New Secret Audio Of Hillary Clinton Saying She値l Destroy The Second Amendment
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: New Secret Audio Of Hillary Clinton Saying She値l Destroy The Second Amendment

  1. #1

    New Secret Audio Of Hillary Clinton Saying She値l Destroy The Second Amendment

    New Secret Audio Of Hillary Clinton Saying She値l Destroy The Second Amendment
    .
    Listen to this secret recording speaking out against the NRA and the Second Amendment. She even goes after the Supreme Court by saying 鍍hey are wrong.
    .
    Hillary is known to be very anti-gun and wants to dismantle the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Clinton has flip flopped on the issue of gun control since her last campaign against Barack Obama. In 2008, she was in favor of having different gun control laws for different regions. 展hat might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana, she said.
    .
    The Republican National Committee obtained the audio and posted it on their 敵OP War Room YouTube page.
    .
    Now, Clinton is looking for a more blanket approach to gun control by having the whole country abide to similar strict gun control laws.
    .
    Audio of Hillary痴 anti-gun speech:

    .
    Read More:
    New Secret Audio Of Hillary Clinton Saying She’ll Destroy The Second Amendment – American Military News
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    Gun owners, listen for yourself, Hillary Clinton will use the Supreme Court to remove or restrict our 2nd Amendment.
    .
    Let's make sure she isn't elected. Let's elect Donald Trump who will protect our 2nd Amendment and is a concealed weapon permit holder who believes you should be able to carry your weapon for protection anywhere in the USA.
    .
    Anyone who doesn稚 want Hillary to go against our gun rights better think long and hard concerning her getting in and putting 3 to 4 liberal Supreme Court justices in the court.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hog Jaw, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,275
    Howdy,

    If it's soooooo secret, how did you find out about it?

    Did it moronically appear in your Mom's basement.................uh......... I mean your "Command Post"?

    Just curious.

    Paul

    P.S. Back in 2012 the "Secert recording" of the Bishop talking about the "47%" took about 30 minutes to be on all the MSM, except Faux Noise ( they mentioned it last by a day or two) but this isn't on any of the MSM and is only being post by +40yo SWM w/out kids ( thank God!) that still live with their Mom and have a "Command Post" in the basement.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy,

    If it's soooooo secret, how did you find out about it?

    Did it moronically appear in your Mom's basement.................uh......... I mean your "Command Post"?

    Just curious.

    Paul

    P.S. Back in 2012 the "Secert recording" of the Bishop talking about the "47%" took about 30 minutes to be on all the MSM, except Faux Noise ( they mentioned it last by a day or two) but this isn't on any of the MSM and is only being post by +40yo SWM w/out kids ( thank God!) that still live with their Mom and have a "Command Post" in the basement.
    Do you have a hangup for SWM s that live with their mom ??

  5. Yup she's 100 correct, only she knows what is right and wrong. Words have no meaning, even social contracts a.k.a., the Constitution, unenforceable, no supporting evidence has ever existed to try to understand the purpose or reasoning for such a document.

    Talk about a devout Saul Alinsky fanatical disciple. She must have achieved Grand Poobah status of this demented and insidious band of idiots by now.

    Trump wasn't my 1st choice, but when faced with only wrong choices, always go with the one least wrong.
    When all other methods of protest have been dismantled, the system leaves us with only two options: stand and fight, or kneel and beg for mercy. All you need to know is what YOU would do when faced with that choice.


  6. #6
    Just read on Breitbart News where the NSA has now acquired all of Hillary's Emails and will share with the FBI.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Just read on Breitbart News where the NSA has now acquired all of Hillary's Emails and will share with the FBI.
    How about posting the actual article? From EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails:

    The National Security Agency (NSA) has “all” of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.
    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton’s compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA’s surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    ..

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of “all” of Clinton’s emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    “Yes,” he responded. “That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there.”

    ..
    He hasn't been with the agency since 2001, yet somehow asserts that the NSA has copies of “all” of Clinton’s emails. This is more wishful thinking than actual knowledge.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Just read on Breitbart News where the NSA has now acquired all of Hillary's Emails and will share with the FBI.
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    How about posting the actual article? From EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails:



    He hasn't been with the agency since 2001, yet somehow asserts that the NSA has copies of “all” of Clinton’s emails. This is more wishful thinking than actual knowledge.
    Sources, SR9 don't need no stinking sources. It's accurate because he says it is.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    For the terminally clueless, make sure to read past the first line of the following to understand what I'm saying....

    I agree wholeheartedly with Billary Clinton about the NRA being a pernicious and corrupting influence in this society, and that SCOTUS got it wrong on the Second Amendment. The difference is that she and I don't have the same reasons for coming to the same conclusions.

    The NRA has never been a full-throated supporter of the Second Amendment. Without its help, Congress would've never gotten NFA34 passed, and there's very strong evidence that they lied to their members and other gun owners by opposing GCA68 in public, while working back-channels to get it passed. Some of that evidence is laid out at the same link in this paragraph ("Without its help"). They made compromise after liberty-killing compromise regarding Slick Willie's Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill, plus many state-level bits of gun control legislation, and the coin of their realm, the only bartering leverage they have to compromise with, is our rights. People who blindly follow them are just that, blind to their many betrayals of gun owners, or supportive of them in spite of knowing about and recognizing their treasonous ways.

    Assuming that Billary was referring to Heller and McDonald in saying SCOTUS got it wrong (since they are the only two SCOTUS rulings to take on the meaning of the 2A directly), she's right on that score too. Just looking at Heller we can find multiple instances of support for weakening and/or usurping the unequivocal language of the Second Amendment's bottom-line phrase, "...shall not be infringed." The dissenters in Heller held up U.S. vs. Miller as their precedent-basis for believing the RTKB arms is a collective right, as opposed to an individual right. Scalia's majority Opinion did indeed correct that flawed logic and recognized the individual right, but left intact Miller's adherence to NFA34 when thousands of words were devoted to the Miller ruling from the D.C. gun-ban side of the case that gave the so-called "pro-2A" side of SCOTUS every reason and opportunity to overrule Miller's usurpations of the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment. Scalia et al completely bailed on that opportunity, and avoided at all costs getting anywhere near defining, or overruling the definitions in Miller of, the types of weapons that the word "arms" refers to because of Miller's conclusion that short-barreled shotguns didn't serve a militia-specific purpose, which itself is an utterly brain-dead "legal" conclusion to begin with. So in Scalia's opinion, several paragraphs are devoted to Miller only in the context that Stephens' dissent is "wrongheaded" because of its heavy reliance on that case, and completely leaves alone any "wrongheaded" conclusions within the ridiculously flawed overall ruling.

    Most of us who believe that the Second Amendment means what it says in the "shall not be infringed" language, likewise believe that permitting, license to purchase and other red-tape obstacles to keeping and/or bearing are usurpations of that language. Scalia et al didn't/don't believe that, and the following passage from the Heller opinion is just one among several that clearly prove that point:

    Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent (Mr. Heller through his legal team's briefs) conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with … licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.
    Later, while addressing a separate dissent by Breyer, Scalia et al sign onto this "legal" conclusion:

    The other laws Justice Breyer cites are gunpowder-storage laws that he concedes did not clearly prohibit loaded weapons, but required only that excess gunpowder be kept in a special container or on the top floor of the home. Post, at 6–7. Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.
    So, the supposedly "pro-2A" side of SCOTUS glosses over and leaves intact the obvious usurpations of Miller, but codifies regulating storage laws as a "legal" axiom compliant with the Second's language of "shall not be infringed."

    There is much more wrong with Heller and subsequently McDonald. People who are supposedly Second Amendment purists (or whatever they think they are) who argue that Billary is wrong because SCOTUS was right in Heller and McDonald certainly cannot maintain with an iota of credibility that they are indeed purists of any description. The whole of government has been wrong on the 2A's meaning, and it's come from every nook and cranny of government from SCOTUS, presidents and Congress-critters on down to supposed "constitutional sheriffs" who assume unconstitutional authority for themselves to decide who does, but more importantly, who does not, get to enjoy and freely exercise the rights delineated within the Second Amendment.

    In short, just because Billary is right for the wrong reasons doesn't mean pro-2A advocates should argue that SCOTUS was right when they weren't by a long-shot (no pun intended). Neither does her wrong reasoning justify arguing that the NRA is pro-2A when they're clearly not. They're as pro-regulation (read: pro-infringement) as any Congress-critter, president, judge or other level of government official ever dreamt of being, including Billary. To argue otherwise is to admit to not knowing who and what you support.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    For the terminally clueless, make sure to read past the first line of the following to understand what I'm saying....

    I agree wholeheartedly with Billary Clinton about the NRA being a pernicious and corrupting influence in this society, and that SCOTUS got it wrong on the Second Amendment. The difference is that she and I don't have the same reasons for coming to the same conclusions.

    The NRA has never been a full-throated supporter of the Second Amendment. Without its help, Congress would've never gotten NFA34 passed, and there's very strong evidence that they lied to their members and other gun owners by opposing GCA68 in public, while working back-channels to get it passed. Some of that evidence is laid out at the same link in this paragraph ("Without its help"). They made compromise after liberty-killing compromise regarding Slick Willie's Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill, plus many state-level bits of gun control legislation, and the coin of their realm, the only bartering leverage they have to compromise with, is our rights. People who blindly follow them are just that, blind to their many betrayals of gun owners, or supportive of them in spite of knowing about and recognizing their treasonous ways.

    Assuming that Billary was referring to Heller and McDonald in saying SCOTUS got it wrong (since they are the only two SCOTUS rulings to take on the meaning of the 2A directly), she's right on that score too. Just looking at Heller we can find multiple instances of support for weakening and/or usurping the unequivocal language of the Second Amendment's bottom-line phrase, "...shall not be infringed." The dissenters in Heller held up U.S. vs. Miller as their precedent-basis for believing the RTKB arms is a collective right, as opposed to an individual right. Scalia's majority Opinion did indeed correct that flawed logic and recognized the individual right, but left intact Miller's adherence to NFA34 when thousands of words were devoted to the Miller ruling from the D.C. gun-ban side of the case that gave the so-called "pro-2A" side of SCOTUS every reason and opportunity to overrule Miller's usurpations of the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment. Scalia et al completely bailed on that opportunity, and avoided at all costs getting anywhere near defining, or overruling the definitions in Miller of, the types of weapons that the word "arms" refers to because of Miller's conclusion that short-barreled shotguns didn't serve a militia-specific purpose, which itself is an utterly brain-dead "legal" conclusion to begin with. So in Scalia's opinion, several paragraphs are devoted to Miller only in the context that Stephens' dissent is "wrongheaded" because of its heavy reliance on that case, and completely leaves alone any "wrongheaded" conclusions within the ridiculously flawed overall ruling.

    Most of us who believe that the Second Amendment means what it says in the "shall not be infringed" language, likewise believe that permitting, license to purchase and other red-tape obstacles to keeping and/or bearing are usurpations of that language. Scalia et al didn't/don't believe that, and the following passage from the Heller opinion is just one among several that clearly prove that point:



    Later, while addressing a separate dissent by Breyer, Scalia et al sign onto this "legal" conclusion:



    So, the supposedly "pro-2A" side of SCOTUS glosses over and leaves intact the obvious usurpations of Miller, but codifies regulating storage laws as a "legal" axiom compliant with the Second's language of "shall not be infringed."

    There is much more wrong with Heller and subsequently McDonald. People who are supposedly Second Amendment purists (or whatever they think they are) who argue that Billary is wrong because SCOTUS was right in Heller and McDonald certainly cannot maintain with an iota of credibility that they are indeed purists of any description. The whole of government has been wrong on the 2A's meaning, and it's come from every nook and cranny of government from SCOTUS, presidents and Congress-critters on down to supposed "constitutional sheriffs" who assume unconstitutional authority for themselves to decide who does, but more importantly, who does not, get to enjoy and freely exercise the rights delineated within the Second Amendment.

    In short, just because Billary is right for the wrong reasons doesn't mean pro-2A advocates should argue that SCOTUS was right when they weren't by a long-shot (no pun intended). Neither does her wrong reasoning justify arguing that the NRA is pro-2A when they're clearly not. They're as pro-regulation (read: pro-infringement) as any Congress-critter, president, judge or other level of government official ever dreamt of being, including Billary. To argue otherwise is to admit to not knowing who and what you support.

    Blues
    Nice analysis, you're wrong, but nice analysis.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast