Hillary Clinton takes credit for Donald Trump’s pivot toward gun control

By: Renee Nal | Examiner.com

Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took credit for getting presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on-board the gun control train Wednesday, claiming she and others “essentially forced” Trump to consider unpopular and some would argue, unconstitutional legislation that would ban Americans from having guns if they were on the “no-fly list.”

Clinton’s remarks came after Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he would be meeting with the National Rifle Association (NRA) about “not allowing people” on the no-fly list to exercise their second amendment rights.

“Welcome to the cause,” Clinton said. “This is something I’ve been talking about for a long time…”

Read more here…


Hillary Clinton vs. the Second Amendment

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: The New Americana

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton just outright refused to say during an interview yesterday that owning a gun was a constitutionally protected right. I’m not surprised in the least, but she is certainly getting more and more brazen about it.

George Stephanopoulos asked her point blank concerning the issue: “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” She gave a very weaselly answer: “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” Clinton responded. That is a flat out lie. The federal government does not have a right period in regards to constitutional amendments to impose regulations. That has never been true. The rights are granted to the people, not the government. Not only did she sidestep the question, she gave an even worse answer here. She is basing an outrageous answer on the fact that the federal government has gotten away with overreach forever and since they have, she feels that it is now the ‘right’ of the government to keep doing so. No… it is not. The government is granted certain powers that the people giveth and the people can taketh from them.

She added, “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.” Not the way she means it and not mandated by the government. Common sense measures are those such as: don’t point the gun at things you don’t mean to shoot; keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot; be absolutely sure of your target and what’s behind it… and then there is Rule #1… all guns are always loaded.

Clinton’s lapdog Stephanopoulos wasn’t done though: “But that’s not what I asked,” Stephanopoulos interjected. “I said, do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” She didn’t answer once again, but notice the use of ‘if’: “If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations, and what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.” It is a constitutional right and it is not automatically subject to regulations. It does not say that in the Constitution. The Constitution restrains the government, it does not give them carte blanche to control our rights. Per the Constitution, the government is supposed to keep its damned hands to itself. Constitutionalists interpret the Second Amendment the way it was written and intended… not redefined to fit the agendas of politicians and the federal government. That’s called tyranny.


Hillary Clinton did suggest that gun owners do have a right, but then she claimed “the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.” Again, no… they do not. There is no constitutional provision that says that. Clinton simply wants to do away with the Second Amendment altogether, or at the very least, redefine it progressively, so she can disarm America. It’s just that simple.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Hillary’s deflections aside, she chooses not to interpret the meaning of this amendment in the spirit it was meant because it does not fit her political views.

Here’s the full exchange between Clinton and Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Trump has also been out on the stump talking about the Second Amendment and saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment. I know you reject that. But I want to ask you a specific question: Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right – that it’s not linked to service in a militia?

CLINTON: I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice (Antonin) Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right – as we do with every amendment – to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment. And, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners. So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible and, once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks; closing the gun show loophole; closing the online loophole; closing the so-called Charleston loophole; reversing the bill that Sen. (Bernie) 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.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, and the Heller decision also says there can be some restrictions. But that’s not what I asked. I said, do you believe their conclusion that the 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 regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possible can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

Clinton also defended the idea of a gun tax, but stopped short of endorsing a proposal she first embraced in 1993. Stephanopoulos pressed her on the issue and she demure yet again: “I’m not going to commit to any specific proposal,” she deferred. “That was in the context of health care. When you have mass shootings, you not only have the terrible deaths, you have people who are injured.” Clinton claims the issue came up during a weekend meeting with survivors of the December 2015 terrorist massacre in San Bernardino, CA. “What they talked to me about was, where do they get the financial support to deal with both the physical and the emotional trauma?” she said. “There are real costs that people incur because of the terrible gun violence epidemic. And we have to deal with it. And I’m going to be looking for ways to deal with it.” “I’m not committed to anything other than what I’ve said in this campaign,” she added, “but I do want people to ask themselves, can’t we do better than to have 33,000 people killed every year by guns and many thousands more injured? And I think we can.” Translation… yes, she is all for a gun tax. A massive and crippling one – 25% to be specific.

Via Twitchy:

Hillary’s stance on guns has never changed. She has always been against them.

From Americans for Tax Reform:

In passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993, Clinton endorsed a new national 25 percent retail sales tax on guns. Americans for Tax Reform has released footage of Clinton’s visceral facial expressions which shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence.”

Clinton’s gun tax endorsement came in response to a question from then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who lamented the “accessibility that guns have in the country today.” He said to Hillary:

There are 276,000 gun dealers in America. There are more gun dealers in America than there are gas stations. That, to me, is a remarkable number and I think it is directly related to the accessibility that guns have in the country today. And if we simply put a 25 percent sales tax on the sale of a gun and raise the dealer’s fees from $30-$75 to $2,500, we would raise $600 million. That would be a tax directly on the purveyors of violence in terms of the sales of the means of violence.

Clinton gave her strong endorsement of the tax, saying, “I am all for that.” She concluded by saying, “I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.”

Hillary Clinton is one of the most anti-constitutional politicians that has ever disgraced America. Her own words and actions prove it. You should probably listen to more of what she doesn’t say, than what she does say and pay attention to how she nuances her answers. Words matter… the Constitution matters more. The Founding Fathers would have despised Hillary Clinton and would have considered her an enemy of the Republic.


Getting Around Protected Rights

Constitution 03BY T.F. STERN

This past week many sites, to include The Federalist Papers Project, linked to a video of Congressman Trey Gowdy’s public hearings.  Acting on behalf of the American public he carefully and methodically destroyed Deputy Assistant Secretary Ms. Burriesci, representing the Department of Homeland Security, as government officials attempted to explain the ‘process’ by which American citizens could petition the government to restore rights which had been removed, those who’d been denied their right to own and purchase firearms, these same individuals who’d been placed on the Do Not Fly List.

Congressman Gowdy wanted to know more about the ‘process’; but what he really wanted was to remind Ms. Burriesci about a different ‘process’, one which was being ignored completely…

Congressman Gowdy thoughtfully explained his use of the word ‘process’ as he originally referred to it, to be more specific, the term is Due Process.  He reminded the witness that our constitution limits government’s ability to infringe on any individual’s God given inalienable rights without Due Process.

For clarification purposes, Ryan Williams’s entry to the 2010 Yale Law Journal defined this term and concept more precisely:

“In United States constitutional law, substantive due processis a principle which allows courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That is, substantive due process demarcates the line between acts by persons that courts hold are subject to government regulation or legislation and those acts that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve this function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent.”

Timothy Sandefur recorded in, The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law, as published via the Cato Institute in 2010:

“In contrast, substantive due process aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts may find that a majority’s enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and enforcement actually are.”

Trey Gowdy Congressman South CarolinaIn short, there are laws being enforced (far too many) which are outside of restrictions placed on government, restrictions intended to safeguard individual God given rights (or Natural rights) and it is important to remind those in government that they are not above the Constitution and have no such powers.   We are, after all, a nation dependent on the Rule of Law.

Let me insert a partial transcription of Congressman Gowdy’s efforts…

“What process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s Constitutional right is infringed. That [The President] is fine with doing it with the Second Amendment.

My question is, how about the First? How about we not let them set up a website, or a Google account?

How about we not let them join a church until they petition Government to get off the list? How about not get a lawyer? How about the 6th amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite, how about the 8th amendment?

We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petition the government to get off the list?

Is there another Constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens than we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one?”

“The No-Fly List itself is a violation of Constitutional rights all by itself, but to use that illegal list as a way to snatch other rights away from the people is abhorrent and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.”

When our government tries to get around the Rule of Law as if it were outside of restrictions placed on it by the Constitution, at that time we can say without equivocation that tyranny has replaced our representative form of government.

Dan Riehl wrote an article the day after the San Bernardino premeditated attack in which Muslim Terrorists proudly admitted their association with ISIS and then murdered 14 Americans.  Riehl pointed out that Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, on behalf of the Department of Justice was more concerned about anti-Muslim rhetoric’s effect on those of that faith than the threat posed to the American public.

“Loretta Lynch, at a press conference yesterday, termed the San Bernardino shootings a “wonderful opportunity” to change the nature of police work: “We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.”

The Obama administration continues to use any gun related tragedy as a means to launch additional gun control measures.  They went to extreme measures to cover this event, as with other shootings as if guns walked in and shot all those folks without a Muslim Terrorist holding those guns.

Obama has threatened to implement extreme gun control actions via Executive Order, effectively bypassing Congress.  If you put these two thoughts together we have a totalitarian effort (tyranny) to eradicate the 2nd Amendment; but also destroy freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, back to Congressman Gowdy’s questions regarding our government’s attempts to get around the constitution, to get around inalienable God given rights and deny any American their right to own and bear arms, to express their thoughts without fear of government interference or imprisonment… to get around Due Process…

What part of Due Process, more specifically, what part of substantive due process do these department heads not understand?  (Really, you actually consider that a possibility?)   No, under the Obama administration there is a willful and calculated effort to get around the constitution.

David A. Patten, along with almost every other political correspondent, recordedBarrack Hussein Obama’s comments regarding the Constitution back when he was running for the presidency.

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having “deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.

Obama also remarked that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Obama’s promise to America has been, and continues to be a great Transformation, to make it what (he thinks) it should be.  His actions support his promise.

America will no longer be a land of liberty; but instead will become a totalitarian communist state where your constitutional republic, your God given inalienable rights as set down by the Founding Fathers, and without question, Due Process and the Rule of Law will become a faded memory.

T.F. SternThe Moral Lib­eral’s Senior Edi­tor, T.F. Stern,is a retired City of Hous­ton police offi­cer, self-employed lock­smith, and gifted polit­i­cal and social com­men­ta­tor. His pop­u­lar and insight­ful blog, T.F. Sterns Rant­i­ngs, has been up and at it since Jan­u­ary of 2005.