary really wants a run off against Warren or anyone else of the left wing. Even though I don’t think Warren can beat her, Hillary doesn’t have it in her to survive the beating that she’ll endure. And it could alienate enough of the progressives that they will not vote for her. She can’t afford that.

      Regardless, she’ll be lucky to make it through anything other than the kindest and gentlest of debates. She’s too old and unhealthy, she can’t survive a brutal campaign.

      1. If she survives a true left-wing primary challenger she’ll likely do so by wading into the 2A morass (and others) that will be fodder for her opponent in the general election.

      2. She’s always been conversationally retarded, ineloquent, and generally clueless. Get somebody like Rand Paul to kick her a response at a debate, and she’ll break like straw.

        1. She wouldn’t debate him. No fucking way. He’s a fringe lunatic. No way she’ll stoop down to be in the presence of a crazy person like him. Same with anyone connected to the TEA Party. Fringe lunatics. Give her a serious candidate to debate. And by serious I mean a centrist Republican who has the political sense to avoid any controversial topics.

          1. Nothing is as demonstrative of integrity and conviction as a deliberate, calculated avoidance of genuinely challenging opponents during a presidential election for command of history’s greater power.

      3. because no Republicans are going to vote for her anyway and most dems are anti 2nd.

        I disagree about most Democrats being anti-gun or anti-2A. The truth is that there are a lot of conservative Democrats and independents in the Rust Belt and Western states I mentioned that get turned off by gun control and the coastal elitism it reeks of. Democrats aren’t winning any elections if they alienate those people.

        Also, it energizes the hell out of the conservative base and gets them out to the polls. Recall what happened to the Democratic pols in Colorado who voted for gun control, they got recalled by a grassroots campaign.

        1. The second-strongest Paul supporter I know is a registered Democrat. As weird as it is, these people do exist.

        2. That was local. Federal elections tend to have a different vibe.

          Finding myself surprisingly excited about her candidacy. So far, it feels like she is going back to her true reason for entering politics. Maybe Chelsea will help keep her on track. I feel like I WANT her to succeed – to the White House…but I want her to be honest with us. I don’t need a candidate I agree with 100%, but if she truly wants to be our champion, I have certain expectations!

          Good luck, Hillary! Earn my vote!

          (And don’t forget to have fun with it. People like that. )

  28. You know who else is Ready For Hillary?

    1. Sooper Mexican is funny. I follow him on the Twweeetterrrrz for the lulz

    2. joe from Lowell?

    3. Oprah’s lady friend Gayle King?

  29. I’m building anther 1911.

    Just because.

  30. A totalitarian hoplophobe advocating her totalitarian hoplophobia? Somehow, I’m not surprised.

    Eat shit, Clinton. Come and take them.

    I thought Democrats were proponents of affordability. Are they not?

    http://s29.postimg.org/520g8shiv/Affordability.jpg

    1. I love to bring up how gun control (largely the effort of Democrats) has driven up the price of guns and ammo in some areas. Democrats always claim to support the RKBA, but then they propose things like a 50% tax on ammo, permits with fees, and bans that cause the prices of certain guns to skyrocket in accordance with the laws of supply and demand.

      These are the same people who say that asking for ID at the polls is “racist” because a licence costs, like $20, and no black or hispanic person is capable of rustling up that much money at once; therefore, anyone who wants to see ID at the polls is a closet KKK member.

      What happens to this when it comes to gun rights, something that Democrats claim to support? All of a sudden, bans on “Saturday night special” guns are not only non-racist, but something good that should be replicated nationwide. For the Children?.

      1. True, except they object to voter ID even when it’s free.

        1. Onli a right winger thinks a govt regulation is free

          1. I meant “free to the user” in the sense of no charge, not counting the overhead of the bureaucracy. Duh.

            1. Only a right winger would thing a free govt regulation is really free

  31. Speaking of: When moral panics collide.

    Not only are there guns at the NRA convention THERE ARE HOOKERS TOO!

    At no point do they actually provide any evidence of sex trafficking. Basically, some hookers are hanging out and some of them say they’re 20 but could pass for underage (though we have no evidence they are underage), therefore there must be tons of sex-trafficking victims.

    It’s just logic.

    1. They’re still trying to sell the idea that the NRA’s infested with inbred, pedophilic neo-Confederates.

      1. The best part is when they quote a craigslist ad from a 42 year old man looking to have consensual sex with people at the NRA convention and somehow conclude this is evidence of sex trafficking.

        Apparently no one in Tennessee is allowed to have sex while the convention is going on or they’re tacitly supporting sex-slavery.

        1. They’re hoping that their readership is as systematically retarded as they are. Logical inconsistencies aren’t a concern.

          1. I have to give them extra negative points for the implied pedophilia. That was just desperate and sad.

  32. You know who else is Ready For Hillary?

    That guy from Goatse?

    1. Thank you for not providing a link.

  33. “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.”

    What view is that? That law-abiding Americans are just as law-abiding whether they are armed or not? That lawbreakers will break the law, regardless of whether or not the law tells them they cannot possess firearms?

    P.S. How much armed security does Hillary have around her right now? Just wondering.

    1. Dozens, likely. Hundreds, if you count the police infestation that accompanies public appearances.

    2. That law-abiding Americans are just as law-abiding whether they are armed or not? That lawbreakers will break the law, regardless of whether or not the law tells them they cannot possess firearms?

      Yes. That view right there.That view discounts the magical powers of guns, laws, and placards. You see, thinking people understand that guns have magical powers that cause untrained people (non-government actors) to use them in evil ways, that laws magically prevent crime, and that placards magically prevent guns from entering gun free zones.

      To say that those things are not magical terrorizes the majority of people.

      1. Agency is a horrifying thought. There are plenty of things scarier than personal responsibility – Warty, plagues of frogs, running out of barbecue sauce before you’ve run out of ribs – but it’s the sort of fear that has you waking up in a cold sweat at 4am. The notion that one must make thoughtful choices and then pay the consequences for one’s actions, is an unforgiving, oppressive stifling of our inner spirit.

        We cannot be truly free until magic replaces agency.

        /where’s muh trophy

        1. MY LIFE FOR YOU!

          /bumpty bump!

          1. + 1 Trashcan man

            1. Chibola!

    3. She has a Secret Service detail as the spouse of a retired president.

      According to a friend who attended the same college and went to their reunion last year, there was a secret service detail following her around.

    4. Soo… All thise poeple who voted for state constitutional amendments limiting marriage aren’t being subject to minority tyranny? Becuase they are being just as terrorized (ie not at all) by the sweep of minority justice.

  34. We cannot allow a VIEWPOINT.

    A statement such as this should be sufficient to torpedo any political campaign. Instead it incites the FREEDOM IS SLAVERY true believers (in either party) to wild enthusiasm.

    1. To allow other people to think differently is to accept the inherent possibility that one might be wrong. And that is both unpossible and unthinkable. Next thing you know, people might be acting on those thoughts, and you know what happens then? Space aliens rape us and harvest our organs.

      1. Space aliens rape us and harvest our organs.

        Go on…

        1. If Hillary fails in her noble quest to stamp out viewpoints and prevent the Extraterrestrial Fuckening, you must be ready, Warty. You will be our only hope.

          1. When Warty’s you’re only hope, you truly are past hope.

            Then you will know True Horror in its purest form, unmasked with no Earthly veil to dull its features. Then you will know Death. Then you will know Sta-Puft Marshmallows. Then will know Ultimate Evil.

            1. Jesus fucking Christ – really? REALLY?

              When Warty’s you’re only hope,

              THIS IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!111!!!!!!!

    2. You can’t have a tolerant society until you stamp out all intolerant ideas and viewpoints.

      1. Ahh. I see you are a student of tolerant totalitarianism. If Comrade Stalin were wrong, you’d be free to disagree with him, however…

  35. Selling some stock to buy a 1911 (finally) and an AR (finally). One fell swoop, fuck it.

    Cause.

    I blame Hillary.

    1. There’s never been a better time to invest in companies involved in manufacture of waterproof airtight containers designed for burying valuables and essential tools underground for long periods.

  36. One of my friends just bought an Auto-Ordnance 1911; the basic GI shooter model. He likes it.

    1. Don’t buy one. Build one. Google “rudius” from Ares Armor… OTB…

      Enjoy!

      CB

  37. June 2014: “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,” Clinton says

    Lefty-speak to English: “Be thoughtful: agree with me.”

    1. “Lefty-speak to English: “Be thoughtful: agree with me.” ..or else.*

  38. As if the last 8 years of a Hillary presidency weren’t damaging enough.

  39. Only in America is the gun crowd so insane that they think we need 3x more guns than any other nation on earth. What in god’s name are the afraid of, given that it costs us 10,000 deaths a year?

    1. Very few are saying more guns. Very many are saying stop treating guns like drugs, because all that does is create a market for the associated crime (believe it or not but only a very miniscule fraction of a percent of people who posess guns commit crime with them). And while we’re talking about mishandling drug policy, that 10k murder rate is outcome #1 of that failure.

      1. Wrong. We have 3x more guns than any other country. We have the murder rate to match. Why is NO other country so heavily armed. What are you terrified of?

        1. We have 3x more guns than any other country. We have the murder rate to match.

          Have you included the numbers of those murdered by their own government?

          Additionally, comparing crime stats from one country to another is, largely, an apples to oranges comparison because each exists with a totality of differing circumstances. It is better and more honest to compare a country to itself. For instance, compare crime stats in England from before and major gun control legislation. Then, get back to us.

        2. My state has more guns and far less crime including murders. Your data is invalid.

    2. GO fuck yourself, slaver. That comment has inspired me to buy ANOTHER AR!!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

      Oh, and 1000 rds more ammo!

      I already GOT PLENTY OF MAGS!!!

    3. What in god’s name are the afraid of, given that it costs us 10,000 deaths a year?

      Assholes like you?

      1. As articulate a response as gun nuts are capable of. Devoid of logic. Reeking of hysteria. Thanks for proving my point

        1. In the 20th Century government agents murdered about 250 million mosy unarmed civilians.

    4. Afraid of other people? You realize that only individuals can possess and use guns, right? That “we” collectively have 3x more guns doesn’t mean everyone who wants one is armed to the hilt.

      Also, why not? If people like ’em, let people collect ’em.

  40. Repellant. Is that an ok word I can use to describe her or is that also coded sexism?

  41. “Hillary Clinton on Guns: Not a Big Fan”

    Well played on the understatement there.

    April 2008: “I respect the Second Amendment.” “Because it keeps biting me in the ass.”

  42. Well, my guns aren’t really a big fan of Hillary either.

  43. If people have guns, they may disobey their rulers. Obviously, a power-grubbing cunt like Hillary opposes this.

    -jcr

    1. The U.S. Right hates our military so they think the’ll stage a coup. Disgusting

      1. Fuck off, dumbass…

  44. Our right wing gun nuts think America is so violent we need 3x more guns than any other nation on earth

    1. Piss off troll.

  45. I think she likes guns when (1) they are being transferred from North Africa to Syria and (2) when they are being used to stage a suicide of a former failed business partner.

  46. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do….. ????? http://www.netjob80.com

  47. like the comments by the Police Chief in Cleveland, liberals never actually address the issues but always blame the guns. Guns are not the reason the 1 yr old was shot by his brother, irresponsible parenting is why he was killed. Who leaves a loaded gun out in the open with toddlers in the house? answer: idiots. Progressives teach kids that guns are some malevolent entity that at anytime can jump out of a drawer, or off a shelf and begin shooting people at will. My daughter went to school in DC for a year and was amazed how many of her classmates at GWU actually thought this was reality. They did not grasp that unless a person pull the trigger, a gun is just a hunk of metal because kids are taught guns are evil and people who have them will kill you the first chance they get because we are all crazy.

  48. like the comments by the Police Chief in Cleveland, liberals never actually address the issues but always blame the guns. Guns are not the reason the 1 yr old was shot by his brother, irresponsible parenting is why he was killed. Who leaves a loaded gun out in the open with toddlers in the house? answer: idiots. Progressives teach kids that guns are some malevolent entity that at anytime can jump out of a drawer, or off a shelf and begin shooting people at will. My daughter went to school in DC for a year and was amazed how many of her classmates at GWU actually thought this was reality. They did not grasp that unless a person pull the trigger, a gun is just a hunk of metal because kids are taught guns are evil and people who have them will kill you the first chance they get because we are all crazy.

  49. And we thought Obama was responsible for the largest sale of semi-automatic weapons in history. Wait until Wacko Bird Hillary gets in, gun manufacturers won’t be able to keep up with the demand. Time to buy stock.

    We really should give credit to the socialists for uniting the rest of us. When the civil war comes, guess which side will be better equipped? Guess which side is going to lose. Bring it on!

  50. She doesn’t hate guns, she loves invading, conquering, and shooting other countries up with guns and bombs, she just hates her slaves in america having access to guns, because the demonic elite know their reign of evil would be over in a blink of an eye if free humanity ever organized against her and her satanic ilk.

  51. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detail…. http://www.navjob.com

  52. A bit off-topic but American Thinker decoded the symbols from the Democrats
    http://www.americanthinker.com…..crats.html
    And here an edited pic of Hillary’s campaign logo.
    http://www.americanthinker.com….._4_48.html

  53. Clinton has made her views clear on Gun Control. June 17th, 2014. Clinton said those who oppose gun control hold a view that terrorizes that majority of Americans. http://time.com/2891821/hillar…..n-control/

  54. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  55. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  56. What a brilliant plan Mrs. Clinton has come up with. Let me get a hand gun, but keep it locked up and unloaded with the safety on, and keep the ammo locked up separately. That way, when someone breaks into my house or attempts to rape me, I have to hurry up and unlock the gun, unlock the ammo, load the gun, make sure the safety is off, and fire. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I’m sure I won’t get raped or robbed in the meantime.

  57. What a brilliant plan Mrs. Clinton has come up with. Let me get a hand gun, but keep it locked up and unloaded with the safety on, and keep the ammo locked up separately. That way, when someone breaks into my house or attempts to rape me, I have to hurry up and unlock the gun, unlock the ammo, load the gun, make sure the safety is off, and fire. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I’m sure I won’t get raped or robbed in the meantime.

  58. Dems always “mistakenly” call semi automatic tactical rifles “automatic military assault weapons”. This is no different than the claim people like Paul Begala still make about Glock pistols being “undetectable” when passing through a metal detector. Liberals do not want to stick to facts about guns because to do so refutes their entire argument. They know background checks will not stop terrorists and criminals from buying guns because they buy them on the black market, not from a FFL. Gun control is about control, not guns. Disarm the people and the government can do anything it wishes.

  59. Libertarians oppose substance control …. of which drugs and guns are two.

    Libertarians need a clear response to how this would apply to things like like bombs and nuclear weapons.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.