Jan 7, 2016 at 05:35 Original Publish Date.
Oct. 3, 2020 Replaced thinkexist.com link that was deleted after our post quoting them.
Hillary Clinton Wants to Take Away Your Guns Too
original article written by Net Advisor™
Excerpt: A review of the radicalization of Hillary Clinton. Clinton and Obama’s gun control actions and their intent through analyzing their own statements on firearms, attacking the First and Second Amendment, and compare what the truth (law and courts) have ruled. We note Clinton and Obama’s support of state-sponsored terrorism (Iran). Clinton attacks the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution. If elected, Clinton already has made clear intention to bypass Congress, bypass the laws of the United States, and rule administratively, like a tyrantess.
WASHINGTON, DC. The Gun Control debate continued after two terrorists killed 14 innocent people and wounded another 21 at a holiday (Christmas) party in San Bernardino, California.
The shooters, one U.S. born from Chicago, Syed Rizwan Farook and his new wife Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani national who was living in Saudi Arabia. The couple met on-line.
Farok reportedly had contact with an al Qaeda terrorist affiliate prior to the attack. His wife pledged her alliance to the ISIS terror org posting such on Facebook. The FBI has been investigating this as a ‘terrorist act.’ The Feds say that the attack was not part of a foreign-driven terrorist cell. Tashfeen Malik provided false information on a Fiancée Visa in order to gain entry into the USA. The couple plotted the attack prior to their U.S. marriage.
Two of the weapons used were legally purchased years ago by Enrique Marquez, friend of the now killed terrorists. Marquez has since been arrested and a criminal complaint was filed against him.
Instead of President Obama and many others recognizing this as a national security problem in large part due to his dismantling of the U.S. immigration system, Obama and others focus on gun control.
[1] It’s All About (Gun) Control
Before the San Bernardino bodies could be identified, and while police were still searching for the suspects, leftists groups jumped on a social media, including Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton (tweet) who all called for ‘more gun control.’
Hillary Clinton also didn’t bother to address the deranged shooter at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Instead, she tweeted that she ‘stood with Planned Parenthood.’
Today and every day, we #StandWithPP. https://t.co/oifqTQLx1X
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 27, 2015
Sources report, two police officers were killed in a gun fight with the shooter outside Planned Parenthood, and one civilian killed inside the facility. Nine others injured but not killed. The suspect made statements against abortion, however police have not determined a motive. The suspect is being held without bond and has been Court ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
[2] Hillary Becomes More Radical to Drum-up Political Support
In order to gain Left political support for her 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton has taken a more radical shift in her views of legal firearm ownership and gun control.
In May 2014, Hillary Clinton said that gun laws are too lax and they needed to be reined in.
“We’re way out of balance,” said the former secretary of State. “We have to reign in what has almost become an article of faith that anybody anywhere can own a gun.”
— Hillary Clinton (Source: The Hill.com PDF)
We’ll, that is not exactly true. ‘Anybody’ and ‘anywhere’ can NOT just own a gun. Convicted felons cannot own or possess a firearm. Typically those on parole/ probation are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Those often with current restraining orders, convicted offenders related to domestic violence cases all – may not own or possess firearms.
“…prohibited by federal law to include convicted felons; persons under indictment for felonies; adjudicated “mental defectives” or those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions; illegal drug users; illegal aliens and most non-immigrant aliens; dishonorably discharged veterans; those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship; fugitives from justice; persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders.”
— Source: NRA Institute for Legislative Action [Further Law, 32 CFR Part 86]
Everyone in the USA who purchases a firearm through a licensed firearm dealer, MUST first go through a state and a FBI criminal background check before taking possession of a firearm. Many states have imposed waiting periods that delay receipt of firearms even if they clear their background checks. (More info, here and here. Consult state/ local laws/ firearms lawyer for any current updates.)
Thus Mrs. Clinton’s statement that “anybody anywhere can own a gun” is entirely FALSE.
The former Secretary of State also went so far to say that even fully licensed, fully validated gun owners cannot be trusted. I wonder if she means police, current active military, and federal law enforcement too?
“At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don’t like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gun chewer or cell phone user by shooting.”
— Hillary Clinton (Source: Breitbart.com PDF)
So does Hillary Clinton actually believe that if someone is on their cell phone or chewing gum and it bothers someone else, that gives someone a legal right to shoot them?
Clinton, a veteran lawyer by trade, should know that her comment is clearly irrational. Such proposed action is not a legal “self-defense,” and thus such would not be deemed a ‘justifiable shooting’ in any U.S. state. Arguably, Clinton’s statement is really about instilling fear to an ill-informed public – mostly her supporters.
Mrs. Clinton also trys to make lawful gun owners and the non-profit National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871 as deranges radicals. In October 2015, Mrs. Clinton likened the NRA to negotiating with Iranians and Communists.
“You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists.”
— Hillary Clinton (Source: The Hill.com PDF)
We will get to the part where the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment and the People’s right to bear arms’ since about the 1800’s.
For those who don’t know, the NRA does NOT manufacture or sell firearms or ammunition.
Hillary Supports State Sponsor of Terrorism?
With regard to Hillary’s comments on Iran. Hillary Clinton supported the Obama Administration’s deal with Iran that has no legal biding agreement (Iran did not even sign the deal). The deal includes turning over billions of dollars to Iran. It also bans U.S. inspectors, where Iran will self-monitor their nuclear programs.
The deal does not stop, prevent or eliminate Iran from continuing some nuclear development now, or in the future. The only real negotiation that took placed was to insure Iran got everything they wanted, and the Obama Admin insured that outcome. Hillary supports that? Hillary Clinton served as Obama’s Secretary of State from 2009-2013.
So both Hillary and Obama SUPPORT funding and potentially further arming Iran? The U.S. State Department designated Iran as a known State Sponsor of Terrorism since 1984. One might argue whether the Iran Deal really provided “material support to terrorists” a federal crime under 18 USC §2339A seq. The U.S. Congress never had the opportunity to vote on affirming the deal.
Tyrantess-in-Chief?
Next, the former Secretary of State painted the NRA as being “communist.” There was this tweet that Hillary (if elected as President) thinks she can just unilaterally bypass Congress, and decide to take “Administrative Action” on gun control.
If Congress refuses to act to end this epidemic of gun violence, I'll take administrative action to do so. -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 5, 2015
So, Mrs. Clinton thinks like Barack Obama where a U.S. President can bypass Congress, bypass the U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment) and just make up laws as they see fit?
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
— Mao Zedong, Chinese Communist revolutionary and Founding father of the People’s Republic of China said Nov. 6, 1938
Obama was and Clinton maybe a lawyer by trade. Obama once claimed he was a Constitutional law professor. Yet, despite their incorrect political opinion here, Congress is NOT required to act, to pass or attempt to pass any law that CONGRESS does not want. A President CANNOT dictate and force what laws Congress must pass, or threaten Congress will be ignored and that a President ‘will act if Congress does not.’
The Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution says otherwise:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
— United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1. (Source: Cornell University Law School).
Rule by Tyranny?
It seems that most of today’s Democrats, Pres. Obama, Vice President, former Secretary Clinton, radical media, political nut cases, Hollywood, and others, think that they can just attack and change the Constitution unilaterally regardless of the rule of law or legal procedure.
That lawless intent is an example of what tyranny is like. It is not a government under a Constitutional Republic, it is more more like a like a Communist (Social-Marxist) Dictatorship.
By admission, Clinton, like Obama seek to ignore the rule of law and operate like a third-world-dictator.
[3] Clinton: Supreme Court is “Wrong” on Second Amendment?
Ms. Clinton previously suggested a 25 percent tax on all firearm sales. This idea reminds me of history where King George III of England also sought to tax those who defied him. This, among other listed tyrannical grievances eventually lead to the Declaration of Independence from England on July 4, 1776.
Hillary Clinton continues to think that a President, including her current ambition, that she is above Congress and superior to the U.S. Constitution.
Ms. Clinton said that the U.S. Supreme Court is “wrong” on the Second Amendment.
“Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court as “wrong on the Second Amendment” and called for reinstating the assault weapons ban during a small private fundraiser in New York last week…”
That’s a stark contrast from what Hillary Clinton said when she ran for President in 2008.
“I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns…”
— Hillary Clinton said at the 2008 Presidential Debate in Philadelphia (Transcript PDF, p24)
Ms. Clinton said at the 2008 DNC Debate that she wanted to keep guns out of the “wrong hands.” As we now know judging by her 2015-16 statements, apparently what she meant by keeping firearms out of the “wrong hands” is anyone who has hands.
[4] Clinton Plan: Silence Speech, Disarm Citizens.
Since Socialist Bernie Sanders (D-VT) put some 2016 Presidential competition for Hillary. NOW, Clinton says “We need a President who will stand up to the gun lobby.”
We need a president who will stand up to the gun lobby. Add your name if you agree: https://t.co/P3EDH8nues
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 3, 2016
What Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others are really saying here is, they think the Second Amend should be stricken from the Constitution to where only government, including perhaps police should have arms.
Clinton’s statement is also an attack on the First Amendment of Free Speech, and the right for citizens to petition U.S. government for conveniences. The Marxist Political Left, which arguably both Obama and Clinton are actively a part of, would rather silence any speech that is not in alignment with their long-time totalitarian plan.
[5] The Law
The Second Amendment was ratified in the United States Constitution on December 17, 1791, and is part of the first, Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights; the legal foundation that created the United States.
Thus to attack or attempt to strip away at the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, would mean to attack and strip away the power of the People to defend themselves.
“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.”
— Second Amendment, United States Constitution. Source: Cornell University Law School
Citizenship:
To become a U.S. citizen, foreign citizens one MUST take the United States Oath of Allegiance which states in part:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…so help me God.”
— 8 CFR §337.1 (Source: Cornell University law School) (underline added for emphasis.)
Discussion:
If a former foreign citizen fails to uphold such U.S. sworn oath, should they risk loss of U.S. citizenship?
All U.S. presidents beginning with the first one, George Washington, are REQUIRED by law to take the following oath BEFORE taking office.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
— United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 (Source: The Founders’ Constitution, University of Chicago), Records of the Federal Convention.
Despite Clinton and Obama’s rhetoric, they are not above the law.
Case Law:
The second Amendment is within the framework of the U.S. Constitution, and thus arguably only Congress may attempt to regulate it and without violating its intent or violating existing Judicial Branch supporting case law including, but not limited to:
- United States v. Cruikshank (1875)
- Presser v. Illinois (1886)
- Miller v. Texas (1894)
- District of Columbia v. Heller (2010)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago (2012)
[5] The Future: Beginning with the 2016 Election in Question
In a major election year, knowing that we have a current President and significant number of at least 124 Democrats who have come to view the Second Amendment as a threat to their political agenda of tyranny over the People. The question is:
Do we, as a country accept that view? Should we, as a country place people in office who prefer to circumvent or restrict or strike at Constitutional freedom and liberty that has existed for over 239 years? And should we, as a country, allow “leaders” to act with unilateral authority to bypass Congress, and the Judicial Branch? Such a path arguably puts the U.S. in a dangerous place where history has shown such to be damaging to its people, and their country.
As the “Father of the United States Bill of Rights”said:
“To Disarm the People (is) the Best and Most Effectual Way to Enslave Them…”
— George Mason IV (1725-1792) [source deleted quote after our post (PDF)] (Update: Additional sources 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5: Originally Quoted from George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380).
—
Further Discussion:
- 124 Anti-gun Democrats Introduce Semi-Auto Gun and Magazine Ban in H.R.
- Lt. Gov of California Intends 2016 Ballot Initiate to Ban and Confiscate…
- Chronology of Mass Killings During the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)
- Gun Control, Dictator-Style
- MLK and His Guns
- The True History of Gun Control – Timeline
If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook, share on Twitter or through your favorite social network.
Read More of our articles on relating to U.S. Gun Policies, laws, and history here.
original content copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
