Leaked Clinton Emails Show Devotion To This Anti-Gun Measure

no guns, anti-gunWhen Barack Obama campaigned, he made promises to fundamentally change America.

Folks on the left thought that was a good thing.

Folks on the right thought it was dangerous for America.

But for what it is worth, at least he warned us. He was out there stumping it a lot.

Hillary, on the other hand, has been far more covert. She doesn’t want to tell the American public all she is doing… The outrage of her direction would not garner the same support.

Wikileaks, on her behalf, has six planks of Hillary’s America with guns:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/18/six-wikileaks-hillary-clinton-gun-controls/

The WikiLeaks release of John Podesta’s email cache has revealed six aspects of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s behind-the-scenes gun control push.
Those six things are contained in five separate email threads, some of which revolve around campaign positions, drafts of Clinton speeches, and stated positions that Clinton holds and plans to pursue if elected, among other things.

The six Wikileaks’ gun control revelations are:

Gun Control By Executive Order–Part of the October 7 WikiLeaks’ release revealed an email in which Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon stated that his boss will pursue gun control by “executive order” if elected. Fallon wrote:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order.

Making Gun Manufacturers Libel for Crimes Committed With Guns–In the October 7 WikiLeaks’ release, Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon also said Clinton will “[impose] manufacturer liability” if elected. We got a clear picture of what this means on October 14, after the Sandy Hook lawsuit against Remington Arms was dismissed. Clinton took to Twitter to say it was “incomprehensible” that Remington was not held liable. Think about it: the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook Elementary attack was legally made and legally sold–it was registered to Nancy Lanza, AdamLanza’s mother. But Adam stole the gun and thereafter carried out horrendous treachery. How can the gunmaker be liable in that situation?

Clinton’s Support of a 25% Tax on Gun Sales–Wikileaks also released an email wherein PR firm Grunwald Communications asked for clarification on Clinton’s support of a 25% tax on gun sales. The email was dated October 4, 2015. In it, Mandy Grunwald wrote, “I also saw something about her supporting a 25% tax on gun sales back in 1993.” ABC News reports that Clinton was “unequivocal” in her support for such a tax during her husband’s presidency and, on June 5, 2016, she told George Stephanopoulos her support for the tax was part of the nationalized healthcare push. She said, “What I was saying back then was that we have a lot of public health costs that taxpayers end up paying for through Medicaid, Medicare, through uncompensated care, because that was in the context of the push for health care reform and that we needed some way to try to defray those costs.” However, Breitbart News reported that her support was also rooted in the present. For example, she talked about meeting with survivors of the December 2, 2015, San Bernardino attack, then said:

When you have mass shootings, you not only have the terrible deaths, you have people who are injured. What they talked to me about was, where do they get the financial support to deal with both the physical and the emotional trauma. You know, is it a workman’s comp support, which is one of the arguments? Is it private insurance, Is it because they work for the county, something the county should pay for?

Clinton Campaign Discards Shootings That Do Not Further Gun Control Agenda–WikiLeaks’ ongoing email release also showed that the Clinton campaign discarded shootings that did not further the gun control agenda. For example, although black teen Jordan Davis was killed with a gun, the campaign did not include him in a Clinton gun violence essay because they believed the waters would be muddied by the fact that this killer was white. In an email exchange dated January 14, 2016, Clinton campaign manager director of engagement, De’Ara Balenger, critiqued Clinton’s gun violence essay, saying:

This is great. My edits are attached. The only flag here is that Jordan Davis was killed by a white man, so arguably – this crime was racially motivated, which takes this outside the discussion of gun violence. Was there another mother in the Chicago meeting where the shooting was NOT racially motivated? If yes, we should use that story instead of Jordan Davis.

Clinton Criticizes NRA for not being ‘Reasonable’ On Pro-Gun Stance–WikiLeaks released the transcript of a June 4, 2013, speech Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs. In it, Clinton claims the NRA is not “reasonable” on their pro-gun stance. She first talked about partisanship: “You know, people get rewarded for being partisan, and that’s on both sides. The biggest threat that Democrats and Republicans face today, largely because of gerrymandering in the House, is getting a primary opponent from either the far right or the far left.” She then shifted and told the story of a state senator from Kentucky who allegedly fell out of favor with the NRA for tabling a piece of pro-gun legislation. Clinton described the unnamed senator as being “highly regarded” and having “an A plus rating” from the NRA. Yet Clinton stressed that the NRA supported the senator’s challenger in the next election, unseating the senator for hesitating to pass the pro-gun bill when the opportunity was afforded her.

Clinton suggested the NRA’s approach betrayed an unwillingness to be “reasonable.” She said:

So the NRA recruited an opponent for her who beat her. They put a lot of money into it and basically: You couldn’t be reasonable. You couldn’t say let’s try to reason this out together. You had to tow the line, and whether it’s a financial line or gun control line or whatever the line might be.

This is the same Clinton who is so determined to secure more gun control that she made clear she will do it with or without Congress’s cooperation.

Clinton Campaign Feared ‘Blowback’ for Gun Control Push–An email thread dated March 17, 2016, shows various members of the Clinton campaign corresponding about how to approach talking about gun control. At the heart of the correspondence was “a press call with AZ locals about guns” and how to go after Donald Trump on the issue. John Podesta emailed that he was worried about broaching the issue: “Interestingly, I am worried about blowback from our supporters.”

Similar concerns about how to talk about gun control, or if doing so was even wise, came up in a November 5, 2015 email thread. There, Clinton senior advisor Jim Margolis suggested rewording the draft of a Clinton speech so as to give rural voters the impression that Clinton supported their desires to handle gun control differently than it is handled in urban settings. However, a careful reading of Margolis’s changes show Clinton supporting local gun control laws only when localities are trying to make the laws more strict.

If Hillary becomes the President of the United State, our gun rights are in jeopardy. Clinton will wage an all out war to dismantle the 2nd Amendment.

She is a corrupt, power-hungry, stooge who thinks that the power of the State is the more important than the individuals. In order to consolidate power to the higher echelons, she knows guns will have to be slowly removed from the hands of the commoners by force, manipulation, and through supply and demand.

She’s not anti-gun. You’d see that immediately if you asked her secret service to be unarmed in her presence. She’s just more pro-elitist.

Let us know what you think of the Wikileaks revelations. Is this news to you? Where else have you heard it?

[ssba]
  • Junior1950

    If Hillary Rotten Clinton is elected president, she will continue down Der Fuehrer Obama’s path of the destruction of our God given rights, our Country, and our Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms will be GONE!!!! We CANNOT ALLOW Hillary to become president!!!! For God’s sake, get to the polls on Tuesday 8 November 2016 and vote for DONALD J. TRUMP for PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!

    • Bama Bill

      She already had the “Brown Shirts”, only hers are “PURPLE”. Goodbye to “Bill of Rights”, Constitution. Her biggest supporters, Saudi Arabia, China,Soros, Etc., Who lost six BILLION dollars? And what has she said or done about it? Who Sold McDonald Douglas precision machinery to China? Where did ISIS get U.S. tanks and other equipment? Barry pulled out of Iraq so fast and said “Leave them there”. Who sold 20% of our uranium to Russia?
      We really do NOT NEED politicians that have made HUGE MISTAKES in power. I say, “LOCK HER UP”!

  • thomas zera

    HRC talks gun control because the tremendous amount of criminality her and her party are involved in leave her nothing else to talk about. So she targets the intentionally misinformed people who have an unreasonably extreme fear of firearms. It’s not the tool it’s the fool , the criminal and insane that should be feared.

  • Terry Lee Swinney

    WAKE UP AMERICA – VOTE TRUMP
    She (Clinton and her Cartel) are out to destroy the United States as weknow it today. She will continue down the Obama path without question. She want to destroy our constitution and give control to the Global Reach Organization, read as the UN.
    WAKE UP AMERICA – VOTE TRUMP

  • loony1975

    killary can go f’k herself…MOLON LABE, B–CH…

  • don lavrich

    Hillary would never be able to confiscate our weapons. there are more of us then them. the American people are strong and would not put up with this crap. this move would be the death of her, her family, and many involved in this diabolical act.

  • Alleged Comment

    SORRY but you can see all the measures are there to INFRINGE, HARASS, OBFUSCATE, DISCOURAGE your constitutional rights to own a weapon.

    DO NOT COMPLY OR OBEY the hag.

    BTW, the Government is actually suppose to encourage and actually pay for your weapon and training as citizens.

  • Donna Morken

    When she was secretary of state she went ahead and signed the Small Arms Treaty with the UN. What that says is the UN can come in and take our arms, it was brought before congress and it only failed by 6 votes of being ratified. this is how close we came to having the second amendment pulled out from under us. The next time we may not be so lucky. We need to make sure we get everyone we can to get out and vote for Trump.

  • JL Brown Jr

    We can hope for a great turn out, if we don’t get that pray she has a stroke

  • LeslieFish

    Yes, she will get elected, and we’d best hope that Congress remains in anyone’s hand but the Democrats — Repub, Libertarian, independent — to put the brakes on her tendency to wipe her butt with the Constitution. Congress had better take the time between now and January to confirm Obama’s choice for Supreme Court justice — because he’s at least devoted to the letter of the Constitution — before Hellary proposes somebody worse, which she will. Also, the pro-gun organizations had better set up their legal cases in advance to fight her planned tactics, and have them ready to go the instant she starts putting any of them into action.