Hillary Does Want To Take Away Your Guns

from The Gray Area:

Its a typical Clinton slight of hand.

She has publicly said:

-That she wants to limit gun magazines and ammunition.

-That she wants restrictions on gun purchases.

– That she wants to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons.

– That, on ABC News in June, when asked about the Second Amendment her response was, “if it is a Constitutional right …“.

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

– that she wants to reverse the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.

-That she wants to expand background checks and register all gun owners.

-That she favors gun confiscation like that in Australia.

-That she wants to sue gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners.

So, if the Supreme Court reverses “Heller”, manufacturers are out of business from lawsuits, and citizens are restricted on gun purchases and also sued if they use their guns, are any guns available or bought in the US?

No. Without touching the Second Amendment, you have successfully smothered guns makers and gun rights in America.

That’s why she offers broad, emotional statements, but with no specifics Because when you collect her random specific statements, no reasonable citizen would believe her.

Yes, Hillary wants to get rid of your right to bear arms.

Hillary Clinton wants to give big-city politicians and the anti-gun lobby everything they need to sue—or terrorize—America’s firearm industry out of business by making companies liable for crimes committed by criminals who misuse firearms.

Clinton’s campaign website proudly proclaims, “Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” or the PLCAA —a law passed by Congress to stop the tidal wave of politically motivated lawsuits that threatened to drive American gun makers, wholesalers and retailers to bankruptcy, even if they didn’t lose a single case in court.

In a March 27 op-ed in the tabloid New York Daily News, Clinton wrote, “First, we need to repeal the law that gives the gun industry sweeping liability protections, so companies that make and sell guns can be held accountable when their products kill people.” Then she goes on to push a laundry list of her other anti-gun proposals.

But as usual, Hillary Clinton lies about the entire issue.

And at every opportunity on the campaign trail, Clinton brings up the issue to try to draw a distinction between herself and rival Democrat Bernie Sanders, who voted for the PLCAA (before saying that he believes the families of crime victims should be allowed to sue gun makers).

On her campaign website, Hillary Clinton claims that the PLCAA is “a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.”

And in campaign appearances, Clinton claims the firearm industry is “the only industry in America, the only one, that has this kind of special protection.”

To put it politely, Clinton’s claims are baldfaced lies.

First of all, the law doesn’t protect “negligent manufacturers and dealers.” And Clinton’s claim that the firearm industry is “wholly protected from any kind of liability” is also a lie.

Furthermore, the firearm industry isn’t “the only business in America” that’s protected by federal law from certain liability lawsuits, as Clinton falsely and repeatedly claims.

Indeed, the Communications Decency Act protects telecom companies from liability. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects pharmaceutical companies from liability. A 1994 law protects the manufacturers of small aircraft from liability. And a 1976 law protects the manufacturers of medical devices
from liability.

Which means Clinton’s latest claims about the PLCAA law are just more in a long line of Clinton fabrications.

Even the political “fact checker” Politifact.com—whose bias in favor of Democrats has been widely noted—had no choice but to rate Clinton’s claims flat-out “False.”

… anti-gun politicians [are] trying to achieve through lawsuits what they couldn’t achieve through legislation. This is an important distinction. Because while legislation depends on the votes of elected leaders—who are accountable to the American people in every election—lawsuits depend on how convincing plaintiffs’ attorneys can be.

More From America’s 1st Freedom: