Trump’s Not Wrong, Hillary Clinton Wants To Destroy 2A!

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, 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 Also: Clinton on Confiscation: ‘It’s Worth Considering’

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.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 15 comments… add one }
  • Patriot September 23, 2016, 4:05 pm

    This illustrates the real attitude of the liberal biased democratic network news media, especially the New York Times !! Does the media make an effort to show the real dishonesty, lies, greed and corruption of radical democrat Hillary? OF COURSE NOT !! However, the media DOES make an effort to say that radical liar Hillary would be a better president than Republican Trump.
    The biased media supports liar Hillary and radical Democrats who fear a change to Trump would cause them to lose the power they have through the Democrat establishment. The biased network news media and Hillary, Billy, and Chelsea supporters, such as Obama, Tim Kaine is Hillary’s selection for Vice President, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer are rotten gun control politicians from California, Gov. Brown of California, Gov. Brown of Oregon, Gov. Inslee of Washington, Gov. McAuliffe of Virginia, Bloomberg is a major gun control radical and gun control financier who contrives with media anchor Katy Couric to make the pro gun people seem to be confused and stupid on network news, Soros is a major gun control idiot who is a friend of Hillary and owns Progressive insurance, Sen. Schumer of New York wants to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with biased gun control Democrat justices who would be cooperative with Hillary’s radical agenda, Katie Couric who contrived with Bloomberg to make the network news represent pro gun people as confused and stupid, Attorney General of Massachusetts Maura Healey who dictated that certain common guns are illegal, Sen. Harry Reid of Arizona who, as Majority Leader of the Senate, refused to hear Republican legislation, Dan Gross who is leader of the radical gun control Brady Bunch, Rupert Murdoch who is a biased gun control Democrat of FOX NEWS, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says she will not vote for Trump, and so does Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham and Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, and all have something in common and it is the fact that all are ROTTEN TO THE CORE and do not know what is best for the United States but DO KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM !!!!

    Remember Hillary’s ludicrous comment about the four Americans killed in Benghazi –

    The reason Hillary, who was Secretary of State, could not help the four people,

  • rt66paul September 23, 2016, 10:17 am

    Does a militia have to be state sponsored? Change the wording of NRA or other firearm membership organizations to show it as a militia and we have that excuse covered. I would prefer not to be forced to join any organization, but with the proper carrot…..
    I have always thought of a militia as about the same as a sheriff rounding up a posse, an informal group of people known to you that will help in a bad situation.

    • Z September 23, 2016, 4:08 pm

      No militia is required.

      That is a link to the explanation of the Supreme Court cases that decided firearm ownership is an individual citizens right and not contingent upon state approval.

  • Z September 23, 2016, 10:00 am

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    2/3 of the senate and 3/4 of the states have to agree before a constitutional amendment can be repealed. Enough of the fear mongering.

    • Bob Mills September 23, 2016, 10:24 am

      ONLY IF you follow the US Constitution. The problem is that Obama doesn’t and Hillary will take the ‘telephone and pen” further. Look at Chicago–is what they are doing to gun owners within the bounds of the US Constitution? Conn? NY? DC? Come on, with another liberal SCOTUS judge saying NO there will be no 2A–gone for sure. If you think this wrong find the part in the document that makes abortion a right. Or gay ‘marriage’ or transgender locker rooms. It is not there. Hillary will take the Constitution and have 5 justices say whatever she wants it to say. Just like a scene from Animal Farm—some animals are more equal than others!

      • Z September 23, 2016, 10:52 am

        The Supreme Court already ruled that gun ownership is a citizens right not dependent upon the state or federal government. You need to do your homework and separate individual state laws from presidential actions. You can’t fight against what you can’t identify.
        What has a legally binding contract between people of the same gender got to do with your constitutional right to own firearms? Not a damn thing. Stop conflating unrelated issues to support your straw argument.
        In every presidential election since Reagan there’s a group of people claiming the democrats are going to take away your guns. News flash, it hasn’t happened. If you do some research you’ll find that Reagan was in favor of limiting the type of firearms available to the citizens.
        I’m not telling you how to feel about an issue but for the sake of law abiding gun owners everywhere, please do some research and educate yourself so you can provide an intelligent and well reasoned point of view on the issue surrounding the second ammendment. This fear mongering bs casts a bad light on all of us.

        • Richadr Fuller September 23, 2016, 2:10 pm

          Couldn’t have said it better! This fear mongering has got to stop! I say so as a LAGO.
          Clinton has never said she’s going after guns. I’m for gun checks on buyers, in every state, it is a small price to pay to keep the guns from dickweeds.

        • Odysseus M Tanner September 23, 2016, 7:32 pm

          You’re barking up the wrong tree. You have to realize both sides can see the long term. Hillary is a threat through SCOTUS appointments.

          James Madison said it best. “The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

          • Z September 25, 2016, 5:21 pm

            If republicans are so concerned about who President Hillary Clinton might select to serve on the Supreme Court why are they refusing to even meet with the moderate Merrick Garland? Do you expect them to change their stance on refusing to even meet with Supreme Court nominees if Clinton wins the election? If the republicans don’t get off their lazy, self serving asses they will likely be replaced with democratic candidates when jury meandering districts is abolished. Even with a majority democratic senate it still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify the abolition of a constitutional amendment. The claim that a democratic president is somehow going to single handedly strip citizens of their constitutional right to bear arms is mana for idiots.

    • B September 23, 2016, 10:56 am

      Z, you miss the point! It’s not a fear of actually changing the 2A…we know all that you quoted, we can read too. It’s that, with possibly 3 SCOTUS appointments, her administration would interpret the 2A in such a way as to effectively take away the right to bear arms that we have enjoyed for centuries. That right includes the ability to keep and bear arms to resist governmental tyrant, as did our founding fathers again the tyranny of King George. Had George Washington had only knives and bows to fight with we would have lost! Hence the founders put the second ammendment in there guaranteeing the people the right to defend ourselves from corrupt government. Hillary intends to keep us from doing that by restricting us to “knives and bows”.

      • Z September 23, 2016, 1:33 pm

        There is so much wrong with your statement I’m not sure where to begin.
        First, it is in fact fear of the second amendment being changed, abolished, or interpreted so as to deprive you of the right to own the firearm of your choice that motivates you to write a reply.
        Second, the president and his/her administration can interpret anything in any manner they choose. That does not make it law nor does it alter the constitution.
        Third, if you wish to claim that the second amendment is your guaranteed right to posses the means of defending yourself against government tyranny but you intend to vote for a candidate who espouses the desire to restrict future naturalized citizens based on their reported religious beliefs, a direct contradiction to the separation of church and state, do you intend to rise up against the government if it should, by default, declare a state sanctioned religion?

  • ineedafix September 23, 2016, 9:22 am

    clinton not only wants guns gone but she wants America gone too. she is a closet commie and will do anything to achieve her goals and fill her pocketbook.
    be very careful how you vote, your welfare checks depend on who is in the white house. remember this, there is no welfare system in communist countries. you work or you do not eat, period. so are you ready to get off your ass and go to the fields and work from sun up to sun down? if so vote for clinton, if you would rather have it like you have it now vote for trump. your choice. do the research and see if this isn’t true. don’t be stupid.

  • mike hall September 23, 2016, 9:17 am

    lets ban pressure cookers, all knives, vehicles, ball bats, martial arts all have been used to kill etc. GET THE PICTURE? People have always found ways to kill each other. WAKE UP.

  • Tom Horn September 23, 2016, 7:15 am

    Sad thing is, that most of the Nation could give a fat rat’s ass if the 2nd Amendment were to disappear. It seems no one is educated anymore on why the framers of our U.S. Constitution put the Bill of Rights in, or why it is more important today than ever before. I suppose our Nation will get what it deserves.

  • Christian September 20, 2016, 4:39 am

    The media is as propagandistic as they could have become. Especially this reporter Jim Acosta at 0:46: “Donald Trump is not always politically correct.” Yes, he is not but so what? I thought there is a freedom of speech existing and being politically correct (as the name says) means to say only the things that the politicians like! And therefore, political correctness is NOT a part of democracy and NOT a part of the freedom of speech.

    And Trump never threatened Hillary Clinton personally. Only the media now tries desperately to make it look that way. Trump just said the truth. What would happen to Hillary, if she wouldn’t have a gun and armed guards around her? Every person on Earth that does not have a gun can easily become a target for bad guys with guns. If Hillary would walk alone in a city without having armed guards, for example Chicago, what do you think would happen to her? The same that happens to so many Americans every day, no matter if they are just average Joes or politicians. It can also happen to Trump! That is how Trump meant it. Being “politically incorrect” is a good thing, because when the media and the government lie, you have to say the truth and you are automatically tagged as politically incorrect. Too many people are blinded by the media, believing that not being politically incorrect means to be evil. I, for example, have trouble with my parents because I am politically incorrect, while they are not. It can hit everyone who seeks and speaks the truth but being politically incorrect does not mean of being an evil person that wants to threaten others. It is an important part to keep democracy alive, something Hillary and the democrats in general want to stop by the way.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend