What Hillary Clinton Can Actually Do To Take Your Guns

Send to Kindle

Hillary Clinton’s gun control proposals are, quite frankly, nauseating. Slogging through the nine ways Hillary plans to stop guns from killing people is tough work for anyone who values the Second Amendment and possesses even a basic understanding of U.S. gun law. I don’t advise it for anyone with a weak stomach.

Her reason for overhauling the current gun control system is simple: according to her webpage, “About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.” What she means, of course, is, People kill 33,000 other people or, more likely, themselves with guns each year (about two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides). Not even Hillary believes guns by themselves are responsible for American deaths, right?

She might. Seven of her nine proposals target guns themselves rather than the criminals who actually pull the trigger and even those target people who might pull the trigger in the future, but haven’t yet.

So what are Hillary’s proposals? What would it take to turn them into law? And would they do anything to bring down the number of gun deaths in the United States?

I’ve published the nuts and bolts of each proposal below, under which you’ll find my analysis. But be warned: it’s not for the faint of heart.

Federal Background Check Legislation

  1. Comprehensive federal background check legislation. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.

Anyone who buys a gun from a firearms dealer has to pass a background check. Every person. Every time. It’s false to imply that Congress failed to support background check legislation, and she’s hoping her supporters don’t know enough about gun law to call her out. When Hillary says, “comprehensive federal background check legislation,” what she means is “universal background check legislation.” This would require all private firearm transfers to be done through a licensed dealer who can run a background check. So if you want to give a gun to your son or sell your shotgun to a buddy, you’d have to make a trip to an FFL to make it legal.

In practice, this legislation could (and likely would) create a registry of all guns in the United States. Such a registry, of course, would only tell the feds which law-abiding citizens owned which firearms (since criminals don’t tend to get their guns legally), but that’s not important to the anti-gun crowd. Gun confiscation might not be politically viable now, but universal background checks could give future federal officials a powerful tool to enact total, nationwide gun confiscation. Always remember: the anti-gunners play the long game. Their goal is to put the tools in place today, so they can act as soon as they achieve a majority in Congress.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: This proposal would require legislation from Congress.

Charleston “Loophole”

  1. Closing the ‘Charleston Loophole.’Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.

This is the first of three “loopholes” Hillary wants to “close.” Anyone unfamiliar with basic gun law might conclude that current gun policy is riddled with ways for criminals to get around the law. Not that criminals follow the law anyway, but I repeat myself.

This particular “loophole” allows an FFL to release a gun to a customer after three days if the FBI has not given a final determination on the customer’s background check. In the case of the Charleston shooter, a clerical error kept the FBI from locating his criminal record within the three-day window. The law ensures a customer’s gun purchase isn’t held up by federal officials indefinitely, which could, in effect, revoke his or her Second Amendment rights without due process. Extending the window by a few days might be a reasonable solution, but labeling the three-day time period a “loophole” is inaccurate—a felon who attempts to purchase a gun cannot know ahead of time whether or not their background check will be delayed. It is impossible, therefore, for that person to intentionally take advantage of the “loophole” Hillary proposes to close.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: This proposal would require legislation from Congress, as it requires an amendment to the Brady Bill. That being said, these Democratic senators from Connecticut believe President Obama could close the “loophole” through executive action.

Gun Show, Internet “Loophole”

  1. Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t. If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales. 

The myths of the internet and gun show loopholes have been refuted by the pro-gun community ad nauseum. You can read the rebuttals here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are more, but you get the point.

What Hillary is proposing already exists under federal law, which requires anyone in the business of selling guns (i.e., someone who sells a “significant number of guns”) to perform a background check every time they sell a gun no matter where they sell it. If they sell a gun online, they’re required to send that gun to another Federal Firearm Licensee of their customer’s choosing. That FFL must conduct a background check before releasing the firearm to the customer.

Hillary’s policy wonks can get away with including such a redundant platform goal because Hillary’s supporters (and probably the policy wonks themselves) don’t know anything about gun law (notice a pattern here?). Still, considering the number of articles debunking the gun show loophole myth, they don’t have much excuse.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: Unless Hillary plans to change the definition of who must obtain an FFL, she can’t enact this proposal because it already exists.

Ending Gun Industry “Immunity”

  1. Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.

This is probably the most egregious set of lies on the whole list.

In reality, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act expressly prohibits firearms dealers from selling a firearm “when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”

The firearms industry does not have special immunity. They’re liable for negligence just like the car industry, the food industry, and every other economic sector, and, as this gun store owner recently proved, they’re more than capable of shouldering this responsibility.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: This proposal would require legislation from Congress.

Unscrupulous Gun Dealers

  1. Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers. Hillary believes we must do more to crack down on gun stores that flood our communities with illegal guns. As president, she will provide funding to increase inspections and aggressively enforce current law by revoking the licenses of dealers that knowingly supply straw purchasers and traffickers.

The idea that gun stores are “flooding our communities with illegal guns” is mere hyperbole. As ATF agent Charles Mulham told Forbes in 2014, “Sometimes an employee might steal guns or something, but gun store owners are rarely the problem.”

If Hillary wants to enforce existing law, fine. But if the anti-gunner track record is any indication, aggressive enforcement looks more like a denial of civil liberty than a pursuit of justice. In “Operation Choke Point,” for example, federal officials threatened banks with inspections and audits if they approved loans to gun stores. There is nothing wrong, in theory, with enforcing the law. But if Hillary’s tactics are anything like her predecessor’s, legal gun stores could face costly, time-consuming, and unreasonable legal actions.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: As head of the executive branch, Hillary could accomplish this proposal without an act of Congress.

Target Domestic Abusers

  1. Support legislation to stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. Although federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Hillary will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns.

The domestic abuse protection does, in fact, apply to people in dating relationships. Stephen Voisine, for example, was charged in 2011 with unlawful possession of a firearm after he was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend. What Hillary doesn’t like is that the Lautenberg Amendment—the federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from owning guns—doesn’t specifically mention dating relationships. It does, however, mention cohabiting persons and anyone “similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim,” categories broad enough to apply to most serious relationships.

As for stalking,I’ll let our friends at the NRA explain the absurdity of that idea. As they outline in their recent letter to lawmakers, “‘Stalking’ offenses do not necessarily include violent or even threatening behavior. Under federal law, for example, stalking includes ‘a course of conduct’ that never involves any personal contact whatsoever, occurs wholly through the mail, online media, or telephone service, is undertaken with the intent to ‘harass’ and would be reasonably expected to cause (even if it doesn’t succeed in causing) ‘substantial emotional distress’ to another person.”

None of this, of course, even addresses whether or not individuals convicted of a misdemeanor deserve a lifetime denial of their constitutional rights. Perhaps some do, but that debate warrants more space than this venue allows.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: This proposal would require legislation from Congress, which is already in the works.

Make Straw Purchasing a Federal Crime

  1. Make straw purchasing a federal crime.When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called ‘straw purchasing’ a federal crime.

Like Hillary’s plan to close the “gun show loophole,” this proposal already exists under federal law. Purchasing a gun for a prohibited person is illegal—both on the state and federal level. In 2014, furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled to allow “strict enforcement” of the federal ban on gun straw purchasers.

So, thus far, two of Clinton’s nine gun policy proposals already exist. It’s a wonder she can claim to fight gun violence when she clearly doesn’t understand the basics of existing gun law.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: Hillary can’t enact this proposal because it’s already a federal law.

Close Mental Health “Loophole”

  1. Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns. Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.

More loopholes. Hillary isn’t clear to which “loophole” she’s referring. It might be this one, supposedly closed by President Obama earlier this year, but it’s hard to say.

In any case, gun control efforts aimed at those with mental illnesses usually receive broad support, but their efficacy isn’t backed up by the facts. While the perceived link between mental illness and gun violence is well-established, this study found that less than 5 percent of gun-related killings in the U.S. from 2001 to 2010 were carried out by people found to have a mental illness.

In addition, the federal government’s history of properly enforcing the mental illness rule is far from spotless. Some Social Security recipients and military veterans have had their Second Amendment rights revoked merely because they were deemed incapable of managing their finances. Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with health problems manage their money, explained why this practice doesn’t hold water: “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” he said. “They are very different determinations.”

FINAL ASSESSMENT: Hillary could likely accomplish this proposal without Congress.

Reinstate “Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. Keep military-style weapons off our streets. Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.

This is a popular proposal in the anti-gun community as well. High-profile mass shootings like the one in San Bernardino scare those who trust their personal protection entirely to law enforcement or federal authorities. Anyone not familiar with criminal gun usage or the history of gun law may conclude, like Hillary, that “assault weapons do not belong on our streets.” But facts have a way of describing reality, and lawmakers have a responsibility to craft law that corresponds with fact.

For example, of the 12,664 homicides committed in the United States in 2011, 323 were perpetrated with a rifle (any kind of rifle, not specifically AR-15s or AK-47s). That’s less than 2.5 percent of all murders—a lower percentage than knives, blunt objects, and fists. This trend holds true for 2007-2010 as well. For Hillary to imply that “assault weapons” pose a grave danger to our law enforcement and communities is, again, mere hyperbole. They pose nothing of the kind.

History confirms this. The United States banned assault weapons in 1994 under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Anti-gunners couldn’t get enough support to renew the law, and Congress allowed it to expire in 2004. That year the University of Pennsylvania released a study that summarizes the ban’s effectiveness: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

FINAL ASSESSMENT: This proposal would require an act of Congress.

Conclusion

Hillary Clinton’s nine gun control proposals do nothing except reveal her ignorance of gun law, gun history, gun ownership, gun usage, and, most importantly, gun owners. Law-abiding citizens don’t perpetuate gun crime. Guns don’t perpetuate gun crime. If Hillary and the larger anti-gun community wants to “stop guns from killing people,” they should focus on the people who actually pull the trigger.

Hillary Clinton, the next president of the United States of America?  (Photo: HillaryClinton.com)

Hillary Clinton, the next president of the United States of America? (Photo: HillaryClinton.com)

***

About the Author: Jordan Michaels is a new convert to the gun world. A Canadian immigrant to the United States, he recently became an American citizen and is happily enjoying his newly-acquired Second Amendment freedoms. He’s a communications professional, a political junkie, and an avid basketball fan.

{ 60 comments… add one }
  • Steve October 26, 2016, 5:31 pm

    IMO they won’t go door to door they will first choke off ammunition. Then via correspondence you will be asked to turn over your weapons they have banned. The Feds will Single out certain individuals with or without the local LEO’s. They will make examples of them & put fear in those, who will then comply. Times will be tough and intelligence will be easily collected with rewards. Neighbors will be reporting their neighbors. Obviously a number of things have to occur before we get to this point. I truly believe this country is on the path to destruction. This is from within the middle political whores of DC. This is like trying to diagnose pancreatic cancer. It isn’t high or low enough in the body to get to it. Finally when you know you have it, it’s too late. Then it is only a matter of time before you die. Collapse will be the adjative for America. Sounds gloomy but we haven’t learned from the countries we have saved from fascism two times within a 50 year span. We should not forget about the 13 colonies who took on & beat the most powerful country & navy and against all odds to rid themselves of tyranny. I’ll quote from the movie Dumd And Dummer, “so you’re saying there’s still a chance”

  • Fusion Pilot August 12, 2016, 11:01 am

    I keep reading the anti-gun crowd referring to “automatic weapons”, and specifically the statement that “shooters don’t need automatic weapons, they should be limited to semi-automatic weapons”. What garbage. They don’t even know the guns they want banned.
    One delegate at the Democrat convention said Hillary had the right idea – ask for a little now, a little more later, then eventually take people’s guns away. When interviewed by Chris Wallace recently, she refused to say that gun ownership was a right. We all know where she’s coming from – yet she won’t go out the door without half a dozen men WITH GUNS to protect her. Another case of politicians believing they deserve different treatment than the rest of us.

    • Mark Wynn August 12, 2016, 11:33 am

      Actually, even the phrase, “ban semi-automatic weapons” has been used and in the news lately. I suspected it was from Democrats that just didn’t know the difference … yet, the news outlets let it stand without a correction or explanation.

  • Max August 11, 2016, 7:52 pm

    Strange, don’t you think, that all of this hysterical doomsaying is a carbon copy of everything that you geniuses lapped up from the NRA in 2008 and 2012? Funny thing…I still have all of my guns. The only thing I remember having taken away during the last 8 years was the ability to get certain kinds of ammunition ANYWHERE, for months, because you fools were all hoarding it for “WHEN THEY COME TO TAYK MAH GUNS AWIIIY!” Wait, I remember now, that was all because THE FEDZ were keeping it all to use on us, right? This country has become a stupidocracy.

    • Mark Wynn August 12, 2016, 11:39 am

      Max, it’s not been for the Obama administration’s lack of trying. Several constraints have been attempted, mostly through “law by agency beaucrat” and have been discovered, and thwarted by the NRA and elected officials vigilance.

  • Michael Wallace April 22, 2016, 10:01 am

    Dave W. firearms are not banned in Australia. Long arms can be owned provided you do not have a criminal history, you do have to be a licenced shooter to have rifles and shotguns. Handguns are able to be purchased by an individual after you have got a permit to acquire from the firearms registry in your city and permission from your pistol club, You must also do a firearms training course as well. Pistol licences take about 6 months to get as you must prove that you are a competitive pistol shooter, All firearms are registered and must be stored in a secure manner in your home. I know that this seems to be drawn out, but it is incorrect to say that firearms are banned. There are over 13000 members in my shooting club of which close to a thousand are pistol shooters. And yes we do have the Anti gun nuts in Australia, namely the greens party who want to Ban guns and anything else that their tiny minds can think up.

  • tmonk April 22, 2016, 8:34 am

    After reading all the good comments the one thing that we need to do is stand 100% behind who ever runs against the Democratic in the up coming election

  • perlcat April 18, 2016, 11:04 am

    Hillary doesn’t scare me nearly as much as the ignorance of the people believing the trash she puts out. There used to be a core of democrats that held their own firearms and understood the fearmongering, and knew it for what it was — but they are being replaced by appalling ignorance.

  • Steve April 14, 2016, 11:38 am

    I’m sorry… Hilary Clinton scares me more than any other candidate… There is an adjenda …and they need to take as many guns as possible… The goal is to render the American people powerless… And in the process, dissolve Americanism…. This has been done through out history…. And the results are always the same…. Disaster for our fellow man….God help us all….

    • Michael Smith August 14, 2016, 1:43 pm

      I am with you Steve, both the dems. and reps. progressives are pushing four their NWO and Agenda 21. I do not think that a lot of them know what they are really asking for.As for me I stand with Thomas Jefferson, ” The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away. Or as an old song from Archie Bunker says We can use a man like Thomas Jefferson again.

  • Scott Syverson April 11, 2016, 4:50 pm

    Let me apply my distinct expertise to bolster the fallacy of one of Hilliary’s arguments – the mental health loophole. Scientist doctors, and mental health officials do not have a working model of how the human brain works, so therefore it is impossible for them to describe mental “defects”. They have a normative model. “What is the range of “normal” behavior”, “what is “abnormal’ (neurotic/psychotic)? So how can you claim a person has a mental defect, when you don’t know exactly what the brain is supposed to be doing. An example is psychopathy. Psychopathy comes in in two classes with three distinct varieties in each. The most famous is the clinical psychopath of the classical variety. This is the ax-murder, mass murder for fun, kills people and skins them so he can stitch hides together to make a coat because it looks cool,. or Ponzi-schemer type that grabs the headlines. Psychopathy, currently, is label a “personality disorder”. It is not a mental defect. It would therefore not be covered under Hillary’s plan because it is not a mental illness – it’s a distorted personality characteristic assumed to be voluntary in formation (this is wrong and research is in progress to show it is a genetic defect). Her plan would not even get guns out of the hands of psychos. Additionally, there is a second variety of psychopaths called Sub-clinicals. They are very much the same brain functionality as the Clinicals, but do not act out to the degree of violence or criminality. Even though they fly under the radar, they are still highly dangerous. Current estimates are that two (2) % of the North American population, between all types, are psychopaths. They are extremely hard to identify. Trained psychologist and psychiatrist required an in-depth, 12 point assessment that requires family input/interviews into childhood behavior to make the diagnosis of psychopathy. So, again, how does Hillary’s plan have a prayer of removing guns from even the most violent, predatory humans among us. I have developed the first commercial employee screening test to identify psychopaths for companies so they don’t hire them. It is the only test in the world to be able to identify psychopaths in the general population. Nobody from Hillary’s campaign has talked to me and I would certainly never allow my tests or testing procedures (I have them locked down with copyrights) to be used against 2nd Amendment rights. This is just only one instance of why Hillary’s Mental Health Loophole policy is indeed full of holes. And don’t even get me started on schizophrenia, bi-polar disease…..

  • Onthe Wall April 9, 2016, 12:16 am

    Why doesn’t anyone cum out and say what exactly is the problem. Well I will. In New York City according to The NYCPD inter net site between 87% and 94% of all violent crimes are committed by blacks or hispanics (these figures include crimes with guns).
    Chicago I am sure is the same and any city with large numbers of blacks or hispanics will be the same. SO NOW HOW CAN RESTRICTING LEGAL GUN SALES POSSIBLY EFFECT GUN CRIMES, IMPOSSIBLE! The only thing restricting legal gun sales could possibly do is change the balance of who in our society has the guns. What that means is every politician who wants to restrict legal gun sales ALL THEY ARE DOING IS DISARMING THOSE WHO ARE NOT BLACK OR HISPANIC. It’s the democrat/liberal/progressive thinking way to like they say LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. For those who are to dense to understand this it means the number of non-criminals will have less guns and said criminals will have more guns. I don’t know about most of you out there but the liberal democrats want more monetary equality and now the same with guns. With all the bull*shit these politicians scream about trying their best to get rid of guns HOW MANY HAVE YOU HEARD WANT TO INCREASE PUNISHMENT FOR ACTUAL CRIMINALS, I haven’t heard of any mostly they want to do like governor goofball cuomo and let the cops count how many bullet’s are in your gun! It’s like what Forrest Gump says ‘STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES’. Take mu guns away bull*shit.

  • Larry April 8, 2016, 10:50 pm

    But wait! You mean that some of us still have guns (and are free to go to the store)??

    I had my guns taken away the same day that Obama’s FEMA grabbed me up and put me in a converted WalMart!

    I’m risking solitary confinement to write this – but I have to know if individual ownership of guns is still allowed – and, if so, can I start shopping here, or do I have to stay in the stockroom for another 5 years???

    • Mark Wynn August 12, 2016, 11:43 am

      Keep your day job, Larry. Presuming you have one ….

  • DaveW April 8, 2016, 2:11 pm

    Canada shut down the registration of rifles and shotguns because they found it to be a waste of funds which produced practically no return on that investment because rifles and shotguns were rarely used for any criminal acts.

    In England, where handguns are banned, the most common weapons used in criminal acts are handguns and toy guns which have become readily available. Due to licensing, practically the only people who own firearms are those who have a sufficiently high enough income. In other words, the wealthy can afford them, the average and poor are denied. Thus, the regular people are discriminated against. It is also true that ever more police officers are being trained and either equipped with firearms or have access to them due to the rise of violent crimes involving armed individuals. The long ago unofficial agreement between police and criminals to not carry firearms is gone. In large part because of the influx of immigrants who have grown up in violent nations where they have been desensitized, and by the violent period of Irish terrorism as well as present day terrorism arising out of Muslim extremism.

    In Australia, which banned firearms and had buyouts, say the use of firearms for criminal acts initially drop. This does not apply to criminals involved with drugs. On the other hand, crimes against people and property crimes have soared. Law Enforcement generally sees this as a result of criminals understanding that they have nothing to fear. Roving packs of animals now prey upon and attack individuals on the street with general impunity.

  • Pontificant April 8, 2016, 12:28 pm

    Don’t worry, if she gets elected, she won’t be coming for your guns; she’ll be coming for you. The guns will only be an excuse used to get you, me and everyone (conservative and liberal) who thinks like us. For people like her, there’s no place in this world for us. We question, we act and we make our voices known. Whether it be through God and faith and/or Scientific evidence, we stand for what is right, what is humble and what has integrity. We have no desire to control our neighbors or take something unearned. We won’t tolerate corruption and therefore we have no place in her New World Order.

    • Chemiker April 8, 2016, 2:31 pm

      Brilliantly put. The left desires dictatorship. It is the only way that they can survive. Look at the worst dictatorships in the last century: Mao, Hitler (National Socialist German Workers Party), and Stalin. They use patriotism and false calls for equality to fool the people. They then take back the freedoms in the guise of “public safety.”

      Each time, the left says that it is “for the children” or for safety, you can be sure that it is not.

    • Steve October 26, 2016, 6:15 pm

      There is no if. It’s when, I sadly say

  • Larry April 8, 2016, 11:57 am

    We can eliminate this problem once & for all by pouring out the leftist kool-aid & taking the pledge to NEVER, EVER again vote for ANYONE with a “D” behind their name.

  • David Keith April 8, 2016, 11:30 am

    Start telling the truth of who’s committing all the gun homicides. It’s blacks and neither blacks nor Hillary are taking my guns away. The government can perhaps bomb us into submission, but they aren’t taking anything away.

  • Kevin Key April 8, 2016, 10:56 am

    Fuc Hillary I’m voting for Trump!

    • Larry April 8, 2016, 12:02 pm

      So am I but only if he gets the nomination. If he doesn’t, I’m still voting AGAINST Hillary, the Evil. Are you? If we want to save our country, this election cannot be just about Trump. It must be, first & foremost, about defeating the Democrat!
      Cruz would make a fine President. The middle of the road, wishy washy Kasich would even be head & shoulders better than either the Commie or Commie Lite that are running as Democrats..

    • Sven April 17, 2016, 3:46 pm

      If Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson were running against Hitlery, I’d vote for the former.

  • Pat J April 8, 2016, 10:51 am

    She won’t say no to guns for the next proxy war for Israel her bat-shit crazy, neocon friends engineer for the USA.
    Four years she had to clear that trash out of the State Department, it’s all still there, festering and bilious.

  • Wake_Up_America April 8, 2016, 10:25 am

    Simple: This critter will ruin that nation like no other. If you idiots vote for her, get ready, we will all suffer beyond belief!!!!

    • Jim April 8, 2016, 3:56 pm

      As one person so eloquently said: “Blame not the princess of fools, however, blame the electorate who would elect her princess of fools.”

  • G Washington April 8, 2016, 10:04 am

    I hope they don’t pass the assault weapons ban because in VIRGINIA….

    “Proof of citizenship, or of lawful admission for a permanent residence, must be established prior to the purchase of an “assault firearm.” An assault firearm is defined as any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of offence with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.”

    So soon anything/ everything bigger than a .22 will be an assault weapon singleshot or not.

    http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

    scroll down to transfer of assault firearms

  • ovalorfice April 8, 2016, 10:02 am

    i think many gun owners would welcome her coming to get their guns personally. with the bullets first of course.

  • Don April 8, 2016, 9:58 am

    Nothing. She can do NOTHING to take our guns. What she can do is pass laws and sign executive orders that will result in the deaths of law enforcement personnel, military personnel, etc., because when such laws are passed and enforcement is attempted, you will see massive resistance to such on a scale as to make the Civil Wa look like a tea party among toddlers.

  • Steve Challis April 8, 2016, 9:51 am

    Jordan ,like myself is a newly minted US Citizen ,and appears to understand the grave threat this nation faces ,should Hilary become our next president. For my part I saw the gun control zealots destroy gun ownership in the UK ,a country that already had so called common sense gun control.and of course no second amendment .
    As a 21 year cop over there I was responsible for,interviewing applicants for gun licenses ,an making a decision as to recommending grating the application or not. This in the framework that personal protection was banned as a reason for gun ownership and had been since the 1930s.The ban follows a sandy hook style shooting at a Scottish town called Dunblane and the politicians jumped on the bandwagon of the Brady organization ,and with total backing from the press,got their way.

    As expected violent gun crime has exploded since the ban. ,gun crime gas fallen ,but not the murder rate. The criminals are still there and still committing assaults and murders. In London the preferred weapon of the street gang is now the samurai sword. British police offices are still generally unarmed apart for the. Tactical Firearms Units (TFUs) and attempts to certify more have run into problems following the arrest and harassent of officers involved in justifiable shootings. In the face of the ISIS threat ,this is a serious problem for the British People ,made even worse by the EU ,continuing to impose restriction on the UK over prosecutions,Prisoners rights and immigration changes. In short Britain is facing a stream of Paris style attacks and the EU is forcing them to hold the door open for ISIS,
    Speaking on Fox last night Dr Ben Carson stated that a Clinton presidency would irrevocably change this country from a bastion of freedom to one of a regime of state control that would destroy the freedoms we so fondly cherish ,first among which would be The Second Amendment. We should listen to the good doctor . And follow his advice this November. Remember a vote for any democrat is a vote for a regime far worse than the Obama administration.

  • B_Cubed April 8, 2016, 9:48 am

    I would find it very informative to see a follow up article that analyzes each of these points to the extent possible using statistic from impartial sources or government agencies (FBI).

  • Z28 April 8, 2016, 9:48 am

    Dear GA writers and all you Folks.
    Since she isn’t your wife, relative or friend (SIC!)
    please call her Clinton !
    Or if you really in love use Mrs. Clinton.

    • Rouge1 April 8, 2016, 10:42 am

      Z28 I refer to her as the Hag.

      • Chief April 8, 2016, 11:42 am

        Good Lord I am so disgusted by that woman .

        • Steve October 26, 2016, 6:17 pm

          You mean deplorable & unredeamable

      • Steve Holsten April 22, 2016, 7:31 am

        She’s a useless carpet munching 2 bit winch bitch.

    • Joe McHugh April 8, 2016, 11:59 am

      Z28, you have a point. She is the wife of a former President and served as the Secretary of State for obama. Now she is running to be the President of the United States herself. Upon due deliberation, I have decided to now refer to her as the HILDABEAST!
      Thanks Z28 for bringing this noteworthy matter up to the readers and contributors to the GunsAmerica site.

    • Ron April 8, 2016, 1:05 pm

      I much prefer to call her: HITLERY.. Yep, just like Hitler; her attitude toward the Constitution is just Odumba, ignorant.

  • GOD April 8, 2016, 9:36 am

    What about alcohol? No one dare talk about the deaths and violence caused by alcohol.

  • me April 8, 2016, 8:58 am

    Ladies and gents…ur next d.c. (demoscat commie) prezedenti !

  • Jack Dsonice April 8, 2016, 8:50 am

    OK, let not all get caught in our shorts here, It will take a lot of political maneuvering for any form of gun control. Democrats are NOT going to get a majority in Congress. And Hillary is a lot smarter than most politicians. She is not going to waste any political capital on this issue beyond some cosmetic changes, She has bigger fish to fry.

    While we all love guns we cannot let this single issue define us. We do more than shoot – we eat, sleep, work, take care of our families, travel.

    This article is (in my opinion) bogus.

    • Vanns40 April 8, 2016, 10:18 am

      While I disagree with you on the article I’ll address an issue not covered. If Hillary (yeah, I’ll call her that, tough!) were elected she could, with the stroke of her Executive Order pen ban the importation of ALL foreign ammo immediately. That would: 1. Drive prices through the roof, 2. Cripple the shooting/sports industry. It would take years for domestic private companies to pick up and cover the demand. No matter who you favor on the Republican side or even if you don’t like anyone, your end game should be “anyone but a Democrat”.

  • Big D April 8, 2016, 8:50 am

    As an FFL I can attest to this articles validity, and confirm its factual content to the extent that a firearm transaction doesn’t come through my business to a customer that has not been checked, verified, recorded, approved by the Federal government, and personally reviewed by me before the transaction is completed. Maybe Trump or Cruz would be good for D.C. since they have more actually important things on their minds.

  • Rob April 8, 2016, 8:49 am

    Hitlery at work again. WTF, why can’t this heffer go away?

  • BigC April 8, 2016, 8:20 am

    Now how do we BAN HELLARY??????

  • Jim April 8, 2016, 8:07 am

    Ladies and Gentlemen…..These fabrications and innuendos by the dimocrats, left-leaning wing-nuts, and progressives are just more attempts to CONTROL the populace…..regardless of who they are. Of course that doesn’t mean the dims will give up their FIREARMS for THEIR self protection. It’s to keep the weirdos away, doncha know, and to keep the socialistic leaders safe! You know how we people are! Can’t be trusted! Again, it’s all about CONTROL. They’re afraid of the 2nd Amendment and the rights it gives us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. One like what THEY are proposing, of course, when they take over. CONTROL! Be afraid, ladies and gentlemen, be very afraid. There is an ulterior motive of the left! Hillbilly and her LIES are the root cause of concern. And to think, some folks believe this stuff she’s putting out….and be more afraid, THEY VOTE!

  • Steve April 8, 2016, 7:42 am

    If she wants to hold gun makers responsible for violence with guns, then what about car makers,motorcycle makers she has no reasoning for this at all.

    • Pontificant April 8, 2016, 10:37 am

      Or the vaccine makers.

    • Steve October 26, 2016, 6:30 pm

      Those F_ _ k sticks & the spineless republicans will make it law. Disarming the population is her #1 priority. She WILL take our gun, well lt least make them illegal.

  • RObert Allen April 8, 2016, 7:29 am

    Nice to see how these democrats plan on forcing a civil uprising. Good luck.

    • Butch Nowak April 8, 2016, 8:07 am

      She has the easy part done………….Talking about it.

    • Morty April 8, 2016, 9:37 am

      We won’t have to wait for Clinton to be elected. The Republican convention will set off riots if the RNC gets cute.

  • P April 8, 2016, 6:11 am

    Hillary the criminal is bought and paid for by AIPAC, just saying…

  • Steve Holsten April 8, 2016, 5:31 am

    Hitlery is such a no-count Bitch! Please don’t vote for this carpet munching Biatch! Our 2nd Amendment is precious in the world we now live in.

  • norm April 8, 2016, 2:56 am

    It seems there’s no end to what this diabolical witch will do to run over, through and above the 2nd Amendment. Somehow I doubt 80 million legally armed Americans will give up their guns without a fight. Trump in November, to redeem the nation!

    • DaveW April 8, 2016, 1:52 pm

      The last time they came for our guns, it resulted in the Revolutionary War. In Massachusetts, the British Army was dispatched across the state with orders to confiscate the firearms and ammunition (powder and shot) from colonists “in order to control them”. Paul Revere and others rode ahead of the advancing troops to sound the warning. The following day, the troops encountered a gathering of armed colonists. This resulted in “the shot heard ’round the world”, which gave rise to the birth of a new nation conceived in liberty and freedom.

      The biggest question for us today is whether we will capitulate or if we will have the courage to stand up to tyranny.

      The GOP may not have the best candidates we have ever seen, but we must stand together to defeat the spreading cancer of the left. Killery is not centrist. She is a far left radical whose goal is control of We the People rather than leadership of We the People.

      Beside… I do not want to see her and Bill drawing a double income on the backs of taxpayers. Fool us once (Bill), shame on you. Fool us twice (Bill and Barry), shame on us. Fool us a third time (Bill, Killery, and Barry), we should hide our faces in shame for fear the Founders may see what e allowed to happen.

  • taxx73 April 5, 2016, 9:39 pm

    Can somebody please tell me why this lying piece of crap is still talking and not in prison? I predict that if Hitlery is elected there will be another revolutionary war before her term is up. She is nothing but a joke. Think about the fact that Bill had to cheat on her with Monica. So that tells me she can’t even keep her husband in line much less the bad guys. Hey Hitlery: LEAVE OUR RIGHTS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!

    • Shannon April 8, 2016, 6:26 am

      It’s simple, really. For her to be arrested or face charges, the order would have to come from a Federal agency in the Executive Branch. That branch is currently headed by Barack Obama. No agency under his purview will attempt to indict Hillary Clinton on anything, as their actions will simply be stopped. Therefore, as long as she remains a campaigning candidate, a possible VP candidate, or a Supreme Court candidate (if, say, Sanders wins the primaries and the Presidency), she’s not going to be prosecuted.

      I further submit that if she doesn’t become the Democratic candidate and a Republican wins, she’ll get a slap on the wrist.

      Had it been John Doe, or one of the Republican candidates, they’d be in San Quentin “awaiting trial” till sometime in December.

      • Ken April 8, 2016, 7:41 am

        I think there’s a slight possibility that IF she is convicted she’d be pardoned by the man behind the desk on his way out.
        Actually there’s not enough time left for all that to come about but that’s what would happen if time permitted.

        • Joe McHugh April 8, 2016, 12:17 pm

          Ken, actually, obama has until midnight of January 19, 2017 to issue and announce a Presidential pardon for the Hildabeast. President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for ALL crimes that he MIGHT have committed during his Presidency. Ford maintained that he was protecting the stability of the United Sates by doing so. Ford was something of a Chicken Little who had no faith that the Constitution provided all of the stability needed for governing out society.

          The Presidential pardon privilege is unlimited for criminal matters. The only thing that it cannot stop is the civil action of impeachment. In theory, a sitting president can even pardon himself or herself.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend