NRA: Hillary Wants Your Gun to Be ‘Unusable’ at Home

Hillary Clinton on the debate stage

The election is just around the corner, and the results may not be good for gun owners. The problem is political speak for convenience versus what the politician will actually do once elected. The latest example of this is demonstrated in the following press release from the NRA. Regarding Hillary’s leaked statement from a private fundraiser when she 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, according to audio of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Hillary Clinton is lying … again.

Hillary Clinton on the debate stage

The candidate who claimed politicians “need both a public and a private position” on policy issues demonstrated that tendency Wednesday night in the final presidential debate in a desperate bid for damage control on a statement she made in a private meeting with wealthy donors.

That earlier statement was simple, uncomplicated, and utterly damning to anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton told the very people who she depends on to fund her political ambitions: “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

As a Yale-educated attorney, Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she made that remark. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the contempt it demonstrates for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time Clinton made that statement in September 2015, the Supreme Court had decided only two cases under Second Amendment during the 21st Century.

The first was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That case concerned two aspects of D.C. law. One effectively banned the possession of handguns within private homes. The other effectively required all types of firearms to be kept in an unusable condition within a person’s own residence.

The Supreme Court held that both of the restrictions offended the Second Amendment. Along the way, it debunked the District’s argument that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right for states to maintain their own militias, rather than a right individuals can raise on their own behalf.

The very modest proposition to arise from Heller is that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns and other commonly-possessed firearms in their homes in a usable state for self-defense.

Two years later, the Supreme Court expanded upon the Heller decision in a case involving a handgun ban in Chicago. There, the court invalidated the Chicago ban and confirmed that the protection of the Second Amendment applies not only to federal restrictions, like the ones in D.C., but those passed by state and local governments as well.

Hillary Clinton was well aware of this when she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” on the Second Amendment. Her audience understood the significance of her remarks as well, cheering and applauding her promise to “take on the NRA.”

National Rifle Association NRA logo
Support the NRA

Later, Clinton doubled down on her rhetoric, escribing Heller as a “terrible” decision. And as of June, she was still unable to bring herself to acknowledge the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Clinton has more recently been forced to walk an increasingly awkward line as her campaign has reached beyond her donors and primary supporters to the broader America public. Distancing herself from her privately expressed opinion, Clinton has since publicly asserted that she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment” and is “not looking to take people’s guns away.”

Nevertheless, her own campaign website continues to call for a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” which is simply her unflattering term for AR-15s and the like, America’s most popular rifles. In other words, even as she’s insisting she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ guns, she’s promoting a ban on the very types of rifles Americans choose over all others.

That’s what ordinary people—the kind Clinton refers to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable”—call a lie.

Yet Clinton’s performance at Wednesday’s debate was perhaps her most mind-bending and dishonest attempt yet to distort her position on the Second Amendment.

When directly confronted with her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment,” Clinton created an entirely new storyline to explain the inexcusable.

An entirely new storyline. A routine Clinton tactic.

Clinton began her answer by disingenuously claiming to “support the Second Amendment.” She was, of course, unable to offer any evidence from her four decades in public life and government employment to support this comment. And, indeed, she then went on to recite a non-exhaustive litany of the gun controls she would pursue as president.

She continued:

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced … was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So, I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Clinton’s answer was not only dishonest, it was inaccurate in almost all its particulars.

First, the District’s ban didn’t just require safe storage to prevent access by toddlers. It made possessing a loaded, usable firearm in the home—including for self-defense—a crime. The crime did not require proof of access by children or even proof that children were present in the home. Clinton’s answer also seemed suspiciously coincidental with a recent, dubious media blitz on firearm accidents among children.

Picture shows a glass window with a the outline of a black revolver on it, with a red cross through it
This could be a much more common sight if Hillary is elected.

D.C.’s requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disabled, which Clinton now claims to endorse, was also far from “reasonable.” It made even lawfully-owned guns useless for what the Supreme Court identified as their “core” purpose under the Second Amendment: self-defense.

It’s simply incredible that Clinton can claim to “support” the Second Amendment, while at the same time insisting that the government should be able to make loading a gun a crime.

Finally, the Supreme Court has not “accepted many” forms of gun control. The Supreme Court has not upheld any form of gun control since Heller and McDonald were decided. It has yet, in fact, to hear another case on firearms regulation. And in the entirety of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided only one case under the Second Amendment, holding the defendant had failed to prove his claim that a short-barreled shotgun should receive Second Amendment protection.

Yet even taken at face value, Clinton’s comments should be enough to put gun owners on notice of what sort of Second Amendment “support” they could expect from a Clinton presidency. A gun the government requires to be unloaded is as useless as a Second Amendment that does not protect individuals.

The bottom line—whether you consider her “private” or “public” position—is that Hillary Clinton’s own words clearly establish that she is no friend to gun owners and dismisses the Second Amendment as any obstacle to gun control.

What do you think will happen to the Second Amendment after the next election? Share your answers in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (42)

  1. I would like to take the time to thank The Shooter’s Log along with each and every forum member that had a hand in assuring the future of America on this triumphant Election Day. I know most liberals and anti-gunners had no idea what demented plans Hillary actually had for this Country, but the rest of you patriots sensed it and took appropriate action. I am not gloating, but rather would remind my brethren that it is our patriotic duty to not only protect our own interests but even the lives of the meek and oblivious. I salute each and every one of you.

  2. I was going to really go off you but then after reading more of the material you print I realized how much you and the proverbial arm chair have in common. In other words you are among those who print a lot of words but actually have nothing to say. In the end when all is won or lost you have contributed nothing. I’m done with you.

  3. Here’s how it could go. Let’s say an executive order is issued – “All AR-15 looking rifles are to be turned in” – probably over a twelve month period. At the end of the year, “We’ve collected maybe twenty-five percent of the estimated number of those rifles owned by the public.” A six month extension is implemented. That also fails to ‘dis-arm’ the public. The next step, start finding out, from FFL retailers records, who hasn’t turned in a rifle. Collecting that rifle might be dangerous – “Send a SWAT team to that address.” Turns out, the rifle owner has moved, and the current occupant isn’t aware of how to respond to a police raid. He’s shot and killed, and his six year old daughter is wounded. The mass media ignores it. Then a SWAT team does run into armed resistance – more deaths. After the first couple of hundred deaths, the National Enquirer runs a story on the subject. Three months later it gets a page 27 mention in the New York Times, along the lines that “these criminals deserved everything they got”. Eventually the public at large will find out the deadly results of the executive order, and might even get a trifle upset about those results.
    My only question is: Just how many people, gun owners, LEO’s, and innocents, will have to die before the President is forced to withdraw that order?

    1. Once a Clinton Presidency gets Congress to pass another assault weapons ban it will not matter to them whether the public outcry is huge or not. They will do their best to not only get a ban passed in Congress, but that it will not have a sunset clause. When any deaths occur that are obviously a result of Federal government misapplying force or “collateral” damage, they will simply point their finger at the “criminals” who still have these “weapons of war.” They WILL NOT apologize. They will continue to ratchet up the attacks on gun owners to a fever pitch. Hillary Clinton is a dictator in waiting and if she reaches the Presidency you will see that she has learned some lessons from Barak H. Obama. She will take executive actions and executive orders to a new level and America will be ruled by SWAT teams and bureaucracies.

    2. I couldn’t disagree with you more. First, I do not believe we are going to have a Clinton Presidency but we will know that after 11/8. Second, if she is elected there is no guarantee that Dems will in fact control both Houses of Congress. Third, if she goes the Executive Order fiat those things cab still be challenged in the Courts the same as many of Obama’s have been and he has lost many that are not reported in the media. Fourth, the military and the police in this Country are not going to go door to door taking guns for very long or at all. They will either refuse to do it or once the word gets around they are going to be shot in the process. We don’t even have a really outraged public and look at all the ambushes of police officers by the real crazies. Now add to that 100 million plus irate gun owners many of whom are more that willing to fight back and many police and military who are sworn to uphold the Constitution will simply stand down because they will always have in the back of their mind, If I am doing this to someone who is doing it to my friends and family. Last, I asked two friends who are cops what they would do if ordered to collect firearms. One said he would call in sick and the other said a lot of cops were going to get shot. This was about 4 or 5 years ago before buying firearms went off the chart. You seriously don’t believe that people are only buying their firearms to protect themselves from criminals and terrorists I hope. Many are buying them and stocking ammo to protect themselves from a Government that is totally out of control. So there you have it, like it or not.

  4. They will not come for our guns. She will take executive action executive action to let people sue gun manufactures, will tax ammo to high for the deplorable’s to afford to shot, executive actions to ban ar ak magazines over ten rounds for hand guns or rifles.

  5. I for one will never give my vote to anyone who does not support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, regardless of their political party.
    Clinton has allways said one thing in private to her big monetary supporters and another to the public, regardless of what she says, she only wants to force her will upon us.
    If clinton takes the oval office it could end up as a dark time for gun owners, but I don’t see her getting it. Too many people who work for what they have are tired of people like Clinton and Obama just giving our country away.

  6. I’m convinced that if Hillary gets into the white house,her and her rich anti gun friends will try a two prong attack on our 2nd amendment rights.1st;they’ll try for a ban on any weapon designated as an “ASULT”weapon.2nd,I think they will try their best to make it practically impossible to purchase ammo!Either by taxing it to death,thus making it out of reach for many people,or tackeling the manufactureing end of the “problem”,that will drive many of these entity’s out of business.

  7. I will admit at the outset that I did not read G Man’s entire comment to you only enough to get the tenor of his thoughts. I will say this in his defense relative to your comments. I do not believe that any of us who would in fact fight if our Constitutional Rights are infringed upon by a Hillary Election. However, I don’t believe anyone is saying that as soon as she gets elected we are going to run out and try to overthrow the Government. There is a difference. First, I don’t believe she is going to win but if she does she will be given a chance. But if she infringes significantly on 1st, 2nd or 4th Amendment Rights, I believe G Man is 100% correct and we are going to have a major confrontation in this Country. When a Country has had over a 200 year tradition of firearm ownership for self protection, protection of Country, hunting, recreational shooting and collection it is inconceivable to me how any Governmental Agency could conclude that somehow we should not own firearms or make any of the firearms legally purchased now illegal. For the record, before a person could be in a militia they had to own their own firearm. Firearms were owned before militias could come into existence when first formed because there was no government entity to furnish weapons for them and they consisted primarily of local citizens in a given area.
    Additionally, it is also inconceivable to me how anyone could vote for Hillary Clinton in the first place since she is a proven pathological liar, a cheat and a crook all of which have been proven but being above the law has gotten away with this type of behavior her entire career. So when you or anyone else questions the integrity of any other individual your credibility is zero if you think that she is some sort of example of the type of person that should be running this great nation.

  8. “the defendant had failed to prove his claim”
    The reference is to the “Miller” case. Was it a ‘trial?’ Miller wasn’t present, no attorney was present, nor had a written brief been filed. There was no ‘defense’ offered.
    That ‘trial’ didn’t prove a thing…..

  9. I am not aware that there is any proof of what you claim to be true but there is proof that some of these folks were paid to speak out by the Clinton organization.. Perhaps your example should have been Bill Clinton whose accusers were intimidated by Hillary Clinton.

  10. If Hillary gets into office and I believe she will simply because of the thousands of people getting free handouts from the government never mind those on Obamacare, you’ll see a gun grab in this country similar to that in Britain and Australia. Will it lead to civil war? Probably.

    1. No, I do not see a gun grab happening in this country like what happened in Australia and Britain, due to the fact that for now we still have the constitution that stops this kind of overreach, something Australia and Britain do not have. This and the fact that the feds do not have enough manpower to carry this out. The president might make it tough, but I believe he or she does not have the power to arbitrarily abolish the bill of rights, for if they did, they would have done it before trying to do it now.

  11. Now don’t go gettin your panties in a bunch over this. It’s a near impossibility of this happening. That Trump camp are experts at rileing folks up. Simmer down. Here’s why;

    The process would begin by the amendment being proposed by either 2/3 of both Houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the State legislatures. It would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    1. Steve, you are not taking Executive Orders/Actions into account or the future interpretations of the Supreme Court. Let’s not forget Supreme Court Justices have said they got the Second Amendment wrong and so has Hillary. ~Dave Dolbee

    2. Exactly….. Obama got away with Executive Orders for 8 years. Perhaps that was only a trial run. I believe the Hillary witch will double down on Executive Orders.

    3. Never heard about the “Extra Judicial” killings Obama has ordered the past 8 years? Killing Foreign Nationals in Foreign Countries……..Without authorization by the House or Senate? Where have you been the last 8 years?

    4. Nice to hear a rational voice Steve. Whoever the President will be, their effect on the 2nd amendment cannot be direct. Yes, the nominations for the Supreme Court may have long term influences, but only if the Congress can agree to approve them. We have three branches of our government for exactly this reason. In the end, I still believe the will of the American people will be served.

  12. I think maybe we are all getting a little paranoid about this.This is what it takes to real any amendment to the constitution;
    The process would begin by the amendment being proposed by either 2/3 of both Houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the State legislatures. It would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    1. Or she could appoint the next couple of judstices to the Supreme Court and they could simply redefine the Second Amendment to something totally different. ~Dave Dolbee

    2. My thoughts also. Along with the use of executive orders and the tainted justices she will appoint. Clinton will try to implement and enforce her gun control agenda.

    3. People are not concerned about Amending the Constitution they are concerned about leftist interpretations when leftist Judges are appointed to Federal and the Supreme Court. Not sure where you have been the last 8 years but if you haven’t noticed Obama has tried all kinds of work arounds to make it more difficult for everyone associated with firearms.
      People are most concerned about new bans and the overturning of Heller.

  13. The most dangerous prospect in all this is that Hilary isn’t just custom-tailoring her rhetoric to fit what she feels is popular for the sake of getting elected. If that were the case I could handle it, because most slimy politicians never actually follow through with the lies they used to get elected.

    For Hilary this is different because she truly does not want the people to have any form of power. Her actual reasoning behind banning guns was never about a public safety issue or a sincere concern for human life. Instead it is because citizens with guns present a threat to her omnipotent perception of power.

    She is so smug that she despises anyone with the audacity to believe the Second Amendment gives citizens a right of defense over what she feels to be her supreme authority. Especially because she is acutely aware that once citizens figure out what she truly has instore for America, we would definitely make a call to arms and stop it.

    1. G-Man,
      You really scare me. Pardon my assumption, but I can’t even imagine the kind of web-sites you must frequent to come up with such a paranoid view of a President to be. You actually say there should be a call to arms should Secretary Clinton, or rather President Clinton, pass some of the agenda her campaign runs on. This to me sounds like a Violent Overthrow of the Democratically Elected Government of the United States Of America. I really don’t think Cheaper Than Dirt should promote this totally irresponsible and illegal behavior in print.
      To call for a Violent Overthrow of what the Majority of the people said they wanted, is just wrong. Who you gonna pick up arms against? Kill Cops? Kill U.S. soldiers? Kill Public Servants?
      Man I just can’t condone this.

    2. @ steve,

      You are pardoned. And no, my information comes from credible government sources rather than the tainted bias media websites. Dedicated readers in this forum are acquainted with the fact my information is derived from my continued career spanning 33 years as both a federal law enforcement agent and joint military service. You claim I am paranoid, but paranoia is an illogical fear stemming from delusions; thus there is no way I could be paranoid given my concerns are fact-driven from information acquired through job knowledge.

      My position affords me access to information regarding government corruption that would simply blow your mind. And while I will always remain faithful to my sworn duty to protect such information, I am still a concerned citizen with every right as you to voice concerns in a public forum. The only difference is that when I voice a concern it is driven by vast amounts of facts which you will never have access to.

      You may not have access to the same information as me, but you’d have to be living under a rock to not see the deadly escalation of evil rise up during the tenures of Obama and Hillary. Their actions and the irresponsible lack thereof has directly influenced an unprecedented divide in this Nation which has sown the seeds for racial riots, terrorist acts, destroyed international relations, led to greater World conflict, and the birth of ISIS.

      Add to this the unlawful handling and leaking of classified information, illegal gun running which led to the preventable death of a federal agent, and Hillary’s SNAFU which led to the deaths of our U.S. Ambassador and his security team.

      In my profession I’ve always had to deal with these types of things first hand, yet in my 33 year career I have never seen such rapid escalation and mismanagement as I have in just this past 8 years. So I think you should trust me when I say I am in a position to know the deadly differences which affect us from one administration to the next. Obama and Hillary are corrupt and selfish amateurs and I can tell you with certainty that if Hillary takes office, our Country will be in grave danger.

      Now let’s get down to the ridiculousness of your actual post. You have done one of two things here, either – 1.) You are intentionally distorting my words which is a deviant liberal trait; or -2.) You lack the intellectual reading skills to comprehend what I actually wrote. Take your pick, but it is a delusionary construct within your mind to interpret my post to read that I – “actually say there should be a call to arms” (as you put it), when nothing could be further from reality.

      Unlike you, a logically thinking person can easily see I merely posted an explanation behind Hillary’s true motivation for wanting guns banned. I then clearly stated the reason is that Hillary “is acutely aware that once citizens figure out what she truly has instore for America, we would definitely make a call to arms and stop it.”

      At no time did I “actually say there should be a call to arms”, as you’ve claimed. I merely stated that is what will happen should Hillary follow her true (hidden) agenda. Which incidentally would not be what “the Majority of the people said they wanted” – as you put it.

      In the event Hillary actually does deviate from her oath of office and carries out what most of us know she has planned, it would in-fact amount to tyranny and thus a call to arms would be lawful and legal under the Constitution. If the thought of defending this Country from tyranny scares you, then go run to your designated “trigger warning – safe space” to hide. But don’t twist my words into something they are not just to sooth your impotent fears and self-deprecating need to cry wolf.

    3. Well spoken G Man. What this other steve fails to realize is that Obama and Clintons State Department did exactly what he is implying you propose. Wiki Leaks has exposed Syria and Libya as Oil and Gas “Regime Change”. To their supplying “Moderate Islamic Extremists” with REAL assault weapons, and Stinger Missiles to promote “Regime Change” in countries of their choosing. Would a Foreign Power choose to do the same to Extremist Groups in US if she was Elected be a Proxy War, or a out right declaration of war on US? This crazy, power mad woman will start WW3.

    4. “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln–First Inaugural Address–4 March 1861

  14. The arrogance and ignorance of Hillary Clinton know no limits! She believes elitist like her know what is best for us, if elected do you think she would work for us? Hell no, she would act as if her being elected was a mark of approval to rule over us. There is no way in hell that anyone who gives a damn about the Constitution and our rights, especially the 2nd Amendment should be giving any consideration to voting for her. Hillary Clinton is running for the office of Supreme Leader…not President of the United States, and after 8 years of Obamas imperialistic reign I have had enough!

  15. Here is another perspective for you. When an entire society has been used to operating a certain way for over 200 years and certain concepts have been ingrained over generations ie: the ownership of firearms it is not an easy task to simply change a law and have people comply particularly in this Country. As a matter of fact it is a grave miscalculation.
    The military and police hate Obama and Clinton and are sworn to uphold the Constitution as written by the Founders not one doctored by leftwing socialists. There are millions of people, I am sure who feel as I do that when it comes to my firearms I bought them legally, passed the necessary requirements to obtain them, paid for them with my own money and have no incidents ever in a 50 year period of ownership. Now if anyone thinks they are going to pass a law outlawing this or that and I am going to comply they are sadly mistaken. This is one issue I am willing to fight to the death for and will do so if necessary. I think there are many people in this Country who feel as I do and if they want to touch off a civil war that will be the spark to ignite it for sure. I will not obey and I will fight and we as a nation need to put them on notice right now by giving that message to our legislators State and Federal and the White House in particular.

  16. I’ve been telling people this since she was chosen to run for president by the DNC long before the primaries began. You don’t have to repeal the 2nd, you just have to nominate supreme court justices that will decide the 2nd refers to states not citizens. Then she can point to the court and say “hey, go talk to them, I support the 2nd but seems they don’t”. Heller was decided 5 to 4 now what does that tell you? She is going to put at least 3 judges on the panel. We will lose our right to own guns within the next 8 years, just as soon as the court is packed and they can get a case in front of them.

    When was the last time Clinton drove a car, got on a commercial flight or walked in a mall unprotected? I remember the ’94 ban, a Clinton signed it the same day it passed in a huge outdoor ceremony. You can expect the same very shortly.

    1. As I have said before, I say now. Any laws which water down the Second Amendment and or infringe on the Second Amendment are illegal laws and must be met with resistance. Five million gun owners can make a lot happen.

  17. My position and the position of every gun owner in America should be, if you want them you are going to have to take them and you will not take them without a fight, period. There are a lot more of us than them and any new laws that infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights should be met with civil disobedience and resistance with force if it come to it.

    1. You are correct and I stand with you. Any new laws infringing on the Second Amendment should be must be considered a illegal law and any enforcement of Illegal laws should be and must be met with resistance.

  18. I cannot accept the idea some politician can decide for millions of people what those people will or will not have. What millions of people can own or not own. There is a difference between being a person in a leadership position and a dictator. Presidents unite the masses and bring people together in unity where as dictators separate the people and make criminals of those who would not conform to their rule. No matter what happens I have no intention of ever giving up my guns or conforming to a dictator. The simple truth is that it is not about guns rather; it is about the freedoms we as American citizens have enjoyed for the past Two Hundred Forty years. It is about the Founding Fathers and all those who have fought and died protecting the Second Amendment and the Constitution. To falter now would be a disgrace and all those who have fought and died protecting our freedoms would have done so in vain. It is politicians like the Clintons and the Obamas who start revolutions and if that is what the Clintons and their followers want then so be it. I can only hope my neighbors and the millions of honest citizens and gun owners feel the same way. God bless America.

    1. Really? You can’t accept “the idea some politician can decide for millions of people what those people will or will not have?” Hmmm. You have been accepting this for over 100 years or so. Aren’t you aware that the Federal government regulates the most granular levels of our lives? There are Federal regulations for toilets, appliances, light bulbs, etc. The Congress of the United States has abrogated their responsibility to make laws and, instead, empowered massive bureaucracies to pound out regulations by the thousands every quarter. The Obama administration has managed to add about 160,000 new regulations or re-writes of existing ones to the Federal register.

      You not only accept this massive, top down and repressive regime of bureaucrats, but unless it actually touches your life directly in some way you see as negative you don’t say a word about it.

      A Clinton administration WILL take actions on guns. Via executive orders, bureaucratic regulations, orders from the President to tell administrative judges to rule certain ways or be fired, etc.

      This is what is coming in spades my friends.


    1. Whether it be a gun, knife, pipe, rock or baseball bat. That person committing the offenses should be and would be taken care of. Nothing need be said thereafter.

    2. Garfield Kat, the offender I was talking about who committing these offenses is DONALD TRUMP! And You are Correct. Nothing need be said thereafter.

    3. @ Steve,

      Actually there is something else that “need be said”. Interesting there is neither a single police report nor even one sole that can claim they’ve read anywhere regarding Trump being arrested for these so-called “offenses”.

      Now we all know the wealthy have the resources to attempt to cover up scandals, but that would be highly unlikely in Trump’s case given how exceptionally biased the lame stream media works as a team against him. I think most of them would chop off one of their fingers if it meant getting access to such dirt.

      No sir, the reality is that apparently you too have been suckered into believing the media’s desperate lies; which they’ve been reduced to telling simply because they never could find any real dirt on Trump (at least nothing close to Hillary’s corruption and murders).

      Besides, how did you miss all the stories that prove this election cycle has had some of the most prominent media outlets embarrassingly busted time and again for lying and editing stories that were never true about Trump or covering for Hillary?

      So a bit of advice – had you applied even a little common sense, that could have helped you realize that real victims don’t coordinate and time their traumatic assault stories for release just a month before an election so that it has a maximum impact. Get a clue dude.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading