"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you”, Clinton said.
That sounds great, and I certainly agree with that. It no doubt gained her some political points. But when it comes to her husband's victims, it's an entirely different story. How has she treated those women? With utter contempt, that's how. She has tried to silence them, she has called them liars. She has publicly ridiculed them.
For Ms. Broaddrick, the trauma was a life changer.
Ask Ms. Juanita Broaddrick, who was raped by Mr. Clinton in 1978. "I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Arkansas Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73...it never goes away", she said.
Mrs. Clinton made an effort to silence Ms. Broaddrick so that she would not speak out and let her voice be heard and believed. No women's empowerment for Ms. Broaddrick, because that would impede Ms. Clinton's pursuit of her own ambitions. Clinton had her eye on political gains for her husband, which would put her in a position one day to pursue those herself, and any victim of rape was not about to get in Hillary's way of what she wanted. Her desires came first.
Liar, Liar, Pantsuit On Fire!
How does this tie in with Hillary's gun control agenda? With all her talk about empowering women, she wants to do the opposite and take away women's ability to effectively defend themselves from violent sexual assaults which all too often lead to them being murdered. She claims to respect the 2nd Amendment, but that is simply a lie.
The Good Old '90s
In October of 2015, she laid out her gun control agenda and said, "We took them on in the '90s. We're going to take them on again." What this means is that she yearns for the days when Bill Clinton's Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1993, which mandated a 5 day waiting period to take possession of your purchased gun.
That meant if you had a creepy stranger stalking you, or an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend that was violent and threatening your life, you could go to the gun store and buy your gun, and hope that while you are unarmed for the next 5 days nothing will happen to you. Nice, right? That's a really caring thing to do for women, I could sarcastically say, and did.
Waiting Periods Are Good!
Hillary made zero complaints about the mandatory waiting period. It was phased out when the instant background check system became operational. But until that occurred, good luck to you if you were a woman needing a gun right now. Elitist politicians like Clinton have all the armed guards instantly at their disposal. They've never had a waiting period - ever. And here I thought government was supposed to be the servant of The People. But in their eyes We The People take the crumbs, if we can get them. “Shall not be infringed” suddenly has come to mean “Everything we can do to chip away at your rights.”
Another thing Hillary Clinton yearns for from the '90s is the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB) of 1994, officially called the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. She has publicly called for that ban to be renewed, and wistfully regretted that it had a 10 year sunset provision. One component of that law was that new magazines (sometimes erroneously called "clips") could not be manufactured and sold to the general public if they could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. That applied even to magazines made for pistols.
Now, imagine a woman home at night with just her daughters. She is their only protector until the police arrive some unknown minutes later, with each precious second she's waiting a shear nightmare. Three men armed with a gun and two knives begin breaking down the door. Their plan is to have some fun that night. They want to terrorize and tie up anyone in the home so that they can rape and rob at their leisure without interference. And they don't have a conscience with regard to killing women and children if they believe it will keep them from being caught.
Government Knows Best!
The woman of the house has one semi-automatic pistol which is only able to fire one shot with each separate pull of the trigger.
Trick Question: How many rounds should be in her gun?
Is it really the government's business to tell a grown woman how many bullets she should be able to fire before having to reload, while her and her children are under grave attack?
Will any of those politicians who put laws like this on the books come to her rescue? No, but they will be quick to point out the prison time for violating the prohibition on merely possessing tools of self-defense. Apparently, Hillary Clinton knows best. She yearns for the '90s when her lovable sexual predator husband, Bill, pressed for this law to be passed.
Most normal capacity pistol magazines which are in common circulation and use for full-sized semi-auto handguns commonly hold from 12 to 17 rounds of ammunition. Those extra 2 to 7 rounds could come in mighty handy for a woman at home defending herself and her children.
Even if the "Assault Weapons Ban" magically prevented criminals from having access to those “evil” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, murderers could still do a lot of damage to multiple unarmed victims by merely having multiple magazines or multiple guns. So you see, the AWB did nothing to keep us safe from criminals. Instead, it made women less safe by taking from them effective tools of self-defense.
Concern For The Poor? Let Them Eat Cake!
Existing pistol and rifle magazines holding more than 10 rounds could be purchased during the time this law was in effect, but at a price around four times as much as they normally would cost. In the early '90s, I bought three 15 round pistol magazines for $90 each, that normally cost $20 without the AWB in place. So if people had the money, no problem, right?
However, poor women could go jump in the lake for all Hillary cared. And Hillary brags about being a champion of the poor, but that's a joke for another day.
Sue Them To Oblivion!
Ms. Clinton has recently started protesting against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), that passed in 2005. This law protects gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Without this protection, many gun makers would either go out of business or would have to raise prices for guns that would be too high for most people to afford, especially many women who are working hard to support a family on their own.
The PLCAA does not shield against all lawsuits, however, but only those which involve a firearm being used in a crime or accident which the gun manufacturer could not have had any way of knowing about beforehand or preventing. Lawsuits regarding defective products are not covered by the PLCAA, but that is not enough for Hillary. She wants gun makers punished, which would simply be another way to prevent citizens from obtaining affordable firearms.
Settle The Lawsuits – But at a Price, hehe!
Before the PLCAA became law, there were several lawsuits pending against many gun manufacturers. Bill Clinton capitalized on this turmoil by trying to use the lawsuits as leverage to change how the firearms industry operated. His proposal to settle the lawsuits would be that gun makers would agree to not do business with gun stores who did not subscribe to the new Clinton "standards". Unlike the AWB of 1994, which was to expire in 10 years, lawsuit agreements have no such expiration date.
The Fine Details
What were some of those "standards?"
1. Not selling any magazines holding more than 10 rounds for any firearms including pistols.
2. Not selling any customer more than one gun per month. So if your only gun had a flaw or broke and needed repair, you'd be unarmed and have a waiting period if it happened within the month you bought it.
3. Licensed dealers would not be permitted to sell guns at gun shows even when using background checks, or use an Internet site to take money online to have a gun sold to a customer and shipped to a local gun store for pickup, which would also background check the customer. So you see even with the holy grail of background checks, these methods of shopping for a gun would be done away with.
4. Certain "assault weapons" would not be allowed to be sold. And by the way, these "assault weapons" are semi-auto rifles and shotguns that fire one round per each trigger pull. They do not "spray" multiple bullets with a single trigger pull.
Evil, Scary Looking Rifles!
Many of the banned rifles under the 1994 AWB law were light-weight, low recoil, small caliber guns that are easy for even small or elderly adults to hold and fire. They were banned because they had a pistol style grip or a folding stock or a flash suppressor that guarded your eyes from a bright flash so you could still see how to aim. And they typically hold 20 to 30 rounds of ammo in a magazine, which would help equalize a bad situation when your home is being invaded by multiple men who would rape and murder you and your children.
You Don't Have A NEED For That!
Oh, but Hillary knows best. Ten rounds is the most you should have loaded at one time, just because politicians like her say so. Just because you don't have a need for more than that, according to them. They really care for you, after all. And heaven forbid you had a pistol grip on a rifle to help hold it more steady!
Australian Solution Hoped For
Ms. Clinton (and Barack Obama as well) has publicly lauded the Australian solution. For her, “it would be worth considering doing it on the national level".
And just what did Australia do? In 1996 their government outright banned by law the possession of all semi-auto (one bullet per trigger pull, remember?) rifles and shotguns and even banned pump shotguns.
The Australian government magnanimously allowed their citizens to keep their single-shot and double-barrel shotguns that had to be manually reloaded after one or two shots.
And allowed them to keep bolt action rifles which are typically not very easy for the average woman to operate, especially while defending during a stressful criminal attack. The bolt has to be firmly grabbed by only one hand (because your other hand has to hold the rifle), pulled up, then pulled back, then pushed forward, and then pushed down - for each and every single shot.
The confiscation of the Aussie's firearms by their elected officials was in the form of a forced "buyback". And the government knew who had those guns, because the people had been forced to have them registered under penalty of imprisonment if they did not do so.
Do you believe that if Hillary got her wish to ram an Australian style “buyback” down our throat, that she would stop there?
In Dec. 2015, 91 U.S. House Democrats introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015”, a bill that would ban all AR-15 semi-automatic rifles period (not just those with an accessory such as a pistol grip), along with a boatload of various other firearms, as well as any magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. This is a stronger and more prohibitive version of the AWB of 1994. And they are not including a sunset provision this time, either.
They are doubling down on your 2nd Amendment Rights! They are trying their best to “Go Australia” on you.
Some erroneously believe that the “AR” in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle”. It actually is an abbreviation for Armalite, the company that makes them. Some states ban it from use in deer hunting because the round it fires simply is not powerful enough to humanely take deer. But it's use as a home defense weapon is excellent, in that it is a light-weight rifle with a 16” barrel that can easily be handled without requiring much upper body strength.
Clinton and Obama Double-Talk
She said, 'I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns,...'”
But how's this for hypocrisy? - A Clinton campaign mailer criticized Obama for telling people “he was for the 2nd Amendment, in order to get votes.”
From Hillary's own mouth at a private fundraiser in 2015: “The Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment.”
It was that the 2nd Amendment protection is an individual right. Hillary Clinton obviously disagrees with that. She is more bold than even Obama to stomp on our American Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Yet, he also publicly stated while he was a U.S. senator his agreement that D.C. was within its authority to have the gun laws they did. At that time D.C. gun laws made it a felony to own any pistol or any pistol ammunition even if kept just in the home. Get caught, and you go to prison.
Hillary Clinton is a leftist Democrat (is there any other kind?) just like Obama and the 91 House Democrats pushing for another far reaching firearms ban. She despises the idea of people having the freedom to choose to possess what they see fit to protect themselves and their families from criminals. Not to mention that many people use these firearms and ammunition magazines for sport shooting.
Apparently, self-defense and recreational uses are not enough of a “need” to be given permission to own in the eyes of the Democrats.
Like Obama, Clinton occasionally gives lip service to the 2nd Amendment, but her double-talk just like his hides her disgust for our rights as much as a clear window blocks the sunshine.
Now you know from all the facts presented, just how much Hillary Clinton lies when she tells us that no one wants to take away our guns. Just as when both Clinton and Obama continue to lie when they say they support the 2nd Amendment.
They and those like them are all subscribing to the philosophy that if you are going to lie, make it a whopper so that people will be embarrassed to believe you are lying.
No doubt you have the earlier mentioned "connection" figured out by now. This is certainly about empowerment - the government's empowerment, with Hillary Clinton hoping to be the head of that monster. And she will say or do anything she believes will get her there, just like she accused Obama of doing. And she ought to know, because she has his playbook well memorized.
Special thanks to the NRA's America's 1st Freedom magazine, Nov. 2015 edition, pg. 28 article - "The Clinton Files", which was a valuable source of information for this article.
The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and is published at AmmoLand.com.