Browse By

They’re Saying Clinton Will Take Your Guns Away. They Said Obama Would Take Your Guns Away. They’re Wrong.

As you should know by now unless you live under a rock, Donald Trump declared yesterday that “Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”

Even if you ignore the possible call for assassination in that remark, the claim that Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment is ridiculous, given that Hillary Clinton has multiple position statements on the topic and that Clinton openly declared in her nomination acceptance speech, “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.”

This isn’t Trump’s first declaration on the matter. In May of this year Donald Trump tweeted that “Hillary wants to rip the guns out of America’s hands. No guns = no protection.”

Donald Trump May 21 2016 on Clinton on Guns: Hillary wants to rip the guns out of America's hands. No guns = no protection.

Regardless of how contrary to Hillary Clinton’s declared positions Donald Trump’s claims may be, the claims continue in a long line reaching back to besmirch the Democrat of the day. Before Hillary Clinton was going “to rip the guns out of America’s hands,” Donald Trump told audiences that President Barack Obama was going to seize Americans’ weapons: “You know, the president is thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away.”

The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre warned in early 2009 that “Barely 100 days into the new Obama-Biden administration, ominous storm clouds are already gathering over your most fundamental right as a free citizen: Your right to own a gun to protect yourself, your family and your freedom. Betraying all their campaign promises to protect your right to keep and bear arms or your freedom to hunt, the Obama administration has put its chess pieces in place and set in motion its strategy to do just the opposite.”

Shedding careful language and adopting the language of race war, Matt declared in 2008 that if Barack Obama were elected President, “He will take them all away from white people and ram it up our asses. Than he will force us to work the cotton fields while welfare reigns forever all powerful.” An anonymous writer from West Palm Beach, Florida repeated the theme: “If the great messiah get’s to be president, that’s when all hell will break loose. every gang banger, wantabe, hoodie, homie, ganster, will think they have open season on the sheep, and obama is going to take the guns away from all us crackers, and it will be an easy kill, and then the world will all be good and us hatefull whitey’s will all be gone. that is execpt for our dauthers, them’s breeding stock.”

Here we are in 2016, eight years after Barack Obama took office, and oddly enough the government hasn’t taken away your guns. Come back to the world in 2024, eight years after Hillary Clinton takes office, and I wager you’ll find the same. This ignorant fear mingled with hate is a cocktail most recently mixed by Donald Trump, but the foul soup is nothing new. Don’t drink.

15 thoughts on “They’re Saying Clinton Will Take Your Guns Away. They Said Obama Would Take Your Guns Away. They’re Wrong.”

  1. Daniel says:

    No, Obama and Hillary want to do away with the right to keep and bear arms piecemeal, or in California’s case, the Democrats have the “gunpocalypse” going on right now. Just because the politicians can’t outlaw all guns now or all at once, doesn’t mean they won’t accomplish their goal in a few years hence. I heard it before, and just recently I was listening to anti-gunner Dan Savage, who admitted that his real goal was to get rid of all guns, while just moments before he was saying that he only wanted “reasonable” gun control laws.

    One way this is accomplished is happening in California right now. California is trying to make it so difficult to buy firearms and ammunition, that few people, except the rich, can afford to have a gun, or they will run gun dealers out of business. If you think you want a .22 to go plinking, and .22s are in California are safe, I saw a big sign on Big 5 the other day, saying in effect, “get your .22 ammunition while you still can (before the new laws go into effect).”

    It is called stealthy encroachment on the right to keep and bear arms.

    And, no I’m not a fan of Trump or the Republicans, and I absolutely loathe the thought of voting for Trump just to stop Hillary’s assault on the Second Amendment. The Republicans have a lousy track record on the Bill of Rights, other than the Second Amendment. The Democrats have a little better track record on supporting the Bill of Rights, but the Second Amendment is anathema to them.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      It’s so gosh-darned stealthy that it’s entirely imperceptible. Dan Savage is not a politician, and your story about only the rich having guns in California is fictional.

      1. Dave says:

        Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland voted to undo the D.C. District court decision that struck down D.C.’s strict handgun ban. These things take time, Jim. Those who warned of Obama’s stance on gun control were right. No protector of the Second Amendment would have nominated this judge.

        Hillary tells a lot of lies. How do we know we can believe her statements on gun control? Seriously. “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” So Hillary’s bureaucrats will decide who should have a gun and who should not. No thanks.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          You made a number of leaps in that comment. Can you identify them?

          1. Dave says:

            I can’t seem to identify the leaps. I was addressing the leaps in the article.

        2. Jim Cook says:

          1. Empirical leap: you’re just wrong on Garland. See http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/john-whitbeck/john-whitbeck-misfires-merrick-garlands-gun-record/

          2. Rhetorical leap: people said literally that Obama would “take your guns away.” Obama didn’t. Period. You’re slipping language over into trying but not succeeding to do some things related to gun ownership, which is very different and (see point 1) not factual anyway.

          3. Sexist leap: “Hillary” has a last name. Unless she’s your pal, show some basic respect. People do this to women politicians all the time. That’s bothersome.

          4. Logical leap: you say because Hillary Clinton tells some lies, she must have a secret plan to take away Americans’ guns.

          5. Assumption leap: you assume Hillary Clinton will assemble a bureaucratic board with discretionary power when there is no evidence she favors such a policy among the many alternatives.

          In short, yeah, no.

          1. Dave says:

            1. Obama often uses gun tragedies to lament the lack of “stronger” gun control measures. Somehow he turned the Orlando night club shooting into such an occasion, though it’s difficult to understand how he would keep the Islamist shooter from obtaining the firepower he needed to do the job, without restricting everyone else. Such as it is, the President would be a fool to bypass the opportunity to sit a judge on the Supreme Court who would not attempt to move things the way Obama wants them. Or are you saying that he is just such a fool?

            2. You are holding the pro-gun people to very high standards of rhetorical accuracy. Indeed they were wrong to say that Obama will take your guns away, when they obviously and correctly meant that he will damned sure try. With few exceptions, those who call for extreme gun control measures fall to the left of the political spectrum, and their candidates are accountable to them.

            3. There is a very large and professionally printed sign in my neighbor’s yard that says “Hillary.” That’s all it says. Damned misogynist.

            4. No, I did not say that because Mrs. Clinton tells some lies that she must have a secret plan of some sort. What I said was, essentially, can we believe her? Her stance on gay marriage, for instance, changed when it was politically expedient to do so.

            5. No, I did not assume that Mrs. Clinton will “assemble a bureaucratic board” of some kind to address this. The ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, etc., are bureaucracies that are already in place. With directives from the White House it is not a stretch to understand the possibilities.

            Oh, and sometimes I call Donald Trump “the Donald.” Why not allow your fellow Americans the illusion that we are on a first name basis with all the presidential candidates?

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Democrats are sexist, too, and you’re using a lot of words to conceal the thinness of your position. Barack Obama did not ever even try to take away Americans’ guns. He tried other policy solutions. All the rest of your verbiage says “well, they could,” which is exactly my point: you’re now another one of the people arguing a point based on the counterfactual imaginings of your mind.

          3. Jim Cook says:

            P.S. I support the enforcement of the Second Amendment. This is a slightly different issue from that.

          4. Dave says:

            On Hillary Clinton’s official campaign website, she is often referred to as just “Hillary.” Even the campaign logo is an H with an arrow, presumably representing the idea of “forward” or “action” or perhaps a play on the use of the symbol for “female.” There is ample evidence here that “Hillary” herself is quite the sexist according to your take on things.

          5. Jim Cook says:

            I agree. Given the sexist expectations for women related to power in our society, she is (like nearly every politician) using those expectations as a tool to further her ambition. That is less than ideal behavior. We should work to resist and reform those expectations.

          6. Dave says:

            Not to belabor the subtopic, but you might want to send a note to “Jeb!” Neither Jeb! nor Hillary is a particularly folksy person, but they certainly try to be with this shtick. Dignity goes out the window when campaign managers try to add a little warmth and intimacy to candidates who can seem cold as a fish. The strategy of referring to her by her first name and not as Mrs. or Ms. Clinton may be to give her her own persona and not simply “Bill Clinton’s wife.” Trump goes after “Bill” as much as he does “Hillary.” I am certain that the Jeb! people were trying to keep the name of Bush from being bandied about America’s dinner tables, reminding people of Bush 41 and Bush 43. Presenting their candidates on a folksy first-name basis is, I think, more subtle manipulation than sexism.

  2. Bill says:

    Every time someone swears that the next Dem president will take yer guns away, the firearms industry enjoys another windfall profits year, as paranoid gun nuts decide they better lay in a few more spares. Happy happy gun companies.

  3. J Clifford says:

    So, in other words, Dave, actually Obama hasn’t taken away anyone’s guns, won’t take away anyone’s guns, and neither will Clinton.

    Given that, why are Second Amendment people so eager to sacrifice so many of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights by electing Donald Trump?

    1. Dave says:

      No, they haven’t taken them. There is an eternally vigilant gun lobby that has provided proper resistance to the idea.

      As for your question, J., I don’t know the answer to that, other than that they see the 2nd as essential to upholding all the others, hence it’s priority. Presidents come and go, but the decisions of the Supreme Court can last for generations.

Leave a Reply

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

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!