Hillary: D.C. Just Wanted To Protect Toddlers From Guns With Their Super Restrictive Laws

The Blaze’s Christian Datoc noticed this bit from the debate, calling it “nonsensical

Hillary Clinton flip-flopped her way through answering a question on gun control during Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate.

Clinton first told moderator Chris Wallace that while she is a strong believer in the Second Amendment, she also believes “there can be, and there must be reasonable regulation.”

“I want people who shouldn’t have guns not to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family,” she continued. “When I think about what we need to do, we have 33,000 people a year who die from guns. I think we need comprehensive background checks, we need to close the online loophole, close the gun show loophole.”

Any smart thinking person understands the fallacy of the 33,000 number. We already have pretty comprehensive background checks. The gun show loophole is a canard.

“There are other matters that I think are sensible that are the kind of reforms that would make a difference that are not in any way conflicting with the Second Amendment,” Clinton added. “You mentioned the [District of Columbia V.] Heller decision, and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case.”

“What the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns,” she elaborated. “They wanted people with guns to safely store them, and the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many other, and I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.”

Got that? D.C. enacted draconian laws that heavily restricted law abiding citizens from purchasing guns to save toddlers, per a woman who has dozens of armed security personnel hanging around at all time, some carrying, at times, weapons that are illegal for most citizens to purchase and carry.

Like most Democrats, Hillary will spin her way from her real opinion on guns, which is to remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Don’t forget, she thought that Australian style gun control, ie, banning most and confiscation, is an idea worth looking into. She should lead the way, and disarm her protection.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Hillary: D.C. Just Wanted To Protect Toddlers From Guns With Their Super Restrictive Laws”

  1. Dana says:

    What the lovely Mrs Clinton disagreed with in the District of Columbia v Heller decision was the Supreme Court’s recognition that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, that that right was not restricted to members of the militia. District of Columbia v Heller was limited to federal enclaves, and the subsequent case of McDonald v Chicago extended the Second Amendment protections to the states.

    Mrs Clinton simply does not believe that individuals — other than members of her own security guard, of course — have the right to own firearms. Jeffrey will object that that is not what she has said, which is true enough, but that is really what she meant. I know that, you know that, and even Jeffrey knows that, at least if he’s being honest with himself.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    “A specific question went to pay for play. Do you want to address that?”

  3. Jeffery says:

    Jeffery will object that that is not what she has said, which is true enough

    … but dano “knows” what she is really thinking. Given the power of the Presidency she would confiscate all the guns!

    In the new conservaworld, “truth” is just another tool to be used in debates. All evidence is forged. Polls are fixed. Data are “adjusted”. Everything and everyone is biased by politics and ideology. You can’t trust anything or anyone. And they have a reality TV star to lead them.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    “Paging Robert Creamer, paging Robert Creamer…
    Please pick up the courtesy White House phone…
    Paging Robert Creamer… “

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Said it before and will say it again…

    Guns don’t kill people,

    Toddlers with guns kill people.

    Ban Toddlers!

  6. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    but dano “knows” what she is really thinking. Given the power of the Presidency she would confiscate all the guns!

    As our esteemed host documented, Mrs Clinton has already admired the Australian gun confiscation scheme. And you already knew this.

    That’s the sad part, Jeffrey: you aren’t just lying to us, but you are even lying to yourself.

  7. david7134 says:

    My take from the debate, Hillary will shred the Constitution, destroy the economy and start WWIII. Trump is our only hope to stop this bizarre woman.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    “…90% of the money they take in as donations are spent on charitable works.”

    Truth is, in 2014, only 5.7% went to actual charitable works and in 2013, the amount was barely 10%.

    There was never a year in which the Clinton Foundation spent more than 15% on charity.

  9. Dana says:

    I wonder, Jeffrey, just what part of Mrs Clinton’s stated objection to District of Columbia v Heller do you think she found so bad other than the part which affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual, rather than militia, right?

  10. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Here is a visual aide for those either too stupid or too closed minded to admit the thievery of the so-called charity known as the Clinton Foundation:


  11. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Now that is how a leftist runs a “charity” drowningpuppies. None of the crazy stuff we do: collecting money, donating time and effort, raising food and clothing donations, oh and most importantly: doing the hard work ourselves to help people. We are so phuckin’ deplorable!

Pirate's Cove