Hillary Clinton’s Gun Control Agenda Exposed in Wikileaks Emails

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


There is no doubt about it. Hillary Clinton is after your guns.

Brian Fallon, national press secretary for the Clinton campaign, wrote in an email dated October 4, 2015 that Clinton intends to stop the “gun show loophole”, meaning all private gun sales, by executive order:

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 and imposing manufacturer liability.

Imposing manufacturer liability means that after Sandy Hook, Bushmaster and Remington Arms would have been prosecuted for having a hand in the murder of children and school staff members for firearms that were legally sold. When a lawsuit brought against these manufacturers was found to be frivolous, Clinton made a big fuss about it on Twitter:

In September 1993 during a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Hillary Clinton was asked by Senator Bill Bradley if she supported a 25 % sales tax on handguns and automatic weapons. She was very clear in her support of taxing guns:

“I’m all for that. I just don’t know what else we’re going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence,” said Clinton. “I’m speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.”

In another email exchange dated January 14, 2016, Clinton wrote about using racial division to further her gun control agenda by selectively ignoring occurrences of gun violence that were not racially motivated. For this reason, according to the email, the Clinton campaign did not include the story of Jordan Davis in an essay on gun violence:

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.

In another email from March 17, we see an exchange about how to attack Donald Trump and a press call with Arizona locals about gun control. When asked about an anti-gun op-ed article by the Clinton Campaign, Chairman John Podesta wrote that he fears blowback from Clinton’s supporters:

Interestingly, I am worried about blowback from our supporters.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • SexualMustard

    From my cold, dead fingers.

    • The_Ipcress_File

      that might actually be a part of her plan.

    • Sovereign_Citizen

      Over her cold dead body will we step after she tries anything.

  • Rayven Wrathchild

    More people are killed in and by cars by hostile/incompetent drivers than guns….

    What if Shillary had said :

    “It’s incomprehensible that our laws would protect car makers over Sandy Hook families. We need to fix this. ”

    The gun killed no one… it was the person with the gun. I can then apply that logic to baseball bats, bricks, hammers…..blah blah blah.

    She’s an evil warmonger that is scared the Mosul Sniper might show up for her. It”s not about protecting anyone but herself.

  • Sovereign_Citizen

    Over her dying and twitching body.

    • Grigori Yefimovich

      She doesn’t seem long for this world. Nature itself seems to be taking care of the witch.

      • Sovereign_Citizen

        If it doesn’t, the American People will.

  • Lewie Paine

    As I’ve pointed out for years, the fatal flaw in the current US constitution is that it does not explicitly protect inherent unalienable natural rights. Specifically the right to property.

    She can do this, and it will be constitutional.

    • juskom95

      It does, if you read it:

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
      papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
      not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
      supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
      to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      • Lewie Paine

        A ‘reasonable’ seizure is contradictory to the idea expressed by the word ‘unalienable.’
        In America today, ‘reasonable’ can mean little more than ‘for the common good.’

        ‘Unalienable’ means, ‘cannot be separated under any circumstances.’ Unalienable Rights cannot even be surrendered.

        • Lewie Paine

          But you make a point. Politicians find it very reasonable (and thus constitutional) that the populace should be disarmed.

          • craig

            Your focus on “reasonable” does not address an unalienable right given from God.
            If the police did not have time to get a warrant to go inside a house suspected of harboring a fugitive, and time was of the essence (due to life or death situation), going in would be reasonable, and it would not be a transgression of an unalienable right.
            However, Redcoats taking up quarters in the home of a colonist was transgressing his right from above.

          • Lewie Paine

            Would it be ‘reasonable’ to torture to death a member of your family in order to save a billion people? Would it be a transgression of her unalienable right to life?

            The ends never justify the means.

          • craig

            I agree. The end invariably never justifies the means.
            But to your question…
            I would hope you or I would never have to be in one of these types of situational choices…but if we were, I don’t know about you, but I would look to my Lord Jesus Christ, for Him to show me what to do in that moment. I know He has never, or will ever, let me down; I would wait for His answer.
            Wait for the Lord;
            Be strong and let your heart take courage;
            Yes, wait for the Lord.
            Psalm 27:14

        • juskom95

          You really have no clue huh?
          That or you are trolling.

          • Lewie Paine

            That’s the best you can do in defending your argument?

            In the Constitution itself, the word ‘property’ appears only once, and that is in reference to property owned by the federal government. Nowhere does it make any mention of property owned by the citizens.

      • Phil_Ossifer

        To paraphrase the Hildabeast’s scumbag husband, “Well, it depends on what the definition of ‘reasonable’ is…” And, I might add, it depends even more on who gets to define “reasonable.” If the Hildabeast gets to define the word it will mean “anything I think is reasonable.” Heil Hitlery! The fuhrerprinzip (the fuhrer’s word is above all written law) will become de facto law of the land.

    • craig

      Wrong, as you do not understand what unalienable rights are.

      Unalienable rights (Declaration of Independence) are given by God to man (God-given rights). “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

      In the Constitution’s Article X of the Bill of Rights:
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE..

      Because God created man in His image, giving him these rights, no man can supplant what God has given. Here are just some of our unalienable rights given to us from God:

      To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).

      To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free.

      To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)

      To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.

      To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.

      To worship — or not worship — God in the manner one chooses.

      To associate with — or disassociate from — any person or group.

      To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media.

      To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy).

      To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.

      To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.

      To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.

      To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.

      To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.

      To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.

      To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

      • Lewie Paine

        1) Natural Rights is a political theory that maintains that an Individual enters into Society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights, as they are intrinsic and unalienable.

        The idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature and that these laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason.

        Natural law is the basis of ethics and morality. A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

        That is, the concept of a ‘right’ pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

        Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

        2) The Declaration of Independence, which was a libertarian document, is not binding law. It was a document of secession. It is not mentioned in the US constitution, which is a conservative document.

        Your list of ‘rights’ is little more than government granted privileges. What are known as ‘constitutional rights’ and are not considered unalienable by government.

        • craig

          Wrong again.

          The Constitution and the Declaration are both organic law that forms the foundation of our government.

          Unalienable rights are found in the Declaration as eternal “LAWS of Nature and of NATURE’S GOD.” These rights from the Creator are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights including, but not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.

          AND TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR, the 10th Amendment says [I repeat myself here for you]:
          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

          The Declaration bases America and its government on self-evident truths such as human equality and certain “unalienable rights.” The truths are self-evident, not in the sense of being immediately obvious to everyone, but rather in presenting the logical or evident conclusion of what enlightened humanity understands by a human being. Self-evident truths are also not restricted to any one era or nation; they are as true today as they were in 1776, as true in America as they are in contemporary China or in ancient Greece. To enforce those rights is the challenge of American politics.

          Such rights are acknowledged and affirmed liberties inherent in human nature—the right to own property, for example. They are not merely powers, and neither are they simply wishes or desires. “Endowed by their Creator,” these rights transcend the ability of any government to destroy them (though killing or enslaving the men and women who possess these rights is, of course, another matter). Thus, these inherent or natural rights produce LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT and DENY THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY GOVERNMENT justified merely on, for example, heredity, religion, class, race, or wealth.
          PS Why fight the 2nd Amendment. It is definitely one of our God-given rights?
          And it sure ain’t a privilege from the gubmint.

          • Lewie Paine

            When you find mention of the DOI in the constitution, let me know. I’ve been searching for years.

          • I used to be a constitutionalist. But then when I gave the matter closer thought, I realized that constitutions do NOT protect peoples’ rights.

            They do the exact opposite. The constitutions of all conventional governments legitimize extortion of We the Sheeple by a ruling elte.

            They all have clauses in them that basically say: “The government is allowed to rob you, and you have no right to resist”.

            Don’t take my word for it. Check for yourself. No exceptions.

          • You might say that competition is the chief constitutional constraint of market anarchism.

            Have you considered Roderick T. Long’s “Market Anarchism as Constitionalism”?

          • Yes. So-called “checks and balances” within conventional governments, are a sham.

            All conventional governments are monopolies that claim a right to initiatory violence. This is what makes them both morally intolerable and practically unworkable.

            The claim that a legal monopoly is unavoidable and necessary because a society needs a single set of objective rules is a red herring.

            Any political entity that enjoys a legal monopoly, has by definition, unchecked power. What it offers is not a single set of objective rules, but rather the unchecked power to abuse the rights and liberties of individual human beings it claims to rule.

            The only way to avoid such abuses, is free market competition, via some variant of “Private Defense Agencies”. Otherwise individuals will find themselves at the complete mercy of a legal monopoly claimant, and helpless to resist.

      • “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

        You unwittingly put your finger on the problem with the US Constitution, namely that it does NOT derive just power from the consent of the governed.

        Thomas Jefferson belatedly came to that realization when he said,

        “I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it’s laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”
        ― Thomas Jefferson

        Jefferson realized that the very notion of a “social contract” was nonsense. How can people make up rules that others who haven’t even been born, must obey?

  • Moshé_007

    She wants to destroy the US !

  • Jim

    Well, she can try, but she will not succeed.

    • Lewie Paine

      Why not? Look at Australia.

      • craig

        Australia made a huge mistake. Maybe someday they’ll be free again.

      • Frank

        And now Australia is reaping a huge surge in…what? You guessed it, gun violence. After law-abiding gun owners were disarmed, only the criminals have guns, so are victimizing the disarmed public at historic levels. The Aussies are seriously regretting surrendering their guns.

      • thomasdosborneii

        That’s a scary example. But at least, we CAN look at Australia…so maybe this country won’t follow that same path.

    • you underestimate her potential. seriously.

  • Montana Man

    The habit of liberals is to constantly blame their bad behavior on others. So of course it’s Smith & Wesson’s fault that Quickie Mart was robbed and the store clerk was killed, and it must also be Hewlett Packard’s fault that the Clinton’s email server was hacked. If this corrupt lunatic woman has her way, there’ll be no end to the lawful companies that can be held responsible for the bad behavior of her fellow liberals.

    • Lewie Paine

      I think America deserves clinton. There’s consequences for being so stupid, so long.

      • Montana Man

        Liberals deserve to suffer the consequences of their immorality. When they face the Judge, they’ll be unable to lie, or blame anyone else for their actions.

      • craig

        There are many who say the same thing, and with good cause.
        CONSEQUENCES of being asleep at the wheel!
        America needs to come together before it is too late; after all, many believe it’s already past midnight…

  • SP_88

    How many times have these lying politicians said that “nobody is trying to take away your guns”, as if we are just being paranoid.
    Obama is the one who seems to come out the most and say that we are nuts for thinking that the corrupt politicians are doing any of the things that we frequently accuse them of.
    Just recently he came out and said that “we are more likely to be struck by lightning than see someone commit voter fraud”. But obviously voter fraud is rampant.
    When he claimed that the government isn’t trying to take our guns he was obviously lying. There are multiple agendas designed to take away our guns. And he is directly involved in most of them.
    Nothing the government says should be trusted. As a rule of thumb, I would just believe the exact opposite of anything the government says.

    • craig

      You are so, so right, SP_88. Liars breathe lies…

      What is desirable in a man is his kindness, And it is better to be a poor man than a liar.
      Proverbs 19:22

  • Gil G

    The right to shoot others is the most sacred American right.

  • mayday911us.

    Removing private sales by Executive Order yeah It can be done but it’s absolutely unenforceable.

    Please look at the states that passed those so-called common sense gun reform’s. New York State Connecticut Colorado Illinois and California. Please explain to me what shooting has been stopped?

    Then opening the door of making gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of a few. That opens the door for every other item to sue the manufacture of it. Pick your product that you would like to use to kill people now you can sue the manufacturer of it.

  • glacialhills

    They will never go door to door, to confiscate everyone’s guns. Just like all other transgressions, you will break one of their many laws, say most likely while driving, be observed doing so by a camera or in person by one of the state’s “LAW ENFORCER’s”.Then while your background is being run they will see you have withheld your now banned gun from being turned in.You will head to jail,they will head to your now vacant,or unsuspecting family to secure those guns.California is doing this now with anyone arrested for mental problems, drug problems, VA ptsd wellness checks, or reported by a concerned neighbor or relative…among other reasons.

    Just like most all criminals that the public will cheer when apprehended, they will just pick off us “crazy, massive arsenal, cop killing bulit stacking, assault weapon toting gun owners quietly, one by one, over time,while detaining us for unrelated “crimes”.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Why do conservatives keep spreading the lie that Saddam Hussein had no WMDS when in fact he had tons of WMDS. Read the book Saddam’s Secrets written by General Gorges Sada, the only General that Saddam trusted. Sada is a Chrisitian and he describes exactly how those WMDS were moved to Syria while Bush was dicking around with the UN and the Democrats in DC. Great book to read if you reall;y want to know what Saddam’s plans were for the Middle East – a horror show. Thank God Bush took out that evil SOB and his two evil sons

  • thomasdosborneii

    Is that true about chopsticks, that they were the result of the Emperor imposing “knife control”? I always thought eating with two sticks was stupid beyond belief and I am so amused by Americans going into a Chinese restaurant and requesting to eat with chopsticks. I always think, “Yes, but we have evolved to forks and knives, now!” So people who eat with chopsticks are actually (sheep-like) honoring totalitarianism. Although worse is going into those middle eastern restaurants and eating with just your hands, or some African restaurants (Ethiopian) and using thin rubber-like pieces of “bread” as eating utensils.

  • thomasdosborneii

    Hillary should do without the Secret Service. She hates them anyway, and they sure do hate her, too.