Donald Trump is taking a lot of heat from the media lately for calling a spade a spade. That is to say, the billionaire real estate mogul has correctly called out Hillary Clinton for the undeniable anti-gunner that she is.
Last Friday, at a rally in Miami, Trump said, “Now, you know she’s very much against the Second Amendment, she wants to destroy your Second Amendment — guns, guns, guns, right? I think what we should do is, she goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before.”
“I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons, they should disarm, right? I think they should disarm,” The GOP-presidential nominee continued. “Immediately, what do you think? Yeah, take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Take their – let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK? It’ll be very dangerous.”
It didn’t take long for the media to jump on Trump for (a) supposedly threatening Clinton once again (NY Times said he “raised the specter of violence against” Clinton) and (b) ostensibly lying about Clinton’s views on the Second Amendment (NY Times said, “Mr. Trump falsely claimed that Mrs. Clinton wants to ‘destroy your Second Amendment’”). Anyone with a half a brain knows he wasn’t threatening Clinton and anyone who is even moderately aware of Clinton’s views on the 2A knows she does indeed want to destroy it.
A quick overview of Clinton’s 2A positions:
- Does Clinton support banning commonly owned and widely popular firearms? Yes.
- Does Clinton support a national gun registration? Yes.
- Does Clinton support criminalizing private transfers? Yes.
- Does Clinton support Australian-style (mandatory) gun buyback program aka confiscation? Yes.
- Does Clinton support May-Issue or No-Issue concealed carry laws? Yes.
- Does Clinton oppose the Heller decision affirming one’s individual right to keep and bear arms? Yes.
- Does Clinton support repealing the law (PLCAA) that protects gun makers from frivolous lawsuits? Yes.
Look, it’s not just Hillary Clinton, but any candidate who answers “yes” to all of the aforementioned questions wants to destroy our 2A rights. Think about it for a moment and recall what it means to destroy something.
From Dictionary.com, Destroy – 1. “to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.”
If a politician pushes for gun bans, national registration schemes, criminalizing private transfers, confiscatory measures, a virtual prohibition on concealed carry, ending legal protection for gun manufacturers, and a law that would make one’s right to keep and bear arms contingent upon militia service she is attempting to destroy — render into useless pieces — the Second Amendment.
If Clinton got her way, one would no longer be allowed to keep black rifles, one would have to register all firearms with the government, one would not be allowed to transfer a firearm to a friend without having to pay a fee to an FFL to conduct a background check, one would be compelled to turn over certain firearms to the government, one would not really have a right to keep and bear arms unless one participated in militia service and, lastly, one would not be able to bear arms in the public square without CLEO approval.
So, let’s recap, under a Clinton administration one’s 2A rights would be completely contingent upon militia service and one would no longer be able to keep certain arms nor bear any arms in public without CLEO approval. What good is the right to keep and bear arms against government tyranny when one can no longer keep and bear arms without the consent of the government?
See, although Clinton (and her media bedfellows) keep telling us that she’s not an anti-gunner, that she doesn’t support legislation that would destroy the Second Amendment, the truth is she does! She’ll continue to deny it all day, but if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it has duck DNA… It’s a duck!
On another note, it would be interesting to see politicians like Clinton, who deep down oppose one having the right to carry a firearm in public, mandate that their security detail disarm because those armed men are a threat to public safety. Fat chance of that happening.
Clinton, like so many politicians we see today, embodies the “Guns for me but not for thee philosophy.” When her life is on the line, she wants good guys with guns protecting her. When your life is on the line, well, she’d prefer you to be unarmed, and that you call the police and wait for them to arrive.