Gun Control

Democrats Erase the Second Amendment

Their platform and their presidential nominee disdain the constitutional right to arms.


"I'm not here to repeal the Second Amendment," Hillary Clinton promised at the Democratic National Convention last week. "I'm not here to take away your guns."

Those disavowals were necessary because Clinton has made gun control a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, contrary to the conventional wisdom about the political risks that entails. But Clinton's assurances ring hollow, since it's pretty clear she not only does not value the individual right to keep and bear arms but does not believe it is guaranteed by the Constitution.

After Democrats' losses in the 1994 congressional elections and the 2000 presidential contest were widely blamed on their support for gun control, the party changed its platform. In 2004 Democrats promised to "protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms," while the 2008 and 2012 platforms both included this sentence: "We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

This year Democrats erased the Second Amendment from their platform, reverting to the approach they took in 2000 and earlier. The 2016 platform mentions "the rights of responsible gun owners" but says nothing about the extent of those rights or the legal basis for them.

The Second Amendment's excision from the Democratic platform is consistent with Clinton's opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, was "wrongly decided." At the very least, that position means Clinton thinks the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to use guns for self-defense in the home, since the law overturned in Heller made it impossible to exercise that right.

But Clinton's disagreement with the Supreme Court seems to go even further. In an interview last June, ABC's George Stephanopoulos pressed her to say whether "an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right." She repeatedly dodged the question.

"If it is a constitutional right," Clinton said, "then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation." She seemed to be saying that she does not believe people have a constitutional right to firearms but that even voters who do believe that should be OK with her gun control proposals.

Those proposals provide further reason to doubt Clinton's sincerity. She wants to ban so-called assault weapons, repeal the federal law that shields gun suppliers from legal liability for criminal misuse of their products, create new categories of people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms, and extend the federal background check requirement to all gun transfers.

In other words, Clinton wants to arbitrarily restrict the kinds of guns Americans can legally buy, create a new financial threat to the industry that provides the means for armed self-defense, take away people's constitutional rights without due process, and block gun purchases by cannabis consumers, people with nonviolent felony records, and anyone who was ever forcibly treated for suicidal impulses. These are not policies that someone who takes the Second Amendment seriously would favor.

The night before Clinton promised to "work tirelessly with responsible gun owners to pass common-sense reforms," survivors of mass shootings and relatives of people who died in them ascended the stage to make the case for those policies. Like the speeches at the Republican convention about people murdered by illegal immigrants, these presentations were long on emotion and short on logic.

Once you consider the details of those mass shootings, it is clear the policies Clinton favors would not have prevented them. Presenting these horrifying deaths as reasons to enact Clinton-style gun control is not an argument; it's a non sequitur.

According to a tweet from the Clinton campaign, this naked attempt at emotional manipulation was "the first time in #DemConvention history" that the gathering included "a full feature on the impact of gun violence." Voters will decide whether it's the last.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Ross Ulbricht's Conviction, Sentencing for Running Silk Road Should be Overturned, Argues New Reply Brief

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Get ready for the executive orders boys, they’ll be coming hard and fast with this one and they won’t be overturned by congress.

    1. Off topic — man bites dog.

      Salon political writer uses real data to slam the Obama economy. Next up. Hell freezes over.…..e_fantasy/

      1. Salon political writer

        That’s Carrie Sheffield, who used to appear on The Independents regularly, and is (if i recall), sorta-relgious-(ex-mormon)-conservative, and from her clips there has only been published in Salon for about a month.

        they probably offered her some space to bash trump as unacceptable. to show they were being ‘even handed’, you see.

        1. The comments are amusing. Regular Salon readers are going “WTF?”.

          1. I did, those are pretty amusing.

    2. 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…

  2. Only one comment (not including this one)? Maybe it needs more Trump-should’ve worked the crying baby in there somehow. I realize this was posted in the wee hours but damn.

  3. “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment,”

    That’s true, she will just ignore it which is worse than trying to repeal it.

    1. I’ve long that their endgame is not the repeal of the Second Amendment, but rather a legal regime whereby ordinary people can’t own guns because of the regulatory burden and sheer expense, while the bodyguards of the “elites” will have whatever guns they (and their masters) wish because their masters will have the money and connections to “arrange” it.

      1. Ack…I’ve long thought that their endgame…

      2. That future is now in much of America already.

      3. That’s the situation here in Massachusetts with the rifle and shotgun that I own. Those are, of course, still sitting at my parents’ house in Vermont 5 years later.

        1. Did something change recently? My brother still has his cabinet full of guns, but he’s had them for a while. I don’t know that he’s bought anything recently.

      4. That’s exactly the plan, and Heller gives them a roadmap for doing so.

        I believe it is already doctrine that the state may prohibit you from carrying, either open or concealed, without a license, and I am not aware of any case overturning a restriction on the kinds of guns you may purchase or any of the regulatory burdens on purchase. As is noted here repeatedly, current doctrine is that presenting a photo ID to vote is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, but presenting a photo ID to buy guns or ammo is not.

        The post-Heller battle was lost when the courts refused to apply strict scrutiny. I believe Heller will be no more than a speedbump on the road to more and more gun control.

        1. Just keep piling on reasonable restrictions.

      5. After gov’ Moonbeam in CA signed several gun laws recently. I mentioned this in a convo with some co-workers:

        “They can’t ban guns right now. But what they can do is make it as expensive and inconvenient as possible.”

      6. and of course,criminals will still be stealing guns from FEDGOV,state,local police,and the military. Or making them in home shops,same as some Australians were making high quality machine guns and selling them to Australian criminals.

    2. If Clinton is elected the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter. She’ll put 2-3 jurists on SCOTUS who’ll allow the states and feds to restrict whatever they want however they want for the next 30+ years.

    3. If the GOP had balls, they’d get the various GOP governors together for secret meetings (just to discuss policy shit). Then start leaking rumors from less reputable but attention-grabbing sources (ZH, infowars, etc.) that they were planning the sort of mass secession that led to the CSA as a contingency for a Hillary election (or maybe even a Trump election). All with plausible deniability, but let people wonder if pulling the lever for Hillary will embroil them in a second civil war.

  4. “I’m not a racist but…(insert racist comment here)”

    “I’m for free speech but… (insert mealy mouthed excuse for the Hebdo massacres)”

    “I’m not here to take your guns away but….”

  5. None of our rights are guaranteed by the constitution. They are guaranteed by our ability and will to answer aggression with deadly force.


    1. Well, guns are not paperweights…

      1. Would that be assault paperweights?

        1. Nobody needs more than seven ounces of gravitational pressure.

    2. ^^^

      It is not a “Constitutional Right”. It is a natural right, with the Constitution only clarifying that the government shouldn’t fuck with it in any way.

      Americans are not sheep just yet. I think the Dems are deeply mislead by the polling that shows Americans are mixed on “responsible gun control”. 50:50 or 60:40 does not imply acceptance of restrictions. What matters is how the 3% will react. Taxes, spending, marriage, and even abortion are political disagreements…opinions. Try take away a free persons ability to maintain that freedom and the reaction will be far different then these DC snowflakes expect. God help us.

      1. I suspect that any infringement on the 2A will be met with the same behavior it has in the past: widespread disregard. Not at all ironically, the more difficult the government makes it to buy and own guns legally, the easier it becomes to do so illegally, since the regulations create a larger demand on the black market. Also, because the gun grabbers aren’t quite ready to piss off hunters or law enforcement yet with an outright ban or anything close to it, the wording of the regulations tends to provide ample gray area. As a Marylander who makes frequent trips to Pennsylvania and Virginia, this is something I’m deeply familiar with.

        My point being, my guess is that the typical threeper response to this shit isn’t going to be a bloody uprising so much as “Irish democracy”.

        1. Irish Democracy will certainly be the response to paper laws. We see that in CT and MA already.

          That works for paper laws that no one enforces. But that’s not what the Dems have been talking about.
          We’ll see. It is not a hopeful time.

        2. I think part of the goal is also to drive out “gun culture” and eventually lead the majority opinion towards greater restrictions once the people who might resist today are dead or too scared to do anything about it. It’s why they increasingly love to argue “when have guns ever stopped a crime/kept the gov’t in check?” First, you make people afraid to do what’s right, then you blame the fear you instilled having the intended effect. They wouldn’t have pulled that bullshit 50 years ago when everybody knew about incidents like Charles Whitman shooting up UT Austin and being shot back at by the students. Nowadays, instead

          The possession of a firearm, illegal knife, or prohibited weapon on the grounds of an educational institution is a third-degree felony in Texas. You should never bring weapons onto campus, and you should always follow safety protocols if you see an armed individual.

          Weapons on Campus (although TX state law has recently changed in this regard)

          1. I agree that that is the goal, but I believe they are profoundly mis-interpreting what polling says and what the ‘core’ of the pro-2nd amendment crowd will react to.
            High approvals for “sensible gun control” does not in anyway impact what the 3% think or do. This is a beltway problem, where they fundamentally do not understand how the populace thinks.

            We have seen record sales of black rifles and a myriad of other firearms, ammunition and supplies over the last 8 years. It is no coincidence and is a direct indication that a significant minority of the population is seeing the writing on the wall for where things are headed. A government that is oblivious to this sentiment creates a big risk of cluelessly overstepping and igniting a firestorm.

            It was a Clinton after-all that burned out the Branch Davidians over legal weapons. At that time fringe militias were commonly considered whack-jobs. Now…survivalists, oathkeepers, etc, are borderline mainstream outside of the cities. Times are different and I shudder to think of what a more bitter and vindictive Clinton would do.

            1. Not to mention that a lot of that support for ‘sensible gun control’ seems to erode when you ask people about actual proposals (i.e. reinstating the ‘assault weapons’ ban, creating a national gun owner registry, banning private transactions between individuals, etc.)

      2. Americans are not sheep just yet.

        Citation needed that the non-sheep population is a non-irrelevant fringe/fraction.

        1. Citation? easy….Trump’s polling numbers.

          Direct indication that a significant number of Americans are bold enough to declare they are voting for someone everyone is telling them is a loudmouth buffoon. that they are willing to go against the mainstream and support a fringe candidate who is talking about building a goddamn wall on our border.

          Sheep wouldn’t support that. Yeh, folks like to think these people are just ignorant hicks taken in by Trump’s bravado, but that is just clueless elitism. Many of these people are well read, historically literate, thinking citizens who take their shit quite seriously.

          they aren’t sheep. not yet.

          1. But are the non-sheep outnumbered? No poll to date has shown Trump above 50%, not even a primary poll and his own party seems to line up against him in bigger numbers by the day. The curious part is how many of the non-sheep will vote for Herself since, as one poster has indicated, they are out there.

      3. Oh, they’re sheep. The outrage machine has spent days on the Wrath of the Kahns after successfully carrying the left’s water on the DNC emails wherein the party of tolerance and love managed to insult several of its grievance groups. Now, Trump’s sanity is the talking point and, as a bonus, Repubs have linked arms with Dems on both those points. Seems preservation of the status quo matters far more to Team Red than winning does; say what you will about the Blues, they get that elections have winners.

  6. More articles like this, please. Short, to the point, full of facts not emotion, and based on constitutional issues.

  7. When Hillary was interviewed on Fox News Sunday, she rolled out the “but all rights are subject to reasonable regulation” line. I waited for Wallace to come back with, “Including abortion?” but I waited in vain.

    1. Ahhh…..Chris Wallace the neutered tabby cat who lives in the Fox News studios.

      1. I dunno, he clearly wasn’t buying Hillary’s sophistry about the email server. One ball left, perhaps?

        1. More like just a vestigial stump of vas deferens.

        2. He also didn’t challenge it worth a damn. Either through lack of ability, or lack of motivation. Doesn’t really matter.

      2. I saw the interview. It’s pretty clear that Wallace was saving the big guns for the email server questions. And he really did hammer her self serving lies. Which she helpfully repeated, right before he played the Congressional testimony where Comey counters everything she publicly stated.

        I think as an interviewer you have to pick one fight and go at it. If he had tried to counter all of her arguments, the rest of the media would have just reported his weakest points. Ignored the parts where she’s caught out in another bold face lie. Which would have left the impression that Fox was trying to nail her with weak attacks.

        Instead, there have been numerous articles written about the interview since, which point out that Hillary was lying. I think Wallace’s interview was far more effective than you give it credit.…..d=41044927

        1. Fair enough, but I don’t see the point of the interviewer even bringing up a subject that he isn’t going to follow up on. If Wallace intended to just let Hillary mouth her usual platitudes about the Second Amendment he should have left it alone.

    2. she rolled out the “but all rights are subject to reasonable regulation” line. I waited for Wallace to come back with, “Including abortion?”

      when was that ever “a right” like speech or assembly or due process or self-defense?

      last i checked, even the most pro-choice of choicers still thinks practitioners need to be licensed and regulated and provided oversight, etc.

      1. “last i checked, even the most pro-choice of choicers still thinks practitioners need to be licensed and regulated and provided oversight, etc.”

        I wouldn’t be too sure. They certainly react strongly to attempts to hold abortion clinics to higher standards, and the Abortion establishment certainly didn’t step in to “provide oversight” in the Kermit Gosnell case. The evidence is that they saw his abattoir and turned a blind eye until they were forced to look.

      2. There are femino-hippies who advocate for the right to use “traditional” and “alternative” methods for DIY abortions.

      3. They may say that but they sure scream loudly when an actual regulation is proposed, particularly if it increases the cost to either patient or provider. It reminds me of the story from the book Cheaper By The Dozen where the mom claims to support corporal punishment for the kids but objects to the body part being paddled “Not on the end of the spine, Frank!”

  8. I have so many Blue Dog-type Democrat friends, avid hunters, rednecks all, who know in their hearts that Obama doesn’t want to take away anyone’s guns and neither does Hillary Clinton. I can understand looking past the Democrat Party’s anti-2A proclivities but to completely bury your head in the sand and pretend they don’t exist at all? I’m amazed how many people can do this in their blind following of their party’s candidates.

    1. No, no, they’re not going to “take away” any firearms. They expect you to voluntarily turn them in when they’re outlawed, silly.

      1. Or, an Aussie-style “buyback”. Mandatory buy-backs aren’t confiscation at all, nosiree.

    2. Though people like your friends would never admit it, truth be told, there is a whole lot of unspoken racism going on there. They trust the Democrats not to take away their guns and just take away the guns of all the dangerous black people down in the ghetto who can’t be trusted with such things.

      1. I bet some of them are stupid enough to believe that it’s really about racism and not power (or that racism could never be turned against them, even though it increasingly is). Every time gun control comes up, somebody “points out” that all the guns are coming from outside wherever they’ve already imposed gun control, so naturally they have to be banned elsewhere.

        “First, they came for…”

        1. Every time gun control comes up, somebody “points out” that all the guns are coming from outside wherever they’ve already imposed gun control, so naturally they have to be banned elsewhere.

          I’ve seen that too. There is a movement among liberals to have all laws be federal. As in do away with any state sovereignty. Everything must be uniform and equal, or it is not fair.

          1. Some of them openly admit that the whole reason is to deny anyone escape from their utopia. As though the only thing wrong with the Berlin Wall was that there was a freer West Germany on the other side of it.

          2. Every time gun control comes up, somebody “points out” that all the guns are coming from outside wherever they’ve already imposed gun control, so naturally they have to be banned elsewhere.

            Of course they never seem to have an explanation as to why the “outside” places the guns are coming from have lower levels of violent crime and murder then the places like Chicago where the guns are going to.

            1. Of course they never seem to have an explanation as to why the “outside” places the guns are coming from have lower levels of violent crime and murder then the places like Chicago where the guns are going to.

              Duh, those lower-crime places are just exporting their violence via guns to those higher-crime places. Hell, even using the terms “lower-crime” and “higher-crime” implies that there are factors behind criminal activity other than access to guns. Everyone knows that gun stores in the sticks only sell guns to city slickers. If it wasn’t for Western Maryland, Baltimore would be a gun-free paradise!

              If you squint hard enough and don’t think too hard, that totally “explains” everything.

              1. Hillary literally blamed the guns themselves for coming from Vermont to New York to commit crimes. Remember that ?

                1. Found the quote:

                  ” the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont.”

          3. Charly Rangle has said that all laws should be federal, so its an open movement to do just that.

          4. Because states rights means slavery, duh.

        2. Every time gun control comes up, somebody “points out” that all the guns are coming from outside wherever they’ve already imposed gun control, so naturally they have to be banned elsewhere.

          “Yeah, because gun owners in Indiana and Wisconsin are falling all over themselves to involved in the weapons trade with rapists and crackheads from Englewood and Austin.”

      2. Some of them, that assessment could definitely be true.

        1. And the reality would be just the opposite. The Democrats will disarm all of the law abiding people who trusted them and have purchased guns legally through shops and dealers. The ATF will just show up at their door and demand the guns. Meanwhile, all of the scary black people and nasty white trash rednecks your friends no doubt loath will keep their guns because they will have mostly bought them under the ATF radar.

          1. Grandpa’s Model 70 has features that make it a military style sniper rifle. Sorry, citizen.

      3. just take away the guns of all the dangerous black people down in the ghetto who can’t be trusted with such things

        And decades of propaganda in the inner city has convinced people to give up their right to self-defense anyway.

    3. Sounds like a bunch of Fudds to me.

    4. “..know in their hears that Obama doesn’t want to take away anyone’s guns and neither does [HRC]”?


      They will take whatever the hell they can; any progressive tactic short of that is merely incremental. For them Japan is the model to imitate, and what little would be left to own [trap guns] would be heavily regulated and cost more money than God.

      Any belief that government under this administration is anything but equal parts expansion and intrusion is worse than foolish.

    5. Now when I hear that argument, I point to CA.

      1. and point out that BHO and Hillary both praise Australia.

  9. “then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.”

    So, when they wrote “no law” and “shall not be infringed”, they were just being sloppy? Too much drinking at the Constitutional Convention, perhaps?

    1. You need the special glasses to be able to see the special ink where they wrote “except for reasonable regulation where the government claims a compelling interest” after “shall not be infringed” and “make no law”.

  10. Did anybody check that guy’s pocket constitution to see if any parts were redacted or any pages were missing?

  11. The Democrats dismiss most of the amendments and the whole constitution.

    1. Unless they can use it as a prop to dis Trump.

    2. Getting rid of the second does make it easier to get rid of the first.

    3. Yes, I have read rather proud pronouncements to the effect that the Constitution is an outdated impediment to their goal of progressive utopia, where we have every kind of [superficial]diversity under the sun, but all believe and behave the same way.

  12. “Hi, I’m Hillary. I’m ideologically opposed to the founding document and supreme law of the country whose presidency I’m about to attain. I’m swearing an oath of allegiance to those, by the way.

    But, moving on, FREE STUFF!”

    1. Principles are so yesterday. What matters the most now is funneling moolah to allied interest groups and punishing those your base doesn’t like.

      1. Handouts and oligarchy for all!

  13. You people are monsters! Don’t you understand that human life is precious? It cannot be replaced! Your stupid possessions can be replaced! It’s just “stuff!”

    That’s why enlightened progressives support common sense gun control! They understand that without it, yahoos like you will take away the lives of people who only want to steal your stupid “stuff,” beat you up, rape your wife, burn down your house, or whatever it is that you think is more important than human life!

    Besides that, using force in response to force is vigilante justice! Only government can legitimately use force! That includes self defense!

    You’re not supposed to live with a gun in your hand! You’re supposed to die with a phone in your hand!


    1. using force in response to force is vigilante justice! Only government can legitimately use force!

      At least #BLM is consistent when they insist that even government shouldn’t use violence in response to violence a la Gaines.

    2. My uncle, who’s actually a really smart guy, used this exact same argument on me last weekend-that shooting someone who’s intent on stealing your physical possessions, even if they’re sticking you up, is immoral. It’s like trying to argue with someone from outer space.

      1. It’s not a bad argument for personal ethos. If you’re a committed pacifist, live by your word or shut the hell up. But your pacifism doesn’t discredit someone else’s right to self defense. What are you going to do about it, fight me?

        1. I hear what you’re saying but he’s all about imposing his view on others which would be imposed, ironically enough, by people with guns.

          1. That’s different. Those people are government. So they have the right to use violence to impose their will. Not only a right, but a duty. Because what they impose is The Will Of The People. If you don’t swoon over violently imposing The Will Of The People then there is something seriously wrong with you.

          2. Good point. Your pacifist uncle isn’t going to fight me, he’s going to find other people to do that.

            [insert Tonyism about fed gov agents gunning down citizens as rebuttal to why citizens should carry arms]

      2. I can understand the argument, but I can’t agree with it. It assumes that stuff is merely stuff.

        That stuff represents your time. Your life. Stealing something that took X hours, Y days, or Z years to earn is stealing X hours, Y days, or Z years from your life. Theft isn’t merely the taking of possessions, it is the taking of a piece of someone’s life.

        1. And someone stealing your money could be stealing your means of paying rent or for food or medical issues. A person cannot live without “stuff”.

        2. If someone steels your food is that not a threat to life for a man can not live without food. If someone steels your car that you use to get to work to put food on your table is that not a threat to my life. if someone steels my furnace that I need to keep from freezing to death not a threat to my life. Objects are there to allow us to exist and therefore the theft of objects is also a threat to life.

          1. If someone steels your food

            How else does one gird one’s loins and steel one’s resolve?

        3. Nobody steals your stuff without an implied threat of violence, you know.

          1. And not even lex talionis prescribed death as a proper response to theft.

        4. It also assumes trusting the guy who breaks into your house in the middle of the night with being content to merely take your ‘stuff’.

      3. Does he believe that trying to rob someone is also immoral? If so, shouldn’t the initiator of violence of theft be considered more immoral than the person defending themselves from such?

        1. I’m sure he does, he just thinks shooting someone is worse, nevermind that they wouldn’t have gotten shot if they hadn’t initiated the encounter by trying to take your stuff.

          1. There’s nothing inherently wrong with believing you shouldn’t go all Yosemite Sam on a thief. Not everyone agrees with that position and that’s fine.

            1. We agree here, there’s almost never anything wrong with not shooting someone.

            2. Indeed so.

              If you take more than three shots to take someone down at inside-the-house range, you’re doing it wrong.

        2. Does he believe that trying to rob someone is also immoral? If so, shouldn’t the initiator of violence of theft be considered more immoral than the person defending themselves from such?

          ALL FORCE IS IMMORAL. Except, of course, force used by government agents to keep you from using the force necessary to counter the use of force employed by the robber…oh crap…getting dizzy…*vomits, votes Democrat, recovers fully*

        3. Congrats WTF, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

      4. This is a legitimate moral argument. However, there is no way to know if an intruder is there only for “stuff” (by far the most likely) or for some reason that would directly endanger you or your family.

    3. That is the law, as I understand it, in the progressive paradise that was Great Britain.

    4. The problem as others have pointed out, is that many “pacifists” are fine with outsourcing their violence to the state.

  14. The 2016 platform mentions “the rights of responsible gun owners”

    It’s like they almost understand that a right is inalienable privilege wedded to undeniable obligation…

    Oh, who am I kidding, lefties have no better a conception of rights than a pekingese has of internal combustion.

    1. Of course, the responsibility is already built into our laws. It doesn’t become legal to murder someone because you used a gun; that’s not what the 2A says and it’s never been interpreted that way.

    2. From their point of view, all rights come from government. All rights are positive rights. All rights require an imposition of force. The idea of having rights that don’t require violent enforcement, like the right to speak your mind (without forcing people to listen) or defend yourself, simply do not compute. All they understand is force, coercion, and violence.

      1. Brilliant. But the task at hand is to bring this matter to the attention of the voters the looters are busily hustling for votes.

    3. “lefties have no better a conception of rights than a pekingese has of internal combustion.”

      Less, actually. Most of the Pekinese I’ve know were smart enough to get out of the way of a running car.

  15. “Once you consider the details of those mass shootings, it is clear the policies Clinton favors would not have prevented them. ”

    Clinton’s stated policies wouldn’t have prevented them. I’m fairly confident after listening to Clinton speak about the issue several times that she would ultimately like us to end up with something like the Australian system. However, she knows saying that at this point would hurt her election chances. And she’s confident the Left wing understands that her current stated policy is merely a first step.

    1. So what if her stated policies wouldn’t have prevented them? She’s got good intentions! She’s trying to do something! That’s what matters! Something must be done! And who else is going to do it except government? Huh? Be specific! I want names! You can’t give it to me! So she’s right!

  16. Being against the Second Amendment has proven to be a winning strategy. Take that, right-wingers!

    1. Doesn’t matter in our coming one-party future. Hillary gets elected, nominates a bunch of leftist SC justices, and *poof* there go Heller and McDonald. I mean, what are people going to do? Elect icky Republicans? Why are you such a racist?

    2. Like Thymirus says above, nothing says “You can trust me to represent you.” like “I share none of the same core values that you do.”

  17. “If you like your health plan gun, you can keep your gun!”

    1. Just hand over the bullets.

  18. “I’m not here to take away anyone’s guns, but I am here to empower a bunch of other people with guns to do so.”

  19. Noted cuck and eurofag NRO writer who hates white people and doesn’t want to Make America Great Again, Charles Cooke, on the burgeoning gun-owner rainbow coalition:

    Indeed, to look at the most recently available statistics is to learn that gun ownership ? and, indeed, the “bearing of arms” in general ? is an increasingly diverse, rather than monochrome, thing.

    And why wouldn’t it? As progressives routinely insist when the question is of voting or abortion, it is minorities, not rich white men, who are disproportionately affected by legal obstacles that are placed in their way. By reducing its mandatory training from ten to four hours, Texas has ensured both that its carry classes will be less expensive and that those who take them will need to take less time off work. The salutary result: That less “privileged” members of society are able take advantage of their constitutional rights. (One might expect to see a similar result if permitting fees were reduced across the board. New York City charges $429.75 for a carry permit; Idaho charges $20. In which place do we imagine it is easier for the poor to defend themselves?)

    1. I will take issue with one aspect of Cooke’s essay: his insistence on including spaces around em-dashes. I don’t care what the style books say, which I’m sure a cuck like Cooke insists on hewing to like a nauseatingly bookish school lad. The thing is there to note a poignant and necessary aside or clarification. It’s not meant to be nice, it’s meant to be a hard break in a sentence. It’s a tool of hard men with hard thoughts that must, however regrettably, be confessed. If you want to use commas, use commas. If you think the thought so impossibly disconnected or incidental, parenthesize it. Spacing around an em-dash as if to excuse one’s temerity for interrupting one’s own thought, as if to prepare the reader for an unforgivable trespass, betrays the purpose of using it in the first place.

      1. Those extra spaces should be moved to the end of the sentence where they belong.


        1. If it weren’t for nits I’d be nothing but a man with his thumb up his nose.

    2. That is nice but it only matters if they vote based on the issue. If black people continue to vote based on other issues and vote for anti second amendment Democrats, they will continue to see their right to bear arms violated.

      1. It does constrain Democrats, who will continue to woo anti-2A voters in primaries (as if the willing need to be wooed) but will do little to vex pro-2A voters once in office. Not saying they’ll do nothing, but a strong pro-2A bias keeps them from going full retard, and lefties always desperately want cake.

  20. Note that the Heller ruling struck down DC’s ban on keeping any gun – handgun or long gun – in your own home loaded for self-defense. And the four liberals on the court voted to uphold that effective ban on self-defense. And Hillary thinks that Heller was wrongly decided. Why does Hillary want to ban the use of guns for self-defense in the home?

    The lower federal circuits have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City’s $340 permit fee for keeping a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are wealthy and connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is most troubling because the legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called “assault weapons”.

    Expect a Hillary Supreme Court to uphold all of these laws and more, including neutering the law that prevents bankrupting gun makers by frivolous lawsuit.

    1. Interesting point. Being able to keep a firearm for home defense but being prosecuted for using it would kind of defeat the purpose.

  21. Please, Jacob.

    Did you not see the muslim man who waved a constitution around? I have been assured this means that Democrats are therefore the more constitution-friendly party, and i have no reason to trust you over these very serious and expertish newspapers, who would surely highlight any hypocrisy if it existed.

    1. That same special copy of the Constitution that he was waving around that says that Muslims have an inalienable right to emigrate to the US also contains reasonable, common-sense restrictions on firearm ownership that we can all agree on.

    2. That was almost as rich as their applause lines for patriotism. It’s like the RNC crowds dissolving into furious cheering when Peter Thiel acknowledged his gayness, the left is so cowed by being the anti-American, anti-Constitution party that they jump at a chance to deny it.

    3. LOL, this guy’s playing the Clinton campaign like a teenaged clock-maker.

  22. Interestingly, the Dems had Michael Brown’s mother on the stage as the mother of a victim of gun violence.

    Michael Brown, at least if we are to believe Eric Holder’s right-wing reactionary Justice Department, was a literal gun-grabber – tried to take a policeman’s gun away.

  23. OT:

    “U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as American Captives Were Freed”

    “The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran.”

    —-Wall Street Journal

    1. Will you quit trying to spam us with this fake scandal stuff? I for one want to know more about that quietly-dignified Gold Star mother.


      1. I liked what you did in the other thread, but if Robby is going to give it the 12 words or less treatment in PM links, it needs to be about rape, college, and Trump somehow.

        Maybe, “Four American Students not Raped Because of Obama. Trump Protests on Twitter”.

    2. This is actually above the latest batch of “OMG look what Trump said” articles on Google News.

    3. Fucking cash! $400 million! Why do that? If you’re going to return their assets, do it with a wire transfer. But cash? That’s just blatantly humiliating, to accede to that demand.

      And WTF does the Iranian government want that much actual cash in hand for? That much cash is a much bigger pain in the ass than the equivalent wire transfer. It almost makes you wonder if they have any major projects in the works that need to be funded deniably and untraceably, no?

      1. Many of the same lefty journalists who covered Iran-Contra and “Arms for Hostages” will be dutifully . . . ignoring this story, I’m sure.

        Is Oliver North still on the radio? I want to hear what he has to say about this.

      2. 5 dimensional chess. If Obama does something it must be clever, because he did it. It just looks stupid to use because we don’t operate on his level.

      3. Just like we’ve been saying here, cash is easier to hide because it’s anonymous.

        I can think of two likely explanations;

        1) The Obama Administration didn’t want to leave a paper trail.

        2) It was to help the Iranians avoid any lingering sanctions.

        1. So you’re saying Obama is guilty of structuring ?

    4. This is very interesting Ken, if true it is just a continuation of the flawed U.S. foreign policy.

    5. Ken,

      The Obama Administration assures us that that is just a coincidence. One had nothing to do with the other.

      1. surely the Russians are tied in as the Dem meme these days is to blame them for everything outside of the wrath of the Kahns.

      2. Yep, nothing to see here. Move along…

  24. Have we gotten the Snukeapotamus’ official list yet of who thinks would make good Supreme Court justices like we have with Trump? If not, why haven’t the scum in the JournoList asked her yet?

    ROFLMAO, I know, I know, you can stop laughing now.

    1. In a stunning move, Clinton nominates Maryanne Trump Barry.

  25. “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment,” Hillary Clinton promised at the Democratic National Convention last week. “I’m not here to take away your guns.”

    Silly Marxians. They really believe legislated law shapes reality. They really think that the repeal of the Second Amendment would change anything. As if the 18th Amendment cured humanity from drunkenness.

    Silly Marxians.

    1. She just wants common sense gun control, like in Australia, where they confiscated people’s guns.

      1. And less than 19% of the population complied. Enter the black market.

    1. By now, it should be abundantly clear that the Pubs don’t want to win, at least not if winning includes Trump. They much prefer the status quo (read: on-going self-enrichment) that comes with Herself. These people have spent the past few days scrambling to see how many of them could fit atop Humayon Kahn’s dead body, and this was in the wake of the DNC email leaks, wherein the party of love and tolerance shit all over its various mascot groups.

    2. because his position on anything cannot be trusted.

      1. and Hillary’s can? She’s already come out against gun and it’s a core belief of hers. I doubt it’s anywhere on his top 20 list.

      2. Except when you don’t like the position, then you know he totally means it. You do realize how transparent that is don’t you?

    3. I still think this issue will doom Hillary no matter how stupid a campaign Trump runs.

      1. For as tight as this race to the bottom currently is, she can’t afford to lose swing states that have a differing view of the DNC’s rabidly anti-gun stance. Gore lost the 2000 election in key swing States which was attributed to his anti-gun position. If anything, Hillary won’t talk much about guns anymore now that she’s sidelined Bernie and the propaganda wing of the DNC media will shout down any hint of her true feelings on gun control.

  26. Question-

    Out here, you still see pickup trucks with rifle racks (and rifles) in the back window. And not just in hunting season. I can’t help wondering how common this is anymore.

    Would that even be legal in California?

    1. Good question, probably not in Cali

  27. “If it is a constitutional right,” Clinton said, “then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation”

    Soooo basically what Hitlery means is ANY of the Bill of Rights is subject to regulation, what the fuck is the point of a bill of rights if the government is to “regulate it”?
    I wonder if this cow realizes that the entire reason the bol exists is to keep authoritarians like her and her husband at bay. If it was 1776 she would be a loyalist guaranteed.

    1. So she and Gary Johnson are on the same page.

  28. I’m confused. I assumed the ransom was paid to Iran for the release of the sailors(?) captured in the Straits of Hormuz; now I’m getting the impression it was somebody else.

    RTFA-ing is for chumps. Enact my labor.

    Chop fucking chop.

  29. “If it is a constitutional right,” Clinton said, “then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation”

    Yeah. Let’s start with political advertisements.

    1. Clinton would be happy to start with political advertisements. What do you think her oppo to Citizens United is all about, anyway?

  30. “Those proposals provide further reason to doubt Clinton’s sincerity. She wants to ban so-called assault weapons, repeal the federal law that shields gun suppliers from legal liability for criminal misuse of their products, create new categories of people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms, and extend the federal background check requirement to all gun transfers.”

    You forgot the one where they want to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights by virtue of the presence of their name on an arbitrary list.

  31. Trust anything that comes out of Hillary’s mouth at your own peril.

  32. But Hillary SAID she’s not going to do away with the Second Amendment, right? I mean, she wouldn’t lie to us, would she?

  33. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

    Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
    Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

    In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

    it’s VERY clear the Founders INTENDED that civilians have “weapons of war”,militia arms suitable for militia purposes,that include combat.

    1. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.

      And even if it were, it wouldn’t matter: nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate guns. So, even without the Second Amendment, Americans would have the right to bear arms.

  34. Marxists and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the media prostitutes 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 hookers 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

  35. “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment,” Hillary Clinton promised at the Democratic National Convention last week. “I’m not here to take away your guns.”

    Lying Bitch.

  36. “If it is a constitutional right,” Clinton said, “then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation”

    The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it grants limited, enumerated powers to government. The power to impose “reasonable regulations” on the rights retained by the people is not among the enumerated powers.

    No wonder Hillary failed the bar exam.

  37. 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..



  39. Really good writing. The GOP ought to push for a Pulitzer prize for Sullum. None of them could credibly frighten children with the hobgoblin of Kristallnacht gun-grabbing. London bookies, on the other hand, will pay Jacob $2 for every buck he plunks down against Mrs. Clinton… why? Like Pauline Sabim whirling on the Wizened Christian Temperance Union and leading women voters to repeal the prohibition amendment in 1932, Mrs Clinton has GO Pee fanaticism in her corner. The only way America’s version of islamic prohibitionist prudery could make its own defeat more inevitable would be to join the Islamic State in again enforcing a total ban on beer–as it wishes it could on reproductive choice.
    Repeal of the Second Amendment is as likely as repeal of the 16th, but gasping at the prospect handily shifts the conversation away from individual rights for women–those critters conspicuous in their absence from the LP and GO Pee alike.

  40. “Democrats Erase the Second Amendment” That is so intelligent! Who needs to kill anyway? Time for the gun nuts to get rid of their toys.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.