Hillary Not Only HATES The Second Amendment–She LIED Heller Case Was About Protecting Toddlers

When Hillary Clinton announced last night that she was pro-second amendment, I couldn’t help but laugh and scream ‘BULLSHIT!’ She really thinks the American public is that stupid?

Well Hillary, we’ve got news for you… WE AREN’T!

The Hilldebeest has stated in the past that second amendment supporters are a TERRORIST MINORITY:

On Monday, during an interview on CNN Newsroom, Mrs. Clinton made clear that at age 66, she still hasn’t outgrown the zealotry of her youth. With anger characteristic of the political fringe, Mrs. Clinton said of gun control opponents, “We cannot let a minority of people–and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people–hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

Trending: Trevor Noah Targets NRA: ‘How Does a Black Person Not Get Shot in America?’ [VIDEO]

Back in October 2015, leaked audio revealed Hillary stating the Supreme Court was wrong on their decision about the District of Columbia vs. Heller case at a small fundraising event in New York.

“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can,” she said.

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

[SIDE NOTE: Can anyone please tell me what an ‘assault weapon’ is?]

What was the Heller case and the Supreme Court’s decision on it you ask?

Well, if you had believed the 100-proof, grade A–crap Hillary was selling you last night at the final presidential debate, you would think the Heller case was about protecting toddlers from guns:

You mentioned the 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, 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.

The real story is that Heller had absolutely NOTHING to do with toddlers.

The case was solely based on if a 66-year-old police officer, named Dick Anthony Heller, should be legally allowed to own a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home. 

Here are the facts of the case as told by the Supreme Court:

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

This case was focused on whether D.C.’s ban on handguns was constitutional or not; to which the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional.

Killery is recorded stating she hates this decision:

“And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

So please spare us, Hilldebeest. You are no fan of the second amendment.

Further more she has refused to say bearing arms is a constitutional right. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, her buddy and Clinton Foundation donor, he asked her a very specific question:

I know you reject that but a specific question, do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?

To which she replied…

I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right as we do with every Amendment to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have commonsense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.

The proof is in the pudding people. Hillary hates your right to bear arms and she is going to do everything in her power to take that away.

Yes, us ‘terroristic minorities’ are nothing but deplorable scum to her.

But for now she is willing to lie to you and say she is for your 2A rights, while making up fake Supreme Court cases just to prove her point.




Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.