Exclusive Video: Clinton Delegate Explains how Democrats Will Ban All Guns

F

FITASC

New member
http://www.infowars.com/video-hilla...ommon-sense-gun-measures-is-outright-gun-ban/

I hope I put this in the proper place - please move if not.

If your goal is an outright gun ban, you need to use terms such as “common sense gun legislation” to fool the public, a Hillary Clinton campaign delegate admitted in a recent undercover sting video released exclusively to Infowars.

“Saying you want to ban guns altogether, that’s going to piss everybody off,” the Clinton alternate delegate, Mary Bayer, told a Project Veritas reporter.

Instead, Bayer revealed, Democrats use “moderate” language when it comes to guns to obscure their true purpose, a complete elimination of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Not just "assault rifles" or "large capacity handguns"

ALL OF THEM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Won't happen if the rest of us are vigilant.
And a review of infowars might just show a history of sensational news.
 
The Wall Street Journal is pointing out how some traditional pro-gun States may flip to the party that supports more gun control in the next few years. Included on this list were my home State of Georgia along with Arizona, Mississippi and Texas. As we are seeing the fight for gun control seems to be moving from the national level to the state level with the courts backing whatever draconian measures the states implement.

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/field-guide-red-blue-america/
 
First off, Ms. Bayer is a delegate from California. She's not issuing a public statement on behalf of her candidate or party.

She's in a bar on Convention Monday. Trust me, everybody's drinking. She might be speaking her true feelings, or she might be letting the booze talk.

Now, the relevant part is this:

You have to take that sort of moderate, "we just wanna have some common-sense legislation so our children are safe." You say [expletive] like that, and then people will buy into it.
Click to expand...

For me, this isn't news. That's been the agenda since Nelson Shields wrote about it in the 1970's.

If this thread is to remain open, let's be sure to steer clear of Red/Blue partisan politics.
 
Yeah, a drunk convention delegate in a bar is not indicative of a conspiracy. About all it is indicative of is that the wider strategy of pretending to be about "commonsense gun safety" while pushing for eradication of civilian firearms ownership is so well understood that even the minor members of the party both understand it and are onboard with the necessary duplicity.

However, there are plenty of good solid facts to support the atgument that gun control groups are really interested in gun bans. For one thing, there are their own words - like the video where Oregon legislator Lee Coleman says "gun confiscation is a paranoid delusion" and then states he favors gun confiscation.. I can't tell you how many times somebody giving me the "Nobody wants to ban guns" line lets the mask slip and starts discussing the specific guns they'd support banning.

Then of course there is the fact that despite a burning interest in "commonsense gun safety", none of these organizations actually teach or offer gun safety course. That remains the sole province of the NRA.

And then finally you have the legislative contradictions - like where all they wanted was background checks to make sure people could legally own a gun; but when given the choice between background checks for everyone and no records or background checks for a few but nobody, not even people exempted from background checks by law, escapes the 4473, they chose the option that preserved the 4473.
 
Last edited:
In a related note, the Democratic Party platform has literally erased the Second Amendment: http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/26/democrats-erase-the-second-amendment-fro

Jacob Sullum has done a side by side comparison of the Democratic Party platforms since 2000 and has found that while the Second Amendment was acknowledged as at least some type of right in 2004, 2008, and even 2012, the party has reverted to 2000 and removed all mention of the Second.
 
You have to take that sort of moderate, "we just wanna have some common-sense legislation so our children are safe." You say [expletive] like that, and then people will buy into it.
Click to expand...
For me, this isn't news. That's been the agenda since Nelson Shields wrote about it in the 1970's.
Click to expand...



This line of thinking has been around since long before the 70's...

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

I so wish the modern liberals could realize whom they sound like...
 
I think a complete, nationwide, privately owned gun ban would be difficult in the U.S.. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in whatever convoluted way) the 2nd Amendment has nothing to due with the right to bear arms, there are still a lot of friendly gun states. On the Federal level, I think it would be hard to pass law(s) which would ban all privately owned guns (at least directly). If there was ever a ban on all privately owned guns in this country, I think it would be done with unelected Federal bureaucrats and/or judges. For example, Obamacare could make owning guns too expensive and the courts could just rubber stamp any cases for it. Undoubtedly one of the major political parties would try and reign in the bureaucrats but would most likely be stopped by the other major political party.
 
Apparently, they are going to devote most of the day to gun control at the convention as well. The new party platform calls for registration, bans on semi-autos, being able to sue gun manufacturers if firearms are used in a crime, no purchases for terrorist watchlist (and no due process) Basically just an authoritarian crackdown on gun ownership.
 
On the Federal level, I think it would be hard to pass law(s) which would ban all privately owned guns (at least directly). If there was ever a ban on all privately owned guns in this country, I think it would be done with unelected Federal bureaucrats and/or judges
Click to expand...

You don't have to go after the guns; just go after the ammo and make the guns into paperweights.
 
It's really hard to avoid getting into a political discussion on Democrats vs. Republicans with the all-out gun banning agenda the Democrat party seems to have doubled down on. No one wants to see this. No one wants to alienate Independents or Democrats from becoming gun loving 2nd Amendment advocates. I'm just venting a little bit here because the forum rules are so restrictive on political discussions, but they seem to be from a different era. How do you (i.e. me, you, and the moderators) just ignore this new tidal wave of anti-gun sentiment coming from one particular political party?
 
In regards to the video, IIRC, the lady is an alternate delegate, drinking and running off at the mouth. There's no way to get her statements to stick to Hillary or the DNC in the public eye. Too many layers of plausible deniability.

However, we can take a look at the Democratic Party's stated platform:
Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.
Click to expand...
Source: https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...emocratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

Their words, not mine.
 
Thought it might be interesting to look at what the other party has to say about the Second Amendment in their platform.

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans to exercise their God-given right of self-defense for the safety of their homes, their loved ones, and their communities.
We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.
We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration’s illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious” operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of guns to known violent criminals.
Click to expand...
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
 
Well, let's see. The last time Hillary lived in the White House (and I hope it was the LAST time), the Clinton administration came up with a scheme to change the way guns were distributed and tried to do an end run around Congress by threatening to harass gun manufacturers into bankruptcy with baseless law suits, even though they were following existing law.

This was the most unconstitutional stunt to come out of a Presidential administration since FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937.

Now let's take a look at what she promises will happen if she's elected:

But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done and it is, in my view, consistent with the “Constitution.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ary-clinton-on-guns-and-the-second-amendment/
Click to expand...

Let's break these down:

comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes - This means background checks for ALL sales.

closing the online loophole - no online sales (whether via an FFL or not).

closing the so-called Charleston loophole - Currently if a NICS check doesn't come up with a result in three days, the dealer can release the gun to the buyer. Clinton wants the government to take as long as it wants to run a background check (read "forever"). A simple budget cut and gun sales would grind to a halt. Only a true apparatchik would translate the "Instant" in National Instant Check System to mean "as long as we want".

Reversing the bill ... giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for illegal acts committed with their guns - A great deal of emphasis is given to the fact that only gun manufacturers and sellers have this sort of immunity. That's because no other product is exposed to this abuse of liability law. Imagine Chevy being sued because somebody got into an accident while driving drunk in one of their cars.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. [emphasis added] ibid
Click to expand...
IF??? It's been settled by the Supreme Court!

Clinton's definition of "reasonable regulation" is whatever she can get away with, separation of powers or the constitution notwithstanding.

Add in her support for stopping gun sales to anybody the government puts on a secret "terrorist" list without a shred of due process and her advocacy of nationwide "Australian style" gun confiscation, and yes, I would say this is a critical election.
 
natman said:
comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes - This means background checks for ALL sales.

closing the online loophole - no online sales (whether via an FFL or not).

closing the so-called Charleston loophole - Currently if a NICS check doesn't come up with a result in three days, the dealer can release the gun to the buyer. Clinton wants the government to take as long as it wants to run a background check (read "forever"). A simple budget cut and gun sales would grind to a halt. Only a true apparatchik would translate the "Instant" in National Instant Check System to mean "as long as we want".
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that UBC's plus a registration requirement would provide a handy enforcement mechanism for a more stringent future AWB. This would work by making it illegal to run a background check on an EBR and requiring everyone to register all EBR's within X months, after which possession without corresponding registration becomes a Go Straight to Jail card.
 
FITASC said:
You don't have to go after the guns; just go after the ammo and make the guns into paperweights.
Click to expand...

That is kind of splitting hairs but it wouldn't surprise me if the courts upheld this kind of stuff. What do you think the courts would do if the government didn't outlaw free speech but made language illegal unless it was approved by the government? Same concept but I doubt the courts would rule that way :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top