A Fifth Clinton Presidency? Hill, No!

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand. 

Do you want to look at her face for four years and hear her screechy voice?


A Fifth Clinton Presidency? Hill, No!

A Fifth Clinton Presidency? Hill, No!

USA –   -( I keep hearing that Hillary Clinton would be “Obama’s third term.”

The math is wrong. Barack Obama served the Clinton crime family’s third and fourth term. Electing Hillary would doom America to a  fifth Clinton White House.

From 1993-2001, under the “Two for the Price of One” Clinton regime, we suffered through Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewatergate, Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records-gate, Chinagate, Lincoln Bedroom Rentalgate, Creepergate, Pardongate, Chronic “-Gate” Fatigue, and IRS weaponization against Clinton critics.

From 2008-2016, we endured Hillarycare 2.0, Clintonomics 2.0, more Clintonian IRS witch hunts, systemic sabotage of government transparency, corrupted Justice Department obstruction of justice, and bottomless Foggy Bottom favor peddling.

Think about it. Obama’s “Hope and Change” administration was infested with moldy-oldie Clintonites from day one. They ruled the roost on hiring decisions, economic policy, health care, energy and the environment, immigration, and, of course, the State Department.

At the center of it all? John Podesta, the ultimate Beltway barnacle.

John Podesta
John Podesta

He has inhabited D.C.’s chambers of power since 1979, when he served as the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democratic majority counsel. He then worked for former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle — the disgraced tax cheat who parlayed his public service into a $5.2 million personal fortune as one of Washington’s biggest influence peddlers, along with his lobbyist wife.

As Slick Willie’s first staff secretary, Podesta acted as chief paper-pusher, scandal patrolman and “bimbo eruption” suppression ninja. He accumulated several other policy hats, dabbling in telecom security and regulatory policy before ascending to deputy chief of staff. In the second Clinton term, he took over as chief of staff with comprehensive control over “policy development, daily operations, congressional relations, and staff activities of the White House” — along with primary influence over federal budget and tax policy, as well as privacy and national security.

It was Podesta who fielded the call near the end of the Clintons’ reign in 2000 that led to the sordid pardon for Clinton donor Marc Rich. Who was it that lobbied him?

His old law school pal and bestie Peter Kadzik now the Obama DOJ assistant attorney general in charge of investigating top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s newly discovered emails.

But I digress. With the Clintons’ blessing in 2003, Podesta secured funding from billionaire subprime mortgage fat cat Herbert Sandler to create the Center for American Progress — the radical think tank at the center of the liberal universe in Washington, D.C.

The Latin translation for “Center for American Progress”? Quid pro quo.

As co-chairman of Barack Obama’s transition team in 2008, Podesta filled top policy lots with his think tank’s staffers, including special Department of Health and Human Services assistant Michael Halle and HHS Director Jeanne Lambrew. Those Podesta minions worked under another former Clintonite, Obama’s second HHS secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Matthews Burwell was the Clinton aide who rummaged through former Hillary Clinton law partner/confidante and deputy White House counsel Vince Foster’s garbage after he committed suicide. She denied taking any records belonging to Foster during her dumpster dive. But later, missing Rose Law Firm billing records tied to the complex Whitewater and Castle Grande real estate and savings and loans racket were mysteriously discovered in a private reading room of the Clinton White House. With Hillary’s and Foster’s prints on them.

Eric Holder
Eric Holder

The “Obama” years also resurrected scandal-tainted Clintonites Eric Holder, impeachment lawyer Greg Craig, Chicago crony and Goldman Sachs guy Rahm Emanuel, fellow Goldman Sachs money man and economy-wrecker Larry Summers, open-borders extremist and Janet Reno underling-turned-Obama Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, and former Clinton EPA head-turned-Obama energy czar Carol Browner.

Before there was BleachBit, Browner covered her tracks the old-fashioned way. At the Clinton EPA, she was caught ordering her computer technician to purge and delete all her files just as a federal court had ordered her to preserve any government documents related to a public records lawsuit over her regulatory favors to left-wing environmental groups.

Not only did she have computer technicians clear and reformat her hard drives, but also email backup tapes were erased and reused in violation of records preservation practices. Browner’s EPA was held in contempt of court, but she escaped any legal consequences (the Clinton way!)and went on to doctor data during the BP oil spill saga under Obama.

Rahm Emanuel Getting Close with Obama
Rahm Emanuel Getting Close with Obama

I don’t care what side of the political aisle you occupy. Sixteen years of pay-for-play plunder and corruptocracy by Big Government statists masquerading as “progressives” is 16 years too many. Do you really want to keep Washington in the decrepit hands of Bill and Hill’s henchpeople?

Can we long endure another four or eight more years of Clinton schlock and awfulness?

Enough is enough. Lock her up later. Lock her — and all her sleazy, money-grubbing minions — out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. now.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Like His Running Mate Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine Is Lying About Gun Violence

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The author asks this question of Tim Kaine,Why are you so dishonest, Senator?

The short answer is Tim Kaine is a DemocRat.

The author also disrespects the Grinch by saying Kaine smile like him.

I will use the Grinch’s picture but Tim’s.


Now that we know Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is the subject of at least five separate FBI investigations relating to national security, possible violations of federal record-keeping laws, obstruction of justice, and influence-peddling for profit, her relatively unvetted running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, is suddenly someone in need of vetting.

After all, if Clinton is convicted by any of the FBI investigations in Little Rock, Los Angeles, New York or the two separate investigations in the District of Columbia, the creepy senator with the Grinch’s smile will be our default President if Clinton is elected and then forced from office.

Kaine’s op-ed, Gun Violence Is a Public-Health Crisis, strongly suggests that while he’s very good at echoing his master’s radical rhetoric, he knows very little about the actual role of firearms in American society.

Let’s take a look at Kaine’s claims.

In every elected office I have held over the past 20 years, gun violence has been a serious issue. When I was mayor of Richmond, Virginia, our city had one of the highest homicide rates in the country. When I was governor, our commonwealth experienced the worst campus shooting in U.S. history. And as I serve in the U.S. Senate and our country falls victim to one mass shooting after another, Congress has yet to pass any commonsense gun safety legislation. Like many Americans, I own a gun and am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment, yet my experiences have shown me that supporting the right to bear arms should never stop us from ensuring our communities are as safe as possible.

Senator Kaine has certainly mastered the art of creative rhetoric, if not facts.

Mass Shootings have historically defined by the FBI as the killing of four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator with no cooling off period. Often, the definition was further constrained by excluding gang violence. Congress broadened the definition in 2013 by dropping the number of victims to three in 2013, and no long excluded gang shootings. Because of this redefining of the term, the number of mass shootings increased even though the number of incidents that the public would recognize as a mass shooting stayed the same.

Noting that there is a great deal of money to be made in selling fear, mainstream media outlets and the the Democrat Party completely abandoned reason in 2014-15, and began using the self-avowed anti-gun Mass Shooting Tracker web site as their source of mass shooting data. The definition there is even more loose, requiring just four people to be shot, including the suspect.

The statistical effect of changing the terms has been dramatic as it has been dishonest. The grotesque and intentional over-inflation of mass shootings even caused the editor of radically left-wing Mother Jones, MArk Folman, to turn up his nose in disgust last year.

Take a moment to consider what type of violent event that headline just brought to mind. The places and horrifying attacks you likely recalled surface instantly for most of us when we see or hear the term “mass shooting”—Columbine and Virginia Tech. Aurora and Sandy Hook. Charleston and San Bernardino.

Even as these mass shootings have grown more frequent and loom large in our consciousness, they are a tiny fraction of America’s gun violence and remain relatively rare. Yet manynews outlets keep declaring that there have been upwards of “355 mass shootings this year” or “more than one mass shooting per day.” Many gun control advocates say the same.

This wildly inflated statistic isn’t just misleading the public—it’s stirring undue fear and may be encouraging bad policies.

In fact, there have been four mass shootings this year. Or, if you count using the federal government’s current criteria—three or more victims killed in an indiscriminate public rampage—there have been six mass shootings this year.

Tim Kaine, like Hillary Clinton, is lying to you about mass shootings.

Tim Kaine, like Hillary Clinton, is also lying to you about “gun violence.”

In fact, “gun violence” doesn’t even exist. Gang violence does.

Some call it “gun violence,” a definition greatly appreciated by Democratic politicians like those at City Hall. They can point to guns and take that voter anger over homicide numbers and channel it into a safe space.

But there are plenty of guns in the suburbs, and suburbanites aren’t slaughtering each other.

It’s the gang wars.

Politicians know that the gangs are reason for the deaths. Calling it “gun violence” is much safer, especially in wards where gangs often provide political muscle.

Kaine is not more honest when he speaks of the gun control efforts he pushed while Virginia’s governor.

I also worked to make improvements to our background check system, issuing an executive order to ensure that those declared mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. Unfortunately, efforts to close the gun show loophole—which allows anyone, including felons, potential terrorists, and domestic abusers, to purchase weapons without any background check—were undermined in the Virginia legislature, largely under pressure from the National Rifle Association.

The ‘gun show loophole” is of course fictional. Gun dealers must perform a NICS background check for every firearm they sell, regardless of where they sell it, whether that is in a brick-and-mortar gun shop, a small business operated out of the home, or at a gun show. It’s also well-worth nothing that the additional gun control Kaine pushed while governor did absolutely nothing to stop the Washington Navy Yard mass shooter, who passed Kaine’s heightened background checks and still obtained a firearm and murdered 12 before he was gunned down.

But Kaine isn’t close to being done with being dishonest.

More recently, in December 2015, the Senate failed to stand up to the NRA and rejected another commonsense bipartisan measure that would have made it illegal for people on the no-fly list to be prohibited from purchasing weapons. If someone has been deemed too dangerous to be allowed on an airplane, why should they be permitted to purchase a firearm?

If Senator Kaine was capable of being honest—and we’re seeing very little evidence that he is capable of being honest—he would  admit that Senate Democrats weren’t just attempting to restrict the rights of those on the “no fly” list, but those on the much much broader and completely arbitrary terror watch list, where bureaucrats can rob you of your rights without any evidence at all, and sometimes merely to meet quotas.

We’re now discovering that the “terrorist” watch lists these Bolshevik Democrats wanted to use to seize power are to a large degree completely arbitrary, and at least one federal law enforcement branch just adds people to the terror watch lists to meet government quotas.

You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they’re reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.

The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they’re required to submit at least one report a month. If they don’t, there’s no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

“Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft … and they did nothing wrong,” said one federal air marshal.

These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.

“Do these reports have real life impacts on the people who are identified as potential terrorists?” 7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski asked.

“Absolutely,” a federal air marshal replied.

Democrats have spent the weeks following the deadliest Islamic terror attack since 9/11 proving that they are among of the most immoral and shameless people in the world.

They started by attempting to shift the blame for the attack from a single Islamic terrorist who conducted it, or even radical Islam the ideology, to try and pin the blame on the National Rifle Association, the firearms industry, and the more than 120+ million law-abiding Americans who own guns.

They all did it, from President Obama, to Vice President Joe Biden, to presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, Democrats in both houses of Congress, to empty-headed Hollywood liberals, to the Stepin Fetchit news media, to know-nothing university Marxists.

They called for bans on common firearms. Some called for repealing the Second Amendment entirely, and even openly opined about gun confiscation (without volunteering to try it themselves, of course).

They staged a “sit-in” for the sole purpose of fund-raising off the deaths of 49 people.

As deplorable and disgusting as all of that is, arguably their worst offense is the attempt to ram through legislation that would deny the right to anyone on a the so called “terror watch list” (actually one of several databases) to buy firearms, even though the lists contain nearly 700,000 names and 40% of the people on the lists are not being investigated and have no known ties to any terror group.

House and Senate Democrats simply hoped to use fear stoked during this Islamic terror attack to gut the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights of Americans and give themselves more power and set a precedent to use Soviet-style secret lists to control and silence their political opponents.

That’s a lovely Constitution you have there, America. It would be a shame if something… happened it it.

But Kaine isn’t done yet.

We have to make a decision about what matters to us. When gun deaths in Virginia outnumber automobile deaths, we have to treat this like the public health crisis it is. Will we have the courage to stand up to a gun lobby that no longer represents the views of American gun owners but instead represents the gun manufacturers?

Here in reality, we know that both criminal and accidental deaths with firearms are at or near all time historical lows, even as firearms ownership is more widespread than over.

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

We’re quite thrilled that automobile safety has improved to the point that they’re nearly as safe as firearms, Senator. It’s wonderful that Chevy and Honda are finally taking fewer lives than Glock and Colt.

The fact remains that most of firearms fatalities you’re using in your dishonest comparison are not accidents (there are far more car accidents than gun crimes), nor are they criminal acts (which are on a multi-decade decline from when the last time a Clinton was president). The vast majority of firearms deaths in the United States—roughly two-thirds—are suicides. Those are acts of self-harm, not criminal violence.

Why are you so dishonest, Senator?


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

These criminals are saying what every gun owner and The NRA has been saying for years.

Gun Control Laws are a joke.




Murder rates rose for the second consecutive year in Houston, TX, and 83 percent of those murders were committed with a firearm. To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

  • 90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
  • 63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
  • 90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
  • 100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.



In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison. But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market. But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws. Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks. Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that :(,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.

“Nothing, no matter the efforts the efforts of law enforcement along with laws, guns will always be available to people on the black market,” responded 46-year-old Rodney Rachal.


1 Comment

H/T Conservative Daily Post. 

Hillary and Obama need to be arrested charged with treason convicted then shot.

Leaked Email Has Democrats Leaving Hillary In Waves

Leaked Email Has Democrats Leaving Hillary In Waves

The Clintons are the most vile family on this planet. They have been in public service for more than 40 years and the only thing they have accomplished is destroying American exceptionalism.

People like Julian Assange have been exposing corrupt groups for many years now, and they have provided the American people with the truth when our tyrannical government refuses to inform its citizens.

Knowing and proving something are two totally separate notions, especially in the eyes of the law.

For decades, we have known Hillary Clinton was corrupt, but thanks to WikiLeaks, now we can prove she lied, abused her power as Secretary of State, allowed pay-for-play schemes, funded ISIS, and that she left out men in Benghazi to die.

Emails and documentation confirm that Hillary Clinton knew our consulate was going to be attacked beforehand, she was unresponsive while it was under attack, she allowed 13 hours to pass while she determined what uniforms our rescue team should wear.

In 2013, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave sworn testimony indicating that there was no time to get help to Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, prior to four Americans being murdered. Luckily, Judicial Watch released an email proving that to be a flat out lie.

A source very close to the situation revealed that prior to the attack worsening, an urgent email from Panetta’s Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash, was sent to Hillary Clinton indicating that they were ready to deploy and save our men and women.

Clinton never responded.

Hillary Left Our Men To Die

Hillary Left Our Men To Die


“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]. After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

The email was sent during the beginning of the attack at 7:19 p.m. Washington time on Sept. 11, 2012, after the first wave of the attacks on the diplomatic outpost but before the mortar strike that killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.

Hillary Clinton still to this day lies to the American people and claims this attack occurred because of a video. She is a spineless liar that should be charged with treason.

Fox News Reporting Hillary Lied About The Video

Fox News Reporting Hillary Lied About The Video

Had Hillary answered the calls and emails, Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens would still be alive and with their families today. Here’s the email released by Judicial Watch proving that Hillary only wanted to talk about wall lamps instead of the situation unfolding that she created.

She Spoke About Wall Lamps Instead Of Deployment Plans

She Spoke About Wall Lamps Instead Of Deployment Plans

The email above is from December 10, 2011. The attack was September 11, 2012. The subject “gunmen try to assassinate head of Libyan army” indicated Islamist’s were making moves to take over Benghazi and run the country. Which would mean our consulate, as well as our men and women, would be in a warzone. But Hillary completely disregarded the idea of that by focusing on wall lamps.

While this information is brand new to the public, the House Select Committee has already brought a case forward against Hillary Clinton for perjury for lying in her testimony concerning her emails and Benghazi.

But wait, here is the cherry on the top:

Ben Rhodes Telling Hillary How To Lie

Ben Rhodes Telling Hillary How To Lie

Obama and Hillary had to coordinate this to make sure their failures weren’t exposed. Ben Rhodes, as circled above, is Obama’s Chief spokesman, and he sent out the email with talking points. He clearly indicates they need to blame an internet video instead of admitting they failed to react in time.

The situation in Benghazi is something that could and should have been avoided had our incompetent leaders handled it accordingly instead of discussing wall lamps.

Hillary Clinton is a treasonous snake, and she needs to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

Hillary Clinton: “Reasonable” to Require Guns to be Unusable at Home



Hillary is lying again about guns and Supreme Court decisions not a shock there.



Hillary Clinton is lying … again.

The candidate who claimed politicians “need both a public and a private position” on policy issues demonstrated that tendency Wednesday night in the final presidential debate in a desperate bid for damage control on a statement she made in a private meeting with wealthy donors.

That earlier statement was simple, uncomplicated, and utterly damning to anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton told the very people who she depends on to fund her political ambitions: “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

As a Yale-educated attorney, Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she made that remark. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the contempt it demonstrates for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time Clinton made that statement in September 2015, the Supreme Court had decided only two cases under Second Amendment during the 21st Century.

The first was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That case concerned two aspects of D.C. law. One effectively banned the possession of handguns within private homes. The other effectively required all types of firearms to be kept in an unusable condition within a person’s own residence.

The Supreme Court held that both of the restrictions offended the Second Amendment. Along the way, it debunked the District’s argument that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right for states to maintain their own militias, rather than a right individuals can raise on their own behalf.

The very modest proposition to arise from Heller is that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns and other commonly-possessed firearms in their homes in a usable state for self-defense.

Two years later, the Supreme Court expanded upon the Heller decision in a case involving a handgun ban in Chicago. There, the court invalidated the Chicago ban and confirmed that the protection of the Second Amendment applies not only to federal restrictions, like the ones in D.C., but those passed by state and local governments as well.

Hillary Clinton was well aware of this when she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” on the Second Amendment. Her audience understood the significance of her remarks as well, cheering and applauding her promise to “take on the NRA.”

Later, Clinton doubled down on her rhetoric, describing Heller as a “terrible” decision. And as of June, she was still unable to bring herself to acknowledge the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Clinton has more recently been forced to walk an increasingly awkward line as her campaign has reached beyond her donors and primary supporters to the broader America public. Distancing herself from her privately expressed opinion, Clinton has since publicly asserted that she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment” and is “not looking to take people’s guns away.”

Nevertheless, her own campaign website continues to call for a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” which is simply her unflattering term for AR-15s and the like, America’s most popular rifles. In other words, even as she’s insisting she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ guns, she’s promoting a ban on the very types of rifles Americans choose over all others.

That’s what ordinary people – the kind Clinton refers to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” – call a lie.

Yet Clinton’s performance at Wednesday’s debate was perhaps her most mind-bending and dishonest attempt yet to distort her position on the Second Amendment.

When directly confronted with her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment,” Clinton created an entirely new storyline to explain the inexcusable.

An entirely new storyline. A routine Clinton tactic.

Clinton began her answer by disingenuously claiming to “support the Second Amendment.” She was, of course, unable to offer any evidence from her four decades in public life and government employment to support this comment. And, indeed, she then went on to recite a non-exhaustive litany of the gun controls she would pursue as president.

She continued:

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced … was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Clinton’s answer was not only dishonest, it was inaccurate in almost all its particulars.

First, the District’s ban didn’t just require safe storage to prevent access by toddlers. It made possessing a loaded, usable firearm in the home – including for self-defense – a crime. The crime did not require proof of access by children or even proof that children were present in the home. Clinton’s answer also seemed suspiciously coincidental with a recent, dubious media blitz on firearm accidents among children.

D.C.’s requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disabled, which Clinton now claims to endorse, was also far from “reasonable.” It made even lawfully-owned guns useless for what the Supreme Court identified as their “core” purpose under the Second Amendment: self-defense.

It’s simply incredible that Clinton can claim to “support” the Second Amendment, while at the same time insisting that the government should be able to make loading a gun a crime.

Finally, the Supreme Court has not “accepted many” forms of gun control. The Supreme Court has not upheldany form of gun control since Heller and McDonald were decided. It has yet, in fact, to hear another case on firearms regulation. And in the entirety of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided only one case under the Second Amendment, holding the defendant had failed to prove his claim that a short-barreled shotgun should receive Second Amendment protection.

Yet even taken at face value, Clinton’s comments should be enough to put gun owners on notice of what sort of Second Amendment “support” they could expect from a Clinton presidency. A gun the government requires to be unloaded is as useless as a Second Amendment that does not protect individuals.

The bottom line – whether you consider her “private” or “public” position – is that Hillary Clinton’s own words clearly establish that she is no friend to gun owners and dismisses the Second Amendment as any obstacle to gun control.

BUSTED: Obama Rebukes Trump’s “Rigged” Claims… But LOOK What He Said in 2008

Leave a comment

H/T The Truth Division.

The DemocRats have been rigging elections for many many years.

Earlier this week, President Obama told Donald Trump to “stop whining” about “rigged” elections.

However, the president seems to have forgotten that he admitted to rigged elections back in September of 2008, saying Republicans and Democrats have “monkeyed” around with elections.

Here’s what Obama said at a rally at Ohio’s Kent State University in 2008:

“I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we have Democrats in charge of the machines.

“But, look, I come from Chicago. So I want to be honest, it is not as if it is just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes Democrats have, too.

“Whenever people are in power, they have this tendency to try to, you know, tilt things in their direction. That is why we have got to have a, I believe, a voting rights division in the Justice Department that is non-partisan and that is serious about investigating cases of voter fraud, is serious about making sure the people are not being discouraged to vote,” he concluded.

He certainly hasn’t followed through with this “non-partisan” Justice Department, as Hillary Clinton continues to get off scot-free and new videos show proof of wide-scale voter fraud.


Poll: Americans Fear Government Corruption & Gun Control Over Mass Shootings

1 Comment

H/T AmmoLand. 

Anybody with half a brain has the same fears.


Washington, DC – -( Hillary Clinton makes no bones about the fact that as president, she would seek to ban America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15.

According to her own campaign website, “Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Clinton supports keeping assault weapons off our streets.”

Yet even some proponents of increased gun controls admit that Clinton’s focus is off the mark.

As one stated late last year, “[W]e already know that banning assault weapons won’t reduce gun crime or deaths.” He added, “The ‘assault weapons’ for sale in the U.S. now aren’t really weapons of war.”

A poll released this week, moreover, shows that the reason most often invoked for banning so-called “assault weapons” – i.e., their potential use in mass killings – ranks below even extinction-level events on Americans’ list of things of which they are “afraid” or “very afraid.

Of the 79 fears identified, “[r]andom/mass shooting” came in 30th. This was below such fears as Obamacare, biological warfare, reptiles, the U.S. being involved in another World War, nuclear weapons attack, and a pandemic or major epidemic.

Even more ominously for Hillary Clinton – whose public persona has been riddled with scandals for decades – the number one fear of those polled was “[c]orrupt government officials.”

But the poll gets even worse for the Clinton Camp, with “[g]overnment restrictions on firearms and ammunition” ranking as the fifth most common fear.

Indeed, exercising their right to keep and bear arms may be a response many Americans have to other higher-ranking fears, including terrorism (4th), break-ins (27th), and “[w]idspread civil unrest” (28th).

So why, some 12 years after her husband’s federal “assault weapons” ban proved ineffective, does Hillary Clinton remain focused on this failed policy?

One answer might simply be that it pleases big donors to her party. An article on the political website Roll Call earlier this year quoted a “high-dollar donor to Democratic candidates” as stating, “I’m not interested in supporting people who won’t ban assault rifles.”

Of course, it’s no surprise that donors who can spend more on one election cycle than most families earn in a year are going to be detached from the concerns of ordinary Americans.

But the zealousness to disarm Americans also speaks to a more fundamental political philosophy that underlies Hillary Clinton’s approach to politics. This approach is one that shuns freedoms – like the right to keep and bear arms – that are uniquely American and demeans political opposition as illegitimate (or in Hillary Clinton’s words, “deplorable” and “irredeemable”).

Faced with such an imperious, detached, and condemning candidate for the White House, it’s no wonder that Americans are more afraid of the government officials who want to take their preferred rifles than a myriad of other potential concerns.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Clinton vows Supreme Court judge who backs gun control

Leave a comment

H/T The Washington Examiner.

If Hillary and the DemocRats steal this election there will be a second shout heard around the world.

Hillary Clinton vowed Sunday evening that she would nominate Supreme Court justices who agree with her on the need for stricter gun laws.

“I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe that there should be comprehensive background checks,” the Democratic nominee said Sunday, “and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole we have to save as many lives as we possibly can.”

Clinton’s remarks were a response to the specific question: “What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?”

She said she believes the current court has “gone in wrong direction.” Though the issue of gun control was mentioned only briefly Sunday evening during the debate, it has been an ongoing theme of the Clinton campaign.

Vice presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a gun-owner, said last week in his debate with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence that he is, “a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

“But I’ve got a lot of scar tissue, because when I was governor of Virginia, there was a horrible shooting at Virginia Tech,” Kaine said in reference to a 2007 mass shooting event that claimed the lives of 32 people. “We can support the Second Amendment and do things like background record checks and make us safer, and that will make police safer, too.”

Clinton said last week during the first presidential debate that stricter gun control measures could go a long way toward healing race relations.

“[W]e’ve got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them,” Clinton said. “The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together.”

“So we have to do two things,” she added. “We have to restore trust, we have to work with the police, we have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them and we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.”

Clinton also said in a recent interview that gun violence poses as serious a problem to Americans as terrorism.

“[I]t’s not only terrorists we need to be worried about,” the Democratic nominee said in an interview published last week by AARP.

“I’m looking at violence broadly,” Clinton said. “Terrorism is part of it, but gun violence kills 33,000 Americans a year… We’ve got to get serious about stemming violence and terrorism in every way we can.”

Obama Releases Armed Drug Traffickers

Leave a comment


Obama is releasing these thugs while DemocRats are trying to disarm honest citizens.


Earlier this year, we reported on how President Obama’s much-ballyhooed executive clemency program was releasing felons who had been convicted of using firearms in drug trafficking crimes. We noted then the jarring inconsistency of this program with Obama’s executive gun control measures, which targeted hobbyists and collectors making occasional gun sales, licensed dealers, and even Social Security recipients. 

But Obama is nothing if not hypocritical. Not only has he increased the scope of his pardons and commutations, but – according to an article in USA Today – he has shifted his strategy to reach more serious and violent offenders. “Before last month, 13% of inmates receiving clemency had used a firearm in the offense,” the article states. “For those granted presidential mercy last month, it was 22%.”

In other words, nearly one in four prisoners who will gain early release by presidential decree used a firearm to commit the offense for which the person was imprisoned.

Critics of Obama’s executive clemency program charge that he is not merely seeking to correct extraordinary injustices or reward exemplary rehabilitation on a case-by-case basis. Rather, they say, he is “instead substituting his own judgment for that of Congress and the courts” by applying the more lenient sentencing guidelines of modern times for the stricter one in effect during the 1980s and ‘90s, at the height of the crack epidemic. 

The USA Today article quotes a former pardon attorney who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as stating, “There are a number of cases where it’s a genuine re-sentencing. It’s unprecedented.” 

Obama is even granting early release to inmates considered “career offenders” and sentenced to life terms. 

As Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, put it: “He has effectively set himself up as a judge, reviewing thousands of cases where they’ve been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and appealed beyond the district court level. And he’s undercut all that work by commuting their sentences.” 

Opinions can reasonably differ on the need for sentencing and criminal justice reform. What galls gun owners, however, is that retroactive leniency is being given to convicts who deliberately used guns to commit street crime, at the very same time members of the president’s party – particularly Hillary Clinton – are calling for retroactive condemnation of gun owners who have done nothing wrong. 

If Hillary Clinton and others had their way, mere possession of lawfully-acquired firearms and magazines sitting in the safes of millions of law-abiding Americans would transform those people into felons subject to years in prison.

Those gun owning Americans are among the people that Hillary Clinton referred to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” 

But in the case of crack dealers who ravaged America’s cities in the late 20th Century? Obama has appointed himself their redeemer. “Simply put,” he said, “their punishments didn’t fit the crime.”

BREAKING: Obama Launches Plan for UN Gun Take Over During Last Days Before Election

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

Things are going to get real ugly real quickly.

A constant throughout President Barack Obama’s tenure in office has been his unwavering commitment to more restrictive gun control measures, despite significant opposition from Second Amendment supporters in Congress and in the general population.

One particular avenue Obama has pursued to attempt to limit the number and type of firearms available to American citizens is through his support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, an international agreement ostensibly focused on stemming illegal sales of conventional heavy arms to traffickers and warlords but written in a broad and vague manner to include “small arms” such as rifles, shotguns and handguns.

A major component of the ATT was the creation of an extensive international arms registry to be compiled from smaller arms registries of “end users” set up in the individual nations that have ratified the treaty.

Though Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have signed on to the ATT, they have not submitted it to the Senate for ratification, likely because a bipartisan group of more than 50 senators told Obama in no uncertain terms that they would never ratify the treaty or permit it to be implemented.

Nevertheless Obama has done virtually everything he can do, short of ratification, to lay the groundwork for the future implementation of the gun control agreement, needing only a Democrat-controlled Senate to finalize everything.

According to The Daily Signal, this was confirmed at an August conference in Geneva regarding the treaty, where U.S. delegate William Malzahn informed the international community that the Obama administration was in full compliance with the treaty — short of ratification, that is.

“The United States remains committed to the Arms Trade Treaty, which we signed in September 2013. We are still working on the package to transmit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. It is not clear when we will complete this, but we are actively working on it,” Malzahn stated.

“As we pursue ratification, let me assure everyone that the United States is already fully compliant with the requirements of the (Arms Trade Treaty), as the U.S. national control system exceeds those requirements,” he added.

There has been growing pressure on the U.S. from other countries demanding the implementation of stricter gun control, but that is unlikely to sway the current Congress from its stance.

However, should Democrats regain control of the Senate in November, there could very well be a small window of opportunity for Obama to try to ram the ATT through for ratification between the time the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3. and he leaves office on Jan. 20.

One thing is certain: If Obama fails to achieve ratification of the ATT but is succeeded by Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, ratifying that treaty would be near the top of her anti-gun agenda.

H/T Breitbart


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: