Gun Control

Hillary Clinton Picks a Doomed Fight With Americans Over Guns

Future President Clinton may well impose new restrictions on guns. Getting Americans to obey them will be a tougher trick.

|

"Yesterday, once again, this time horrifically on live television," says Hillary Clinton in a video on her presidential campaign website, "we saw the terrible consequences of gun violence." As it turns out, she's not talking about civilian deaths from drone strikes or bombing raids on hospitals by the U.S. government, but instead about a criminal shooting spree in the United States. Sure enough, the Washington Post pointed out last week that one of Clinton's signature issues heading into the general election is tightening restrictions on the ownership and use of guns by Americans.

That's a tall order in a country where gun ownership for recreational shooting and self-defense is wildly popular. Nobody knows for sure, but the best estimate is that there are north of 300 million firearms in private hands in this country. The ownership of those weapons is closely intermingled with the concept of personal liberty and resistance to abusive government in the minds of a great many Americans, as documented by scholars who both approve and disapprove of that association. Unsurprisingly, federal lawmakers from both major parties are hesitant to wade into the issue, either because they share the aversion to restrictive gun laws, or because they're leery of voters who do, and who are wont to collect scalps on election day. Just last November, analysts attributed aggressive advocacy of gun control as the key to Democratic losses in Virginia's legislative races.

But Hillary Clinton has a plan.

"If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action" on restrictions, her campaign boasts. The Washington Post adds that that a President Clinton would be "relying on the executive power of the presidency to further gun restrictions that would have little chance of becoming law."

Some people might balk at a president who threatens to rule by decree when Congress insists on exercising its constitutional right to approve and disapprove legislation, but maybe that's a bit old fashioned in our senescent republic. Still, a potential President Clinton's gun control agenda is likely to founder no matter how many strokes of the pen flow from her desk because of the opposition of the very people to whom they're supposed to apply.

"Australia is a good example" Clinton told an audience a few months ago. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward."

That country's 1996 law may well be a good example, but not of the sort the presidential candidate has in mind. In a country that lacked America's heavy political associations with gun ownership, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia estimates compliance with the compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns at 19 percent.

Independent assessments agree. "In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities," concluded Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria.

Looking closer to home, the prospects for Clinton-decreed restrictions are even more dismal.

Clinton favors requiring "universal background checks" that would cover private sales between friends and neighbors that inherently take place out of public view. But when Colorado adopted such a requirement, the results were underwhelming, with the Associated Press finding 13,600 actual checks performed in 2013 after 210,00 had been predicted by a legislative impact assessment.

"The numbers are pretty clear here," Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) commented in 2014. "There's no increase in private transfers for background checks, which means either there aren't very many private sales, or what is much more likely people are just ignoring this law."

When New York, a state Hillary Clinton once represented in the U.S. Senate, required residents to register the popular military-styled semi-automatic rifles often termed "assault weapons," the law achieved maybe five percent compliance. "Empire State gun owners are largely ignoring one of the signature elements of the watershed legislation," the New York Daily News concluded last year.

A similar law drew perhaps 15 percent compliance from Connecticut residents, prompting the editorial board of the resolutely anti-gun Hartford Courant to moan that "widespread noncompliance…creates a headache for the state."

How much Tylenol will President Clinton need when the whole country ignores her schemes?

Not all of the measures Clinton favors require the public's cooperation. She wants to "repeal the gun industry's unique immunity protection"—the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms—which was enacted to protect gun makers against politicized lawsuits intended to penalize them for the acts of criminals who acquired and misused their products.

As even rival Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) objects, "If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree."

A lot of other people will disagree too. But bankrupting gun makers with frivolous lawsuits could enact a de facto ban on the commercial production of new guns for civilian ownership, if the courts cooperate.

But even the expanded power of the modern presidency isn't up to repealing that law on its own. She would require a majority in Congress to make the gun industry vulnerable to legal kneecapping.

And such a move would do nothing about the 300 million guns already in private hands, except to tighten their owners' grips on their property. Cutting off commercial production also wouldn't end the manufacture of guns by enthusiasts—a task ever-easier in the age of 3D printing and CNC milling machines.

Hillary Clinton thinks she's found a formula for winning the presidency by attacking gun rights. But her chosen attack on a cherished freedom picks a fight with millions of Americans—and with reality.

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.

274 responses to “Hillary Clinton Picks a Doomed Fight With Americans Over Guns

  1. People that vote because of gun-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting. I’m for a poll tax which consists of the acknowledgement that you are much safer without having a gun in your house and that a fight between a populace armed with Colt45s and a professional army that has F-16s and nuclear weapons is likely to go south pretty quickly.

    1. What’s irrational is your fear of guns. Hoplophobia. You should get that treated. And read Economics in One Lesson while you are in the waiting room.

    2. “a fight between a populace armed with Colt45s and a professional army that has F-16s and nuclear weapons is likely to go south pretty quickly.”

      Ah, this old yarn. Government stops nation-wide insurgency with nuclear weapons. Sounds like a resounding victory for your future overlords.

      1. The idea of the government killing millions of its own citizens gives Commie Boy a massive chubby.

        1. He should go back to banging sheep.

      2. I can see the headlines now. America Destroys Self: Poor And Minorities Hit Hardest

      3. This assumes the army would turn against the populace.

        Maybe in places where the military is applied as often against the populace as against outside enemies (ie, most places throughout history), but America and other modern nations have cultivated the notion of the “citizen-soldier”.

        You’re more likely to see the police turn. They’re taught that the populace is an unruly mob they need to control, completely separate from themselves.

        1. I came here to say this, but my work has been done for me.

          +1

          1. Second.

        2. Some will, some won’t. The question is how many for each.

      4. Recent military experience proves him wrong anyway. Lightly armed resistance fighters can make a much more heavily armed occupation untenable politically. And the American people are armed much more heavily than others.

        1. This. Because we wiped out the Taliban in like a day with our F16s

    3. “People that vote because of gun-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting.”

      People that vote because of speech-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting.
      People that vote because of privacy-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting.
      People that vote because of due process-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting.

      Nothing like a good round of Totalitarian Mad Libs?.

      1. People that vote because of speechunwillingness-to-pay-their-mortgage-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting.

        Fixed for relevance.

      2. I laughed so hard because of this. Thank you.

    4. Tell that to the Afghanis (and the Vietnamese, and the etc. just Google it), douchebag.

      1. No shit. I fought in Afghanistan. The Taliban won. The idea our very small army could suppress even 10% of the population if they revolted is ludicrous.

        1. No shit. I fought in Afghanistan. The Taliban won. The idea our very small army could suppress even 10% of the population if they revolted is ludicrous.

          Well, not without killing 10% of the population.

          1. But you’re talking about government doing the killing, so odds are good it’s going to kill the wrong 10%

            1. Naw, they’ll kill the right 10%.

              Hear me out. With the “lowest troop levels since WW2” right now, the US military can only occupy and control the few major metropolitan areas (they will want the most bang-for-the-buck in terms of numbers of infantry controlling numbers of civilians). The major metropolises are stuffed chock full of leftists and progressives.

              But the major cities are so large that they can’t do much more than position troops along the major highways and control ingress/egress. So the result will be that these leftists will be trapped in their own big cities, along with the ready-to-loot Free Shit Army (aka #BlackLivesMatter and #OccupyWallSt) who will bust into their neighborhoods, ready to kill, rape, and steal.

              There won’t be enough troops to stop the killer looters, and most leftists are personally unarmed, so they will die by the thousands. That’ll be your 10% dead.

              1. Ever consider how much of the military will comply with orders to kill their friends and neighbors?
                Oathkeepers!

                1. There was no shortage of such soldiers in These States in Lysander Spooner’s day. The fear of being arrested for not obeying–or summarily shot for “treason”–appears to have been a powerful incentive.

              2. I would certainly hope that the military wouldn’t follow such orders but if they did the results would be disastrous.

                Where is all the food and ammo for the guys in the cities going to come from when they don’t control the parts of the country that produce such things? Sure, they can airlift stuff in for awhile, but when the airlifts run out of stuff to bring in… well it’s over.

                Simply put, a war “against the people” is not one the government has any chance of winning. Sure they can raise a lot of hell and kill a bunch of people but ultimately they lose and face the fire squad or the gallows. That result is inevitable.

                1. Logistics will always win.

                  1. God fights on side with heaviest artillery. –Robert Heinlein
                    Still… I remember a verb, fragging, just before Tricky Dick Nazi Nixon was shown the door by his comrades in the looter kleptocracy. Fragging… it kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

          2. Yeah, but there is this thing called a war of attrition. There would be a fuckload more people to kill than soldiers willing to kill those people. Of that i can assure you.

            1. Did you mean politicians willing to order soldiers to kill people or be arrested and court-martialed?

              1. Frag the people giving the orders.

              2. No. What i mean is, let’s be generous and say 1/3rd of the current active duty military was fully on board with jackbooting around shooting US citizens. That’s roughly 400k. Now, there are roundabouts 100 million gun owners in the US. Now let’s say 5% of those would be willing to take up an armed revolution against the US. That’s 5 million “insurgents”. That means the US military would have to kill basically about 11:1. If i recall, that’s roughly the kill ratio in the middle east of us to insurgents. Now, that’s a bunch of relatively untrained people vs the domestic “insurgents” would be reasonably more well trained and well equipped, not to mention more organized and knowledgeable of us military operational procedures, etc.

                That’s all assuming that the remaining 2/3 of the military doesn’t defect to the otherside taking equipment with them.

                Now, let’s follow it further down the road. So once the soldiers who say they are willing to follow that order start getting casualties, and every 8 or 9th hosue they storm and breach they lose 1 person. They’re going to start questioning really fast their desire to continue on this course of action.

        2. I use that example all the time. I literally point out at how effective dumb shit untrained afghanis and iraqis were/are and then think about that same type of insurgent situation in a US city where it would be almost impossible to tell who is a “domestic terrorist” and who isn’t. Then mix in the fact that most of these people are at least moderately trained, and in a situation like that would be in constant training by ex military defectors and retired personnel.

      2. The hilarious part is that Mao and Che would also disagree with him. He is like most American socialists: he doesn’t know anything about socialism and thinks it just means “lotsa free stuff”.

    5. Not if the professional army consists of your neighbors and relatives. You will have to call the UN…

      1. The National Guard would side with the populace.

        1. No, they wouldn’t. Want proof, go watch the videos of them taking weapons away from people who had committed no crimes in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.

          The Army and National Guard (by extension) are trained to follow orders question and for the most part will not take into account what they are doing goes against the Constitution.

          The Marines on the other hand get it drilled into our heads that you do not follow illegal orders unless you want to be held accountable in the aftermath.

          1. Now that you’ve established your superiority in times of rebellion via EGA maybe you can think through the difference of Katrina and national revolution.

          2. Go fuck yourself. We (Cav Scouts, the guys who are already there when you have to go into dangerous places) were trained not follow illegal orders. Hell, we learned OJT not to follow stupid orders.

            Fucking Marines, always thinking they’re special snowflakes.

        2. Prophecy? Meh. I’ll put my money on fragging… for one thing, it’s a regular verb, has a good beat, easy to dance to… I like it!

      2. And those blue helmets/berets make a wonderful aimpoint.

    6. If my govt picks a fight with me, malt liquor is the first thing I’m gonna arm myself with.

    7. All I want you to do is stop lying. Stop saying you’re “apathetic” when you clearly have an opinion on the matter. Move one step closer to honesty.

    8. The silver lining to the remote possibility of you getting the system of government that you want is the knowledge that you’ll be among the second group of people put up against the wall.

    9. “a fight between a populace armed with Colt45s and a professional army that has F-16s and nuclear weapons is likely to go south pretty quickly.”

      False dichotomy.

      And. Think your think through to its logical end. It means you have no right to defend yourself if someone has a bigger gun than you.

      You’re irrational.

      1. Of course he’s irrational, otherwise he wouldn’t be a socialist.

        1. Personally, I don’t buy it for a second. The positions AmSoc spouts are all over the place. He is whatever he thinks will get attention in the here and now.

          When he’s not here, he’s pissing people off on Facebook by pointing out the libertarian argument for Trump. Or the metaphorical equivalent.

          1. “pointing out the libertarian argument FOR Trump”?!

            What kind of drugs must one take for something like that to make sense?

            1. OK, but this ain’t gonna be easy: The reason for chuckling at Trump while I vote the Libertarian Party ticket is that Trump’s infiltration is prying the alien antiabortionist off of the face of a helplessly incompetent Republican Party, since 1928 given over to spawning more disgusting, slimy mystical aliens via a tube thrust down it’s throat by the Prohibition Party.

              With the aliens safely removed and splattered in a stain of fuming acid, the GOP will respond even more smartly to the repeal incentives in the form of Libertarian spoiler votes. The drug that makes sense of the chuckling is a cocktail mixure of historical records and statistical induction.

        2. Or a mystical conservative… even worse.

      2. Obvious solution: Get the biggest guns.

        Simple.

        1. You can. All those folks who operate the big guns gotta take a shit some time.

    10. Successful armed revolutions occur when the military refuses to carry out the orders of their government. Which is exactly what will happen should the president order airstrikes and nuclear bombardment on their own populace.

      1. No, No, you are wrong. Just like the progressives, the military would love to nuc the red states !!!

        1. He pays no attention that most of the silos and bomber bases are in red states.

          1. Largest military reservation in the lower forty-eight is deep in the heart of Texas – a very red state.

            1. Texas’ Pantex plant cranks out socialist-splattering hydrogen bombs tipped with Rocky Flats fission triggers. I do recall that German National Socialism provided the incentive for Szilard, Teller and Einstein to suggest to FDR that it might be better to have atomic bombs and not need them than need them and not have them.

          2. Silos are dead meat. Another thing that did not bode well for the Soviets is that anyone with a high-powered rifle can take out a boosting ICBM a mile away. Who knows enough ADA to rewrite subroutines for targeting the other side of the North Pole… nah… besides, bioweapons would make a populace docile to them that have the vaccine.

      2. Syria for instance.

    11. Yes, AmSoc, but let’s be honest – you’re an idiot.

      1. Socialism is a religion, and impervious to fact. More productive than namecalling is to point out that the reason SDI wrecked Soviet National Socialism was that the commies could not trust their own pilots and submarine skippers with retargetable weapons. They therefore had to rely on easily interceptable ballistic missiles, and their whole initiation-of-force system collapsed. Article VI, paragraph 2, specifies only that the treaty-making power takes precedence over “anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Furthermore, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article I allows the states to defend themselves if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” This was hashed out in Physics Today beginning the April 1986 issue. Search “Unconstitutionality of the ABM Treaty”

        Socialist attacks on the Second Amendment are the entering wedge for nuclear annihilaton of the “stock exchange plutocracy” they so fear and despise. Meanwhile the tilting distracts attention form taxation, asset forfeiture and other destroyers of a free economy.

    12. You’re even dumber than I thought if you think that military members (many of whom are private gun owners) have any interest in fighting the American public, especially over gun rights.

      1. The same government that said, “No, you can’t have your guns on base, because it’s not safe. Oops, a jihadi loose on base just shot a bunch of your buddies; tough luck about the workplace violence.”, now says, “Here’s your gun; go shoot a bunch of Americans.”

        How’s that going to work out?

      2. The Dems have as much hope of repealing the 2nd Amendment as God’s Own Prohibitionists have of reversing Roe v. Wade and repealing the 14th Amendment to replace it with one that says “All ova fertilized in the Christian Reich of Amerika…” The 14th contains the “Shall not be questioned” that gives Congress a blank check drawn on tax and tariff revenue.
        Mystical tilting at symbolic windmills is opium for the masses. It deflects attention from what the looter kleptocracy is doing and keeps manipulated morons happy.

      3. That’s why they want robots.

    13. I’m for a poll tax which consists of the acknowledgement that you are much safer without having a gun in your house

      Perhaps you are, since you’re an idiot. That has no bearing on what the correct choice is for me. And it’s not up to you so you’re just going to have to get over it.

    14. So might makes right? Sounds legitimately socialist to me.

    15. I’m sure the entity behind AmSoc would like to thank you all for making it the most successful and responded-to troll since PB and Tulpa. Has a way to go before reaching *rather* proportion, though.

      1. Seriously. It posts 10 seconds worth of drivel and gets jerk material for 8 hours.

      2. I can’t believe you’ve forgotten everybody’s favorite agriculture hating gamboler…….ladies and gentlemen I give you reason.coms favorite son…….White Indian!

        1. Dumphy FTW

    16. So, taxing people who don’t hold government approved opinions. What could go wrong, since correct opinions are fixed in stone?

      Jebus, you are an idiot AmSoc.

      1. What if I wanna use the Ladies room, is there gonna be a tax for that?

    17. a fight between a populace armed with Colt45s and a professional army that has F-16s and nuclear weapons is likely to go south pretty quickly

      -1 Taliban
      -1 Iraq insurgency
      -1 Mogadishu

    18. You speak prog really well.

      1. You talk like a prog, and your shit’s all retarded.

    19. “that a fight between a populace armed with Colt45s and a professional army that has F-16s and nuclear weapons is likely to go south pretty quickly.”

      Oh yea, cause those kinds of weaponry work REAL well on insurgencies. If you think that the government is going to use nuclear weapons on top of its own logistical infrastructure, then you’re either an evil lunatic or a fucking moron.

      1. you’re either an evil lunatic or a fucking moron.

        I’m gonna go with “both.”

        1. Nonsense: he’s just repeating a tired old argument originally made,by somebody who either had no knowledge of military history, or expected that his audience was ignorant in that regard. The “what good are firearms going to do against tanks” narratve has been repeated so often thatbthe people who repeat it no longer think about what it says. It’s an incantation. It means, essentially, “shut up, I explained”.

          What puzzles me is, does he MEAN it? Is he actually that stupid?

          1. All you need to turn a tank into a stationary object is use a mechanical trap or an explosive device to break track. Of, like they did in WW2, build tank traps. Six guys can do that in ab half a day.

            1. More,to the point, one does not administer a satrapy from tanks, nor live in them. The government stooges who impliment the whims of the ruling class will always be vulnerable to firearms.

              1. Armour/armament of state ‘reps’ in a given society are great barometer of underlying quality of said society. More than any aggression, the paramilitary theater level on standard display describes a state’s fear of its own people.

    20. “…a fight between a populace armed with Colt45s and a professional army that has F-16s and nuclear weapons is likely to go south pretty quickly.”

      (Points to Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Vietnam….)

    21. Fuck off, slaver.

    22. Government should be funded exclusively by poll taxes. It would remove a lot of externalities from the system.

    23. The real issue isn’t guns per se. The real issue is; will the government stay within Constitutional limits, or will it weasel around the restrictions until they are meaningless?

      We know the answer Ms. Clinton favors: limits to pewer are for other people. Which is why she shouldn’t be dogcatcher, much less President.

      1. The deal is that if they can just convince us that the government has both the constitutional power and the duty to decide which Americans qualify for one right it then obviously has both the constitutional power and the duty to decide which Americans qualify for every right. Guns aren’t actually the issue, they’re just the stepping stone used to ultimately turn the bill of rights into the bill of privileges.

        1. Bingo.

        2. They already are! Remember us being told by our masters that our rights aren’t unlimited ?

    24. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link ====== http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

    25. Only the research that states you are safer in your house without a gun was discredited in 1986, and the new studies show you are as much as 3-4 times likelier to stop a crime with a gun in your home than without.

    26. Tell that to the colonial army. And the Vietcong. And the Taliban (twice).

      Those who don’t know history are doomed to be socialists.

    27. 1. Constitutional Right, go suck a lemon.

      2. The terms of art you are patently ignorant of are “asymmetrical warfare” and “guerilla warfare”.

      3. “The populace” is armed with AR-15’s, AK-47’s, FAL’s, M-1A’s, M-1 Garands, SKS’s, and similar rifles. An order of magnitude more have a scoped rifle good for 500-1000 yard shots, if the shooter is up to the task. Every single house in the land is equipped to make IED’s. We have a sophisticated communication system that can not be interrupted without crippling the national economy.

      4. If you think the government is willing to use F-16’s and nuclear weapons against its own Citizens, it’s well past time to have a revolution, be it political or by…. more strenuous means.

      5. Your Fascism is noted.

      6. Do you intend to volunteer for the confiscation teams? If not, why, and who will you hire in your place?

    28. Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

      …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. ”

      If you disagree with or don’t like this,you live in the wrong country. you need to move somewhere else.
      This is a basic tenet of America. a core concept.

    29. “I’m for a poll tax which consists of the acknowledgement that you are much safer without having a gun in your house”

      We should start with no guns in the whitehouse. Lead by example. Having armed protection obviously makes the president less safe.

    30. LULZ.

      The military that can’t defeat an enemy in A-Stan that never numbered more than 60K, and could never attack their logistics is going to win against millions of Americans here at home that can overrun bases and disrupt logistics on a massive scale?

      Further, do you have any idea what’s actually in the an officer’s or enlisted oath? The Constitution, not the President, not the government, not the Congress, not some part of the population. It’s the Constitution.

      You’re completely delusional.

    31. Hard to tell if this is what the poster really “thinks”, or if it’s a parody of leftist thought.

      Here, however, is a hint.

      Come what may we won’t be shooting *soldiers*.

    32. You’re absolutely right…
      Perfect example?
      Look at Chicago.
      Obamaland.
      Some of the Strictest Gun Laws in the Country.
      No murders or shooting sprees last time I checked.

      That being said, Washington Elite and the Secret Service Need to disarm based on your argument.
      Obama doesn’t need secret service protection according to your thesis. Correct?

      How much is the anti-gun legislation paying you to cut and paste this cut and paste response?
      Or are you a bot?

    33. The fact that you’re stupid enough to believe that 1. The US military would immediately start jackbooting around shooting civilians that have been labeled domestic terrorists by the gov’t and 2. That they would use fucking nukes on our own soil killing thousands of innocent civilians is frankly hilarious.

      You are literally a retard if you think any of that will happen. Most of the military actually hold their oath to uphold the constitution with some reverence and respect, and most of them would consider it an unlawful order. Even working under the assumption that they did just up and follow those orders lock step, what you and a bunch of your dipshit anti gun cohorts don’t seem to understand is that a good potion of those people in the “militias” are highly trained ex military. The ones who aren’t are being trained by highly trained ex military.

      All you have to do is look at how effective insurgents are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and these are generally untrained people who are basically handed a rickity old shitty AK-74 or AK-47 and told to go fight. Now, think of that happening in the US where you have people who have spent their entire lives shooting as a hobby and hunting, etc, who are being trained by ex military.

      Whole different ballgame.

    34. Screw the First Amendment… I’m for banning scum-sucking pieces of fascist shit like this turd. Ignorance should NOT be given a soapbox.

    35. The Army has F-16s? No, but Colt45 works every time.

    36. Also sprach der Fuehrer. Nazionalsozialist Kristallnacht, 9 Nov. 1938

    37. Another gun banner with a hatred of all civil rights.

    38. “People that vote because of gun-related issues are irrational and probably shouldn’t be trusted with voting. ”

      Pretty transparent – the gun-controllers want to ban your guns because they want to impose dictatorship. Of course, we all know that. At least AS is honest enough to admit it.

  2. Getting Americans to obey them will be a tougher trick.

    Why would you think that they want people to obey the laws they pass?

    Breaking laws makes you a criminal, which makes you an easy target should you prove an enemy of the Top Men.

  3. 5% compliance with the SAFE act seems high. Where does that estimate come from?

    1. I don’t remember exactly where the 5% number came from, but when Cuomo and the press were touting the SAFE Act, they were saying it was going to cover approximately 1 million “assault weapons” in NY State. I’m sure that number included guns like the Ruger 10/22 because Cuomo & Co are mendacious shit bags and they think all semi auto rifles are AR’s & AK’s (and they don’t care). I believe the compliance rate was based off that “1 million” number by Cuomo.

  4. the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia estimates compliance with the compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns at 19 percent.

    Well, Australia was *founded* by criminals, wasn’t it?

    1. No, it was founded by jailers, peopled by criminals.

  5. “Then, they basically clamped down, going forward.”

    Serious question: Why is everything “going forward” and “fighting for X” with the Dems? It’s like the DNC *requires* use of these phrases.

    1. Because it’s progress. If you’re not going forward then you’re going backwards. Or stagnating. That’s what conservatives do. Must… move… forward… to a Brave New World.

      1. If you’re not going forward then you’re going backwards.

        Like, “Make America Great Again”?

        1. What ? Don’t you want to make “America Great Again” ?!?!?!?!

        2. That’s going backwards.

          1. To elaborate, America isn’t supposed to be “great.” That’s arrogant and unfair. America should be equal with the rest of the world. That means a lower standard of living and stuff, because inequality isn’t fair. So going forward, we should be less prosperous. Being more prosperous is going backwards.

            1. Maybe even not equal, at least until we pay reparations to the rest of the world.

            2. The standard of “the rest of the world” is pretty goddamned low. Why not be great? It might inspire emulation.

      2. ” Must… move… forward… to a Brave New World.”

        That is no shit. That is what this whole bathroom kerfuffle is all about…destroying the culture and devaluing the individual. You have no right to privacy, self-defense or dignity.

    2. I hate “going forward”. What’s wrong with “in the future”? They seem to have adopted the lexicon of corporate executives.

      1. Well… most corporate execs of publicly traded companies got appointed via a board… so… political and public in nature… you connect the dots…

  6. ‘Forward’, ‘progress’ and ‘common sense’ means different things to the left than it does for the rational. To them it means ‘do as we say or else’.

    1. Actually, for a worrying percentage, it means “Do as we say or we’re going to lie in he floor shreiking and drumming our heels like thwarted four year olds.”

      “Do as we say or else” is, on some levels, rational. Toddler tantrums aren’t.

    2. In a conversation with a British “leftist” he kept saying his opinions were simply those had by “anyone sensible” – he repeated this often. They use words understanding their own singular meaning and do so on purpose. This makes it very easy for him to think that anyone who disagrees with him for any reason is being irrational and not sensible…and therefore can be dismissed. Tactic of the left.

  7. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

    1. Do your girls like ….. photography guns?

  8. I have seen the terrible consequences of Hillary Clinton’s support for unjustified wars and the racist war on drugs

    Hillary Clinton is a racist war monger.

    1. Hillary Clinton is a self-absorbed twit who believes, on no real evidence whatsoever, that she should be the leader of the free world. If she were a racist or a warmonger I would actually be LESS worried. Racists are predictable, and warmongers tend to know something about the use of military force. Hillary is motivated entirely by her self-importance, and hold the military in contempt. She is, therefore,,entirely too likely to get us involved in military adventurism in a fit of pique, and to mismanage it badly.

      1. I will edit – Hillary Clinton is a self-absorbed racist war monger twit who believes, on no real evidence whatsoever, that she should be the leader of the free world.

        1. Hillary isn’t racist, she’s classist. She believes, bone deep, that anyone not belonging to her little self-selected elite is inferior. Genetics has next to nothing to do with it. Simlarly, she isn’t a warmonger. A warmonger foments war because he sees some end that bloody war will help him achieve. Hillary will blunder into war the same way Obama has; blindly and ineffectually because she (like Obama) kniws next to nithing about military history, strategy, or tactics – and most of what she does know ain’t so.

  9. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ========== http://www.MaxPost30.com

  10. If Hillary want’s to ensure losing the election, she will make this a centerpiece of her campaign. Nothing will get the disgusted-by-their-choices electorate out to the polls like the opportunity to vote against the candidate that blatantly threatens to take their guns.

    1. I dunno. Anti-gun policies will get a good portion of the urban vote, which is the majority of the population and electoral votes.

      1. She’s going to win those areas anyway.

        1. True.

      2. Electoral history shows that anti-gun promices don’t drive turnout among the anti-gun crowd the way it drives turnout among the pro-gun crowd. It’s almost as if a policy that has personal impact is seen as more important.

      3. Moot point since the urban vote is already her’s. This position will turn her narrow wins into losses in the south and midwest. The anti-gun position cost Gore is home state of Tennessee in 2000.

    2. It’s kind of amazing that they keep trying the gun control thing. It’s pretty clear that outside of progressive urban strongholds, Americans don’t want significant restrictions on gun ownership or use. Americans do seem to want more gun control than I would like, but nothing like what Hillary and others of her ilk like to push.

  11. Some people might balk at a president who threatens to rule by decree when Congress insists on exercising its constitutional right to approve and disapprove legislation

    Yes, there’s literally millions thousands hundreds several of us and we’re all right here and we’re all voting Libertarian. Everybody else only balks at executive fiat by the Bad Guy. The Good Guy, see, he needs that sort of power to fight the Bad Guy so they’re totally cool with it then. It’s a special power to be used only until the current crisis is settled. Unless a new current crisis unexpectedly pops up. And nobody expects that to happen.

  12. It’s like Hillary is trying the drive up my Ruger stock. Thanks Hilldog. I thought with Oblama leaving office the firearms sector was going to cool, but you guys rock! At this rate I’ll be able to retire early.

    1. …trying to…

  13. From H’s site: While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. That is unacceptable. It is a rebuke to this nation we love.

    Emphasis added. Could there *possibly* be something else involved in the “gun violence”?

    1. Like the fact that more than half the number killed are actually suicides?

      1. Guns make suicide easy. Take them away and fewer people will kill themselves. Duh. All reality-based people know this.

        1. Suicide is relativel easy with or without guns. The idea that gun control laws lower the suicide rate has been extensicpvely debunked.

    2. What are you talking about? These people are killed by guns! Those guns just jump up and kill people! Or they magically cause hands to grasp them and send deadly projectiles into unsuspecting victims! The guns are the problem! Take the guns away and 33,000 lives will be saved each year!

      1. These people are killed by guns! Those guns just jump up and kill people!

        Apparently gun-tsukumogami are born faster than ones from something like an umbrella.

    3. “Killed by guns” has a few problems, including assuming sentience and intent on the part of guns and including suicides.

        1. That’s different. Driving a vehicle is a basic right. Owning firearms is not. Duh.

          1. Actually owning firearms is a right. (See 2nd Ammendment). Owning a car is not a right. It’s a privilege.

            1. hint… look at the username

            2. Do you realize that he’s having a sarcasm from what you just wrote?

        2. I read something a long time ago that asked something like: Imagine an advanced alien race gave us a technology that would make life substantially more interesting, fun, and convenient, but the cost was a blood sacrifice of 30,000 people a year. You’d say “no,” right? And then go get in your car.

      1. “Killed with guns” would be better (and an acknowledgement of the large proportion of suicides in there). But “killed by X” is a pretty usual way to describe a death than involved X.

        1. How often do you see “killed by cars”?

          “Killed by” is overwhelmingly used in reference to disease and the like.

          1. Tonight on classical grammar showdown: the Ablative of Means vs the Ablative of Manner.

            1. Stop saying weird shit!

    4. I wonder how many will suffer from gun violence is Hildebeast gets her way on guns? My guess is that she will take a cue from other gun banners: the CDC will revise the numbers pre-Hillary by moving a decimal and then redefine how incidents will be counted to make it appear that gun violence has dropped.

    5. many law-abiding communities

      Where are the non-law-abiding communities? Besides Warty’s house.

      1. I would like a Black Lives Matter person to ask her that question.

      2. Warty doesn’t obey laws of physics, thermodynamics, any number of other natural laws. Why should laws of man be any different?

      3. Right now, I would say Chicago. 8 murders & 41 shootings over the last weekend. In a city with STRICT gun control! What we really need is CRIMINAL control.

    6. “this nation we love”? I’m gonna need some verification on that one.

    7. two-thirds of that “33,000 killed by guns” were suicides,people who voluntarily chose to shoot themselves. Suicides are means-independent,if they don’t have a gun,they find some other way to kill themselves.
      Thus,they DON’T COUNT.

      “progressives” are intentionally dishonest,they pad and distort their “data” to mislead the public.

      While there’s over 300 million guns in civilian hands in the US.gun violence has been DROPPING steadily,even with the addition of millions of new guns and new gun owners.

      If they were really concerned abut gun violence,they would be working on black single motherhood,that raises many many FERALS that do this violence and crime.
      Minus black gun violence,the US numbers would be comparable to or even lower than the Euro nations the anti-gun lobby loves to cite.

    8. Well a tad over 66% of those 33K are suicides, so… well you figure it out.

  14. President Clinton would be “relying on the executive power of the presidency to further gun restrictions that would have little chance of becoming law.”

    Such as disarming the Secret Service?

  15. “Some people might balk at a president who threatens to rule by decree when Congress insists on exercising its constitutional right to approve and disapprove legislation, but maybe that’s a bit old fashioned in our senescent republic.”

    “Senescent” has the same root as “senate”. Old and grey.

    Did you know the Roman senate continued to meet for some 600 years after Caesar Augustus took power? Our senate will continue to do that, too. Scholars will look back and argue about when we ceased to be a republic–even while Congress continues to meet and vote on things. It’s just that their votes won’t really matter anymore.

    We may have already crossed that line. Congress is becoming less and less relevant We just need an Augustus to really assert himself.

  16. “Still, a potential President Clinton’s gun control agenda is likely to founder no matter how many strokes of the pen flow from her desk because of the opposition of the very people to whom they’re supposed to apply.

    If only that mattered.

    Barack Obama signed a climate change agreement treaty without any input from the Senate specifically because the treaty was unpopular.

    ObamaCare was unpopular when it was passed, and became increasingly more so when it was rolled out. They rolled the damn thing out anyway.

    Have you noticed all the trouble the drug war has caused? Millions of people harassed, their rights violated, thrown in prison, all at enormous expense and loss of life. Is that the kind of difficulty you expect from Hillary’s war on guns?

    It wasn’t enough to stop the drug war; at least, it hasn’t stopped the drug war yet. Why would it be enough to stop the war on guns?

    1. Perception. Even my well educated friends get uncomfortable around the mention of drug use. In practice gun talk doesn’t upset them all that much, regardless of the liberal slant they share.

    2. Perception. Even my well educated friends get uncomfortable around the mention of drug use. In practice gun talk doesn’t upset them all that much, regardless of the liberal slant they share.

  17. HRC, aka “The Blob” per Ben Rhodes, is focusing on securing her nomination with her “base” of supporters. Once she has that cinched I fully expect her to “evolve” her position on just about anything depending on which way the wind is blowing. Just consider how she has either changed her position or “misspoken” on any number of issues. Of course there will be gun control on anything she touches because she is a progressive Democrat, but what she will adapt it to whatever gets her the votes she needs just to be in power.

    Anyone who takes this monstrosity at face value is worse than a fool.

    1. I wouldn’t expect any different from Trump.

      He was in favor of soaking the rich with income taxes yesterday morning.

      He was against that sort of thing again by yesterday afternoon.

      1. Hedge your bets and assume the worst for either of them. My choice in an election usually comes down to “who will cause me the least damage?” This election is like one of the childhood conundrums, along the lines of “would you rather slide down a razor blade into a bucket or turpentine or chew your way through a mountain of shit?”

        I almost always vote third party/ protest vote any way. At least I feel better about it, and don’t have to hold my nose while doing it.

      2. We are faced with a choce between a clown and a scold. I’m voting for the clown. We might as well go out laughing…..

  18. Mrs. Clinton. Black Markets, how do they work ?

    1. She would label you racist for calling them “Black.”

      1. And thereby, in line with longstanding Progressive tradition, avoid grppling with the question in any important way.

  19. But Hillary Clinton has a plan.

    I don’t doubt it. Will she call it a “GosPlan”?

  20. So that’s her swing state strategy? Completely alienate every gun-owner in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada? Good call Hillary – you really are the worst politician ever.

    1. Don’t worry, her commitment to expanding Obamacare to cover illegal aliens and bringing in Muslim refugees will surely be popular with voters!

  21. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity for all. make 87 Dollars per hour and Make5500 Dollars per month.All you just Need an Internet Connection and a Computer To Make Some Extra cash.

    ————- http://www.Review80.com

  22. Hillary Clinton is a dumb cunt.

    1. I like the way you think; quite poignant.

    2. Gozer/Cthulhu 2016

      1. Is it too late to get on the libertarian ticket? Is it even worth the transdimensional travel?

  23. Low compliance rates make me happy in an abstract sense, but Hillary’s gun laws will still fuck up my life. Having a gun that I can’t take out to the range, can’t compete with, and I go to jail if I use it in self defense, doesn’t do me a lot of good.

    1. Agreed; which is why we must continue the politics of obstruction and, as albo so aptly puts it one comment below, be “stupid libertarians and Republicans standing in the way of a peaceful utopia free of guns.”

  24. Stupid Libertarians and Republicans standing in the way of a peaceful utopia free of guns.

    1. Took the liberty of quoting you one comment above. I quoted and cited you according to APA standards.

  25. Just stopped by to point out it’s an electoral loser, but alls Hillary needs are 5 benevolent robed ones to reverse Heller.

  26. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link ====== http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

  27. In contrast, Trump’s Second Amendment position paper on his website sounds pretty good. So much for the “They’re no different from a libertarian point of view!” argument.

    1. True, but there are 2 main problems there:

      1, we have no idea if he’s telling the truth. Literally, no idea.

      2, if you’ve decided to be a single issue voter over guns in order to defend all our liberties, you’re basically admitting that it will require a civil war in order to restore them, and though an unfortunately likely scenario, it’s one most people don’t want to actually include in their plans…

      1. 1. If person A says the right thing inconsistently, and person B says the wrong thing consistently, it’s rational to choose A.

        2. I am not a single-issue voter. I think Trump also has other advantages over Hillary.

        1. 1. If, and only if, there are no other options (false choice fallacy).

          2. Which are?

          BTW, I agree that in the short-run, Trump would be better than Hillary, if only because we could prepare better for the coming war due to government created economic collapse (or attempted disarmament). Then again, it’s “better” for a patient to be stabbed in the kidney rather than the heart!

          1. 2: Wants to reduce regulation, not increase it; more likely to appoint non-leftist judges; less likely to bow to the SJWs, wants to reduce illegal and Muslim immigration, not increase it.

      2. As regards point 1, we do, on the other hand, know that Shrillary if lying; her lips are moving.

      3. I have always argued that the reason for the second amendment is to guarantee all the rest but when are we going to actually use it? How much do we need to be pushed around before we start that war?

  28. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity for all. make 87 Dollars per hour and Make 52512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an Internet Connection and aComputer To Make Some Extra cash.
    Visit this link…… …. http://www.Reportmax90.com

  29. Religion is dying because of education. The cult of the gun will also die when people are educated to understand that this religion,like all others, is useless

    1. Retard says what………

      1. Do conservatives even make a pretence of making sense?

        1. This is a Libertarian website dipshit. Why not waddle over to Huffpo to spout your idiocy? They’ll love you there.

          1. Or Mother Jones

    2. Hasn’t stopped the Cult of the State…

  30. What Clinton and others of her ilk fail to realize, there being no such fools as those who choose to neither see nor hear that which they do not agree with, is the following. That millions of Law Abiding Americans place a higher value on their constitutional rights than they do on the polemics regularly produced by political climbers of either Democratic or Republican persuasion, or it so seems to me. Will they ever learn? Probably not.

  31. The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ ?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+”supremacy+clause

  32. Marxists and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

    The Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media whores tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    American Thinker

    1. These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

      Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.

      Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

      American Thinker

      1. The fact it was Weimar Germany, not hitler, who disarmed the population is a fact ignored by the gun cult.

        But I’ll administer the coup de grace to this argument by asking these fanatics just WHO do they think will take us over? They won’t answer of course. They never do

        1. Whoever you’re voting for, apparently.

        2. False.

          Coup de grace is a full round action, and I’m ruling that the natural 1 you rolled on your Wisdom check used your move action.

          You still have a standard action, though.

        3. Yes, you’re correct. Some good reading that may disturb your narrative just a little:


          How the Nazis Used Gun Control: The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil

          Quote:
          In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

          In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued.

        4. Re who enacted the laws, it was, as you note, The Weimar Republic. It was Hitler’s regime that put the previously enacted laws to such good use.

          As to your closing question, here is one possible answer. A government that gets to big for it’s britches. Curiosity leads me to wonder as to your thoughts on this.

        5. Alan@.4|5.13.16 @ 4:48PM|#

          bupharic:

          Re who enacted the laws, it was, as you note, The Weimar Republic. It was Hitler’s regime that put the previously enacted laws to such good use.

          As to your closing question, here is one possible answer. A government that gets to big for it’s britches. Curiosity leads me to wonder as to your thoughts on this.

    2. Proof that th main defenders of the gun cult are paranoid fanatics who stand ourside the western tradition. As delusional as any fanatic they manufacture enemies as a profession

      1. Private gun owners would have to work really, really, hard to kill more innocents than western governments have during our war on terror and drugs.

        Additionally, Western tradition in tricky. Read up on WW1 and get back to me about the fine tradition of the Western world. Colonialism was also pretty swell for the indigenous people.

        Honestly though, what it comes down to is you should support guns. I’m going to stereotype like your doing and suggest since your a little skinny jean wearing hipster bitch that a firearm might be a better option than finding out you can’t take a punch during a break in. Of course, I imagine you live in an ivory tower were violence only happens on tv….

  33. yes, but she means well….

  34. Passing any law, or issuing any executive order, which has no change of being honored or enforced is foolish and builds very bad habits in the government’s subjects. A nation convinced that it’s own government is violating clear constitutional rights is not healthy, indeed it is dying.
    Gun hates can sometimes be ambivalent, gun owners threatened with confiscation most are not, and vote.

  35. I would be happy if she did try to pull some of this shit so the SCOTUS would fucking smack her down. Even with Scalia gone, there is no fucking way they would rule that holding the manufacturer liable is legally ok. Not even a fucking snowball’s chance in hell of that happening.

  36. Devils advocate here. What if governments were originally formed to protrect tribes from hostile tribes? Woulnt a leader in that situation be beneficial? Have we evolved much beyond that point? WWII was only seventy years ago.

    1. A society can (and will) have leaders without governments.

    2. Leader, not “owner”. A fine distinction that often gets lost.

  37. I guess what I’m saying is monarchy now seems more conducive to individual liberty than democracy. In ancient Rome the emperors were easier to get rid of than the senetors. The senate class was entrenched, the emperor would just be assasinated by the praetorians or wives. None of the Julians lasted more than five years except Tiberius.

  38. Now in a democracy we get eight years of Obama.

  39. i dont count Augustus cuz he was the first

  40. i dont share ure optomisme mf

  41. anyway u look at it there are flaws? Here’s the three that always stymie me. What do u do with children? Doesnt land that god made belong to everyone? What about mentally ill dying in the street? I run with a smart crowd so they always hit me up with on variation of these three.

  42. I must admit my answers are woeful.

  43. Im a theist thats why i have a patriculary hard time answering 2 and 3.

  44. the logical conclusion of libertarianism is anarcho capitalism.

  45. And supposedly the people who objected to Obama hoovering up all that yummy dictatorial power were just being paranoid.

  46. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $94 per hour.

    I work through this link..

    Read more on this site..———— http://www.earnmore9.com

  47. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $94 per hour.

    I work through this link..

    Read more on this site..———— http://www.earnmore9.com

  48. “Australia is a good example” Clinton told an audience a few months ago. “The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward.”

    When anti-gun politicians constantly express admiration for outright gun confiscation in other countries, WHY WHY WHY do they consider it to be tinfoil hat lunacy when someone suggests that those politicians would probably implement some degree of confiscation here in the US if it were politically possible??

  49. “Assassination is the highest and noblest form of political dissent.”
    -Anonymous

  50. Illegal guns are Australian savings accounts protected from inflation. When the government fines someone for failing to vote at gunpoint in forced, unverifiable, Aussie “elections,” they need only sell off some cached ammo or a Saturday night special at four times the legal price.

  51. Perhaps she can use Venezuela as a model and deploy the tanks?

    1. The whole thing is a hoax! The Second and Fourteenth Amendments are here to stay. It’s the Sixteenth we need to be rid of, and the looters know it–hence the chaff and misdirection.

  52. I used to worry about the government trying to disarm the civilian population, but I don’t worry about that anymore.

    Each year, something near 15 million hunting permits are issued across the U.S., presumably to people who own items of military utility such as camo clothing and night-vision scopes and who are adept at moving stealthily through wilderness for the purpose of making one-shot kills at distances measured in hundreds of meters. We sometimes call such people “snipers”, and we have 15 million of them.

    “15 million” is larger than the seven largest armies in the world — combined.

    The Varmint Hunter’s Association used to award a nice sew-on patch to anyone who could document a “kill” beyond 1,000 yds. They have given away many of those patches. If you can knock off a prairie dog at 1,000 yds, you can make a headshot on a person at a mile. One shot; one kill.

    I don’t worry about 190,000 UN troops taking us over by force-of-arms. I worry about where we’re going to find that many body bags in a hurry and what we’re going to do with all those corpses.

    1. In Minnesota they make you wear highway orange, and hunting at night is illegal.

      1. In Minnesota folks probably invited confidential informants out for a little deer hunting, and were shocked! shocked! at the number of hunting accidents careless people caused. Not surprising politicians stepped in to protect their looters…

    2. I’m glad I live in a state (Arkansas) where not knowing how to kill anything that moves is akin to heresy.

    3. That is a comforting thought.

  53. Good. I own gun stocks. Keep it up Hillary!

  54. When in the future will Clinton be president though? 2020? 2024?

  55. Commence your Home Business. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $84/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously….2U….

    ———— http://www.WorkProspects.com

  56. my neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $75 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for five months but last month her income was $21953 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

    try this website ????????? http://www.richi8.com

  57. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  58. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.Reportmax90.com

  59. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.Reportmax90.com

  60. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.Reportmax90.com

  61. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  62. They use words understanding their own singular meaning and do so on purpose. This makes it very easy for him to think that anyone who disagrees with him for any reason is being irrational and not sensible.

  63. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  64. Folks, remember that plan to move libertarians to (gag!) Vermont? Puerto Rico is having a major meltdown thanks to the looters, but two facts come to mind.
    1. There is no individual federal income tax in Puerto Rico
    2. Puerto Ricans (and you effete gringo transplants) may now carry openly or concealed without a permit, and they do not need to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm.
    Puerto Rico could soon have a Libertarian Party larger than that of entire looter kleptocracies!

  65. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    ———————————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  66. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.cashapp24.com

  67. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  68. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $120 per hour.

    I work through this link. Go here——————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  69. Last sentences read, “Hillary Clinton thinks she’s found a formula for winning the presidency by attacking gun rights. But her chosen attack on a cherished freedom picks a fight with millions of Americans?and with reality.” I certainly hope that you are correct.

    Also, from the above article: “Australia is a good example” Clinton told an audience a few months ago. “The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward.” If I may, exactly which “automatic weapons” aka machine guns does Clinton speak of? Also, I wonder as to what she is smoking or drinking that leads her to such grandeous lies.

  70. RE: Hillary Clinton Picks a Doomed Fight With Americans Over Guns

    Heil Hitlery is right for confiscating guns from the unwashed masses.
    It is the first step in the transformation of a democracy to a totalitarian state.
    Just ask Hiter, Stalin, Castro, et al.
    They’ll set you straight.
    You simply can not have a socialist slave state if the little people own firearms.

  71. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  72. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  73. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  74. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  75. I’ve made $76,000 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.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

  76. This issue is always a loser for the Democrats.

    Her hubby picked a fight with gun owners in ’94, precipitating the worst mid-term disaster for the Dems in decades.

    Hillary’s now doing the same before a GENERAL election. Her timing has always been impeccably lousy.

    Bang that broken drum, Hillary! More more more!!

  77. I never cease to be amused at the number of ways so-called conservatives, or libertarians in this case, find to rationalize giving the election to Hillary and the Gimmdats.

  78. I never cease to be amused at the number of ways so-called conservatives, or libertarians in this case, find to rationalize giving the election to Hillary and the Gimmdats.

    ????? ???
    ???????

  79. I never cease to be amused at the number of ways so-called conservatives, or libertarians in this case, find to rationalize giving the election to Hillary and the Gimmdats.

    How to be a good manager

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.