Candidate Who Campaigned For New AWB Says She Isn't Going to Take Your Guns

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hillary-clinton-im-not-here-take-away-your-guns

I keep noticing this weird disconnect in talking with anti-gun people myself. They'll talk all about how "nobody is going to take your guns" in the same breath they advocate banning semi-automatics. If you wait long enough, they'll usually add a Feinstein-qualification of "If it were up to me..." as well.

Then they look at you like you're an ignorant rube because you believe someone wants to take your guns.:rolleyes:

In any case, after campaigning for MONTHS on banning semi-autos, Hillary claims she doesn't want to take your guns. To be fair, as often as she has gotten away with directly contradicting an earlier statement she freely made, why not give it a try?
 
In any case, after campaigning for MONTHS on banning semi-autos, Hillary claims she doesn't want to take your guns.
Click to expand...

Also see: "If you like your [medical insurance] plan, you can keep it."
 
Koda, that's from Joseph... Goebbels, not Biden.

Hillary said:
I refuse to believe we can't find common ground here," she said. "We have to heal the divides in our country. Not just on guns. But on race. Immigration. And more. That starts with listening to each other. Hearing each other. Trying, as best we can, to walk in each other's shoes."
Click to expand...

To paraphrase LawDog,

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once [before the NFA, GCA, various executive orders, AWBs and other magazine capacity and cosmetic feature limits, Lautenberg and Brady laws] a large and satisfying [GUN RIGHTS] cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about finding "common ground", and telling us everything will be fine if we learn to walk in each other's shoes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While it isn't an explicit call to ban guns, as mentioned in that politifact page she did state in a recording* that the Supreme Court is wrong about the 2nd amendment. That means: no individual right. She can't be much clearer than that. No individual right means the government can ban your guns as long as it has a rational basis, which amounts to no basis at all.

It might not ban guns if it doesn't feel like it, but it *can*. It's left as an exercise to the reader what the 2nd amendment means if it doesn't guarantee an individual right. Since Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it? She can't be any more excited about the prospect of State-controlled militias taking up arms against an out-of-control federal government than she is about individuals owning arms.

Of course that's not confusion on her part, but merely another lie. Of course she doesn't care about the 2nd amendment and knows full well her interpretation makes it meaningless.

* Short audio of Hillary, on fighting the NRA and on the SCOTUS being wrong about guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk
 
"Nobody is trying to take your guns" ranks right up there with "The check is in the mail", "the dog ate my homework", and "I'll still respect you in the morning"....

Although, taken literally, "nobody", meaning no one single person, is trying to take our guns. No ONE person is, it's a group effort by a lot of different people!

The old joke about how to tell if a politician is lying is still true today...
(their lips move...;))
 
I believe the word Clintonian was coined to describe the ability to lie without actually lying. Remember the debate about the meaning of the word “is”? While the Clintons are not the only politicians to engage in doublespeak they are certainly experts at it.
 
Since Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it?
Click to expand...

She means she doesn't want to actually repeal it (the honest way to get rid of it) because that's takes too long and is a lot of work. She wants to appoint high-ranking federal judges, especially to the USSC, who will reinterpret it to meaninglessness.
 
Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it?
Click to expand...
all you have to do is look at what other modern "civilised" countrys allow. Keep in mind none of them give their citizens a right to bear arms, but some of them "allow" their citizens military style weapons by permission, with a variety of laws and prohibitions including no CCW and in some cases virtually removing all lawful practical applications for using a firearm in self defense even in the home in some cases.

in other words, as long as its "possible" to own arms its still a "right"
 
Said this elsewhere:

Talk about guns: Hillary said:

1. We need common sense measures
2. She isn't coming for your guns
3. She isn't going to undo the 2nd Amend.

So talking to my beloved last night, we discussed if she wasn't so bad (recall this is a hypothetical discussion to exercise our minds).

I. What is common sense?

Tightening up the current mental illness reports for NICS as some states have been lax with them? Makes some sense. Increasing broad criteria for mental health to be a more inclusive ban tool?

Terror watch - list. Cornyn's version? Limited in extent with safeguards or ban many hundred thousands with no recourse?

Ban weapons of war as common sense?

II. Coming for them - what about expanded mental health of lists or terrorist suspects? Weapons of war? Will she say something like: We will not ban or confiscate any firearm that is currently legal under Federal law? Nor will we ban the manufacture of new guns that are currently legal? I doubt that she would expand to say that.

III. Second Amendment - yes, we won't abolish it (some have suggested a Constitutional Amendment). However, the interpretation is the game. Chelsea, Clinton herself, Ginsburg have all suggested that Heller will be undone. Will she say that she accepts Heller and McD. as finished and final constitutional law?

The NRA should ask her that directly after playing her speech line or commentators should. Guess what the answers would be? Anybody? Scott Baio?
Click to expand...
 
Notice if their lips move when they say that.
Click to expand...

Yep, sums it up. If she is speaking she is lying pretty much on any issue.

I read a "fact checking" of her acceptance speech and the misquotes and spins to take something hard into the "OMG, he said THAT!" was astounding.
 
"Common sense" is window dressing for whatever scheme they've dreamed up, no matter how senseless or draconian, just like "loophole" is how they describe any feature of existing law they don't like, no matter how essential it might be for the proper functioning of the law.

"Common sense" so far has included suspending constitutional rights without due process, interpreting the "Instant" in NICS to mean as long a delay as they want, and the latest - declaring drilling a scope mount hole as a threat to national security.
 
So, this is about the candidate who has been against assault weapons.
But not about the other candidate who has been against assault weapons.
 
and telling us everything will be fine if we learn to walk in each other's shoes.
Click to expand...

I think that is very good advice. Before you voice your disagreement with someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. Then if you still disagree with them, well, they're a mile away, and you've got their shoes.

As to the 'nobody's going to take your guns away' well here's a columnist that will and let's NEVER forget Feinstein's 'turn 'em all in'

New Republic Columnist says 'Ban 'Em All'
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

Senator Diane Feinstein 'I would have taken them all'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
 
I am afraid that if Clinton is elected, our guns rights will be severely restricted. There will be no more AR-15's, AK's, etc. in private hands, no grandfather clause. Ammo restrictions will make obtaining ammunition more difficult. We have only to look to the poster child of gun control, Australia, to view our future. If it does happen, and it could happen much more quickly than we realize, then every other right listed in the Constitution becomes worthless. It will indeed be a sad day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top