Hillary Clinton at her DNC speech: page “I’m not here to take away your guns” … Hillary Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: ligar chicas muiños “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.” She elaborated further on her comments, which she made at her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the presidential nomination: “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” –Vox
During her acceptance speech, see above, Hillary said she wasn’t going to take away guns in the US, but this is untrue.
She knows just how to do it.
First of all, she will make guns more expensive with new back ground checks.
Second, she will make guns manufacturers liable for selling guns that later are used in crimes.
But that is just the beginning.
Hillary doesn’t actually believe that people in the US should have guns.
In a Fox post HERE entitled, “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president,” John Lott points out that in an appearance on ABC, Hillary would not say whether citizens had a constitutional right to own guns.
George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”:
“But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”
Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”
Clinton like other gun opponents, believes an overabundance of guns are responsible for the shootings that take place in the US, especially in mass shootings.
But there are many questions about these mass shootings.
David Steele, second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and former CIA clandestine services case officer, has said this here:
“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”
Such FBI involvement leads one to ask whether there are forces in and behind the US government that are manufacturing violence in order to justify continued anti-gun agitation.
Authoritarian governments and those who back them don’t want people to have guns because without guns, it is much easier to force people to obey. When people are not armed, genocide becomes a more viable and convenient option.
Government killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The 21st century may equally bloody, especially if guns continue to be confiscated.
In the US, many citizens have fought back against gun confiscation. But if Hillary wins the presidency, discussions about gun control will become moot.
Guns will be confiscated. Lott explains it this way:
Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.
But the constituency of the Supreme Court is changing. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Bill Clinton appointees. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Obama as was Elana Kagan.
“If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint [Antonin] Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision. Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.”
Only one more appointee is needed.
Conclusion: Hillary herself will not have to “pull the trigger” on gun confiscations. She will let the Supreme Court do it for her.
* * *