1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Second Amendment Far More Devious Than Abolishing The Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by Yard Dart, Aug 12, 2016.

  1. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey..... Moderator Site Supporter++


    Hillary Clinton has—for better or worst—decided to run as the first major party candidate in the history of the United States to make hollowing out core constitutional rights a key plank in her presidential platform.

    The basic human right to keep and bear arms for one’s defense reflected in the Second Amendment has inexplicably become a core target of Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. It’s a position even more extreme than Clinton’s gun control positions in the 1990s and early 2000s, and far more extreme than her near-Republican turn as a candidate she ran against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries.

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, Clinton favored a punitive 25% tax on handguns designed to make it cost prohibitive for poor people—you can chose to read that as “minorities” and you wouldn’t be wrong—to obtain pistols and revolvers for personal defense. She also wanted to drive most small gun dealers out of business by imposing a an exorbitant $2,500 licensing fee. Clinton was also a fan of “universal” background checks at this time, and supported a bill to require federal registration of every new gun sold.

    Clinton backed off her zealous support of gun control as she ran for President in 2008, attempting to position herself as a moderate against an upstart U.S. Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Clinton went so far as to mock Obama for his infamous “bitter clingers” comment, to no avail.

    She still lost.


    Eight years after that painful defeat and after a dangerous turn as Secretary of State under her formal rival, Clinton emerged in 2015 as a candidate convinced that she could win running far to the left of both her 2008 candidacy and even her extreme views of the 1990s.

    Clinton’s public views on the human right to bear arms have not just shifted radically to a statist bent; she has also made that desire to attack this core right one of the driving focuses of her 2016 campaign. On Clinton’s behalf, Democrats went so far as to write the Second Amendment out of existence in their 2016 party platform, just two weeks ago.

    It’s a bizarre decision to make at a time when gun sales are at an all time high, where more Americans than ever before have concealed carry permits, gun rights are expanding across most of the United States, and gun ownership has rapidly shifted away from being largely a rural white male tradition (“Gun Culture 1.0”) to one where the fastest growing demographics are younger, urban, and female ( the much-discussed “Gun Culture 2.0”).

    This celebration of the human right to bear arms has been a joyous one. Shooting sports are the fastest growing high school sports in the United States, and different shooting sports such as IDPA, three-gun and the Precision Rifle Series are growing incredibly fast.

    More than 100 million new firearms have entered the market just during President Obama’s administration, leading him to being amusingly celebrated as “the greatest gun salesman of all time,” even among his allies in the media.

    And while 1/3 of the firearms in this nation joined the market within less than a decade, much to the alarm and disgust of gun control supporters, guess what happened to violent crime?

    It’s plummeted. So have accidents with firearms.

    The media hype about a spike in mass shootings is likewise a lie, or more precisely, “a redefined truth.” The traditional definition of a mass shooting has always been “four or more people killed in a single event that is not a familicide, terrorist attack, or a gang-related event.” Within the past two years, however, the mainstream media arbitrarily switched to completely different definition created by a self-described anti-gun propagandist, where any shooting in which four people are injured is mass shooting.

    Now, when Pookie does a drive by of a rival gang and wounds Miguel, Jose, and Clarence, but Clarence gets a round off in return and wings Pookie, that’s now a “mass shooting,” whereas before, it was just one incident on an average Friday in Barack Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago.

    According to this new hysteria-inducing definition of “mass shootings” there were more than 400 mass shootings in the United States in 2015.

    In reality there were just four mass shootings in the United States in all of 2015.

    The last time we actually had a significant spike in violent crime, do you want to know who was President?

    Another Clinton.


    It’s clear that Hillary’s much-publicized assault on the human right of individuals to bear arms has worried both her handlers and her allies in the mainstream media.

    Just today, there are three different articles by three different news organizations attempting to downplay the radical nature of her attacks on this core constitutional and human right.

    Bloomberg News has concocted a Q & A in an effort to position Clinton’s stance as a moderate one. CNN posted an article today attempting to reassure the fast-growing number of gun owning Democrats that candidate Clinton isn’t looking to take their guns in a piece that intentionally glosses over what hillary herself has made a core argument in her attack on gun rights. Likewise, Kevin Drum has taken to the digital pages of Mother Jones in an attempt to moderate Hillary Clinton’s true goals towards gun rights so that the increasing number of liberal gun owners won’t stay home in November.

    All of these media outlets—and many others, curiously enough—are making the same strawman defense of Clinton, by noting the technical inaccuracy of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s claim that “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

    Donald Trump is categorically wrong here.

    Hillary Clinton knows that there is ever-lessening support for abolishing the Second Amendment as tens of thousands of Americans decide to becoming gun owners every single day (an average of 72,243 guns have been sold every day in 2016 , more than 16 million through July). She also knows that there is not nearly enough support in Congress or among the states to abolish a core constitutional right.

    She has instead decided upon an equally effective, but far more devious approach that doesn’t require the overwhelming support of the states or the American people.


    At the heart of Hillary Clinton’s attack on the human right of armed self-defense is her full-frontal assault on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a mouthful more easily remembered as the PLCAA.

    Hillary Clinton and several allies have been consistently focusing on the PLCAA for months, claiming that it provides the firearms industry “immunity” from being held responsible for its actions.

    This is a bold, direct, and intentional lie to the American people from Hillary Clinton.

    Gun makers and sellers can be sued, and are being sued right now for both negligence and criminal actions.

    Remington is presently negotiating a class-action settlement that will cost them millions over a defective trigger design. They’re also being sued as the parent company of Bushmaster in a case resulting from the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

    Century Arms is now battling a lawsuit over safeties that allegedly don’t work.

    Badger Guns just lost a famous case for selling guns to an obvious straw purchaser, who used the gun to shoot two police officers.

    The owner of Stag Arms has been banned from the industry for life and his former company hit with $500,000 in fines for paperwork violations.

    The PLCAA has never offered blanket immunity to the industry as Hillary Clinton has repeatedly claimed. As the cases above clearly show, manufacturers and sellers who make defective products or who act criminally can of course be sued, just like any other business.

    All that PLCAA does is prevent gun control zealots from filing waves of frivolous lawsuits meant to bankrupt retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, destroying the gun industry via frivolous lawsuits since they can’t get the public to agree to ban guns.

    Let’s be perfectly clear: the only reason to repeal the PLCAA is so that deep-pocketed gun control groups financed by anti-gun billionaires can file wave after wave of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers, distributors, and gun dealers. Whether manufacturers are guilty of any crimes is beside the point; they will be bankrupted by having to pay teams of lawyers millions of dollars to defend them.

    Clinton’s goal of removing the PLCAA exist for no other reason that to hollow out the right to bear arms by bankrupting the industry through a wave of frivolous lawsuits.


    Tell me, my fellow Americans, which is more devious?

    Is it more repulsive to honestly claim to the world that you want to abolish the Second Amendment so that voters can judge you an on the merits of your position, or is it more vile to claim to “respect the traditions” of gun owners, while plotting to destroy the entire industry and render the right impossible to exercise?

    What Hillary Has In Mind Is Far More Devious Than Abolishing The Second Amendment
  2. Joe13

    Joe13 Monkey

    Back in the 90's people were making their retirements on importing Canada's copious amounts of pot.

    I hear you can still get an SkS for under $100 up there still...

    Not saying I would risk it (then or now which or I wouldn't be broke) but there will be a black market if there isn't a legal one.
    Yard Dart likes this.
  3. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Monkey

    Great post but too many pictures of the Wicked Witch of the East!!!
    Yard Dart likes this.
  4. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey++

    Reference "Remington...Bushmaster in a case resulting from the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre."
    I can't see how this could ever be won because the precedent set would have people suing Ford and Toyota for simply car accidents. Furthermore, they can get the plaintiffs to pay for the court costs and both the House and Senate are Republican so how repeal so...? So, personally, I don't think they are going to come at it this way. It will be devious but don't think it will be like this. Just my opinion...

    Joe13 likes this.
  5. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey..... Moderator Site Supporter++

    I left them in to remind you, of the Bitch that wants to be your Queen..... kneel slave......HA.
    Dunerunner and AD1 like this.
  6. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    no matter how you want to spin it, she wants to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. This notion of "reasonable restrictions" is about as wacky as the notion of being only "a little pregnant".
    Yard Dart, techsar, 3M-TA3 and 3 others like this.
  7. GOG

    GOG Monkey++

    'Zactly @chimo.

    I would just remind those politicians to be wary of creating unintended consequences.
    3M-TA3 and Joe13 like this.
  8. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Like we will fire our sporting arms at our own children in the Military? Not to mention the tech they are armed with.
    Ganado, ghrit and 3M-TA3 like this.
  9. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey

    Exactly - No way in hell could we stand up to a military presence with AR's and AK's. Hold off a gang and stay alive during SHTF - perhaps.

    The only real weapons we have against a corrupt or hostile government is the vote and education, and we have to do those before things happen.
    Dunerunner and ghrit like this.
  10. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    oh ye of little faith in the capabilities, resourcefulness and determination of free people fighting to remain free. How long have our illustrious military been fighting/policing in the sandbox now? How bout da Nam...how'd that work out?

    As far as shooting our own kin...how many kin ended up shooting at each other during our last civil war? Nuff said.
    Joe13, Yard Dart, BlueDuck and 3 others like this.
  11. v0lcom13sn0w

    v0lcom13sn0w Trunk Monkey

    i still dont understand "gun laws" or "gun control" it does nothing to prevent crime. it only affects the law abiding and will never keep guns out of criminals hands. where there's a will, there's a way, guns really are not that hard to obtain off the street.
  12. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey..... Moderator Site Supporter++

    Gun laws/control is easy... it is meant to reign in and control the law abiding citizen's... the criminal is but just a tool to use by the .gov to scare us into ever more constricting gun regulations in the guise of safety/security... though most Monkeys know that this nothing more than a ruse to disarm those that would confront, the .gov's over reaching control over society and the disregard for our basic god-given rights per the constitution... and as citizens of the USA.
    v0lcom13sn0w and GOG like this.
  1. Yard Dart
  2. Yard Dart
  3. GOG
  4. chimo
  5. bmtm09
  6. AD1
  7. Yard Dart
  8. Legion489
  9. marlas1too
  10. AD1
  11. Salted Weapon
  12. Mindgrinder
  13. ColtCarbine
  14. stg58
  15. Salted Weapon
  16. enloopious
  17. Legion489
  18. 3M-TA3
  19. Legion489
  20. Yard Dart
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary