Trump is Right; “Fact Checkers” Embarrass Themselves Covering for Hillary

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Washington, D.C. -(Ammoland.com)- On May 7 2016, at a campaign rally in Lynden, Wash., likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said;

 “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment. She wants to abolish it. Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away. She wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

Trump is correct.

However, in the days since this statement, the Annenberg Foundation’s FactCheck.org and PolitiFact have bent over backwards to defend Clinton from this legitimate description of her positions. These outlets’ attempts to contort Clinton’s record to suit their agenda is so shameless one hopes the efforts prompt Columbia University to create a Pulitzer Prize for cognitive dissonance.

“Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

Here, in order to claim that Trump is wrong, both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact take a handful of statements Clinton and her campaign have made at face-value, while dismissing more candid statements by Clinton and her daughter Chelsea.

On September 24, 2015, at a fundraiser held at the New York City home of John Zaccaro, Clinton made her views on the Second Amendment abundantly clear. An audio recording of the private event captured the candidate stating, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

On April 21, 2016, while campaigning for her mother in Maryland, Chelsea Clinton reiterated her mother’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Chelsea told the crowd;

“It matters to me that my mom recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control. Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment, and sometimes the Court struck them down.”

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

In recent years, there have been two landmark cases that have determined the meaning of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. In both cases, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Further, the cases made clear that a jurisdiction may not enact a complete ban on handguns or a ban on possessing functional firearms for self-defense in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller.

Clinton has not, to our knowledge, sought to initiate the Article V constitutional amendment process to remove the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitution.

However, these statements make clear that Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and is understood by the vast majority of Americans; as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms.

For most Americans, the Second Amendment is synonymous with protection of the individual right to keep and bears arms, thus an effort to eliminate the latter is rightly thought of as an attempt at abolishing the former. Illustrating this link in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, a USA Today/Gallup poll from February 2008 found that 73-percent of respondents understood the Second Amendment to protect “the rights of Americans to own guns,” rather than “members of state militias such as National Guard units.” In 2009, a similar CNN poll found that 77-percent of Americans endorsed the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Further, the vast discrepancy between Clinton’s privately shared beliefs and the public opinion data, is all the more reason to discount her more carefully prepared public statements on the topic as political pandering. It is fair to assume that Clinton and her campaign staff understand the American public’s position on this matter and have crafted their official statements accordingly.

Remarkably, the FactCheck.org piece attempts to make a case against Trump’s statement by contending that Clinton’s views on the Second Amendment are in line with those of Justice Stephen Breyer in Heller. Justice Breyer signed onto Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent that rejected the correct individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment for a “sophisticated” collective rights meaning, and wrote his own dissent rejecting the position that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to self-defense. FactCheck.org may be correct in claiming Clinton’s view of the Second Amendment is similar to Breyer’s. However, this would be further evidence that Trump’s statement is correct. Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as it is currently understood by the Supreme Court and most Americans, who soundly reject Breyer’s position.

“Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away”

To reject this statement, the “fact checkers” dismiss Clinton’s recent comments supporting an Australian-style firearms confiscation scheme by contending that she misspoke or did not understand the nature of Australia’s gun control measures. We give Clinton, who has been versed in the gun control issue for well over two decades, more credit than that. In 1996, Australia embarked on an effort to confiscate semi-automatic and pump-action firearms, forcing owners to turn in their firearms for a set amount of compensation.

On October 16, 2015, while speaking before an audience in Keene, N.H., Clinton was asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, take away, tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. And in one year, they were all gone. Can we do that, and why if we can’t, why can’t we?” The question is straight-forward. The audience member asked about an effort to “take away” firearms in order make sure they were “all gone.” This does not comport with a question about voluntary “buybacks,” more accurately termed turn-ins.

“the Australian example is worth looking at”

In her response, Clinton, exhibiting a knowledge of the contours of the Australian confiscation scheme, stated;

“In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.” Clinton concludes her answer by noting, “So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

PolitiFact contends that Clinton’s answer may endorse some sort of voluntary turn-in, as in part of her answer she mentioned the voluntary turn-ins common to some U.S. communities. However, in the closing of her answer, Clinton makes clear she is referring to Australia, stating, “the Australian example is worth looking at.” Further, are we to believe that Clinton, whose husband presided over controversial and unsuccessful federally-funded voluntary turn-in programs is unclear of the difference between those efforts and the Australian experience? Again, Clinton deserves more credit.

Clinton’s Record Proves She Warrants Skepticism

An overarching theme in the FactCheck.org and PolitiFact pieces is an unshakable deference to Clinton’s more moderate statements on gun control and the Clinton campaign’s explanations for her more radical admissions. What is there in Clinton’s history on the issue of gun control that would warrant such deference? Rather, the evidence from Clinton’s nearly 25-year public record of supporting extreme gun restrictions suggests she deserves the opposite.

Hillary Clinton Ugly Chins
Hillary Clinton “the Australian example [of gun confiscation] is worth looking at”
In 1993, the Clinton-chaired President’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform contemplated a sin tax on firearms to offset the cost of her husband’s universal healthcare plan. At a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the health care proposal, Clinton endorsed a 25-percent tax on firearms suggested by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), stating, “I’m all for that.”In 2000, while giving a speech at a Brady Campaign event during her first senatorial campaign, Clinton stated, “I’m the only candidate in this race who supports federal legislation to license handgun owners and register handguns.” Earlier that year, Clinton described her gun control agenda at the Newspaper Association of America’s Annual Convention. This included licensing of all handgun owners, a national registry of all handguns sales or transfers, a national ballistics fingerprinting database, a ban on affordable handguns, handgun rationing, and granting the Consumer Product Safety Commission the power to regulate firearms.In 2004, Clinton took to the Senate floor to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability arising from the unlawful actions of a third party. On March 6, after having been repeatedly attacked by Clinton for not opposing the PLCAA, Clinton’s opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said of her position, “what you’re really talking about is people saying let’s end gun manufacturing in America. That’s the implications of that. And I don’t agree with that.”

“I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”

In 2014, at the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference, Clinton attacked the Right-to-Carry, telling an audience, “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”

Given Clinton’s well-documented history of supporting the most radical types of gun controls and her own candid remarks regarding the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Australia’s gun control measures, for purported “fact checkers” to blindly accept the Clinton campaign’s spin reveals a severe bias.

Such naked prejudice does more to diminish these media outlets’ own credibility than that of those they target with their spurious analysis.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Hurst

The original post is full of lies and exaggerations. There is no tape of Hillary Clinton that says that the forefathers got it wrong about the second amendment and there is no quote anywhere from Obama or Hillary that says are even hints that they want to abolish the second amendment nor dod she say the Australian confiscation process is something we need to look at. In fact Australia did not confiscate guns .They passed background check laws that we need to pass ourselves. No one in the democratic party wants to abolish the second amendment or even consider confiscation.… Read more »

freewill

you havent looked..she has talked repeatedly about how the supreme got it wrong

Witold Picki

Presidential politics aside, I am just always amazed how SCOTUS can “find” rights for things like abortion and gay marriage, that also go against the will of the people. From there on after, liberals scream “it’s settled law!” when anyone tries to bring up a new case that could even threaten to overturn those bad decisions. However, when it comes to God given rights clearly defined in The Constitution, and decisions re-affirm and define those rights (like Heller, MacDonald, Citizens United, and Hobby Lobby), those same liberals would bring a challenge per week to SCOTUS if they could. I’m afraid… Read more »

Rich

ONE MORE TIME – ITS ABOUT THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE.. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on… Read more »

Janek

This is what ‘Cankles’ Clinton thinks of gun owners. “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.” She said that way back on June 29th, 2015. However a minority viewpoint of ‘public bathroom reforms’ that may terrorize women and children when they see a man’s member on someone dressed like a woman is OK with her. Go figure?

freewill

half the nation is armed to the teeth, how many people would like a firearm for self defense in gun control cities?..theres 9 million people in NYC, thats more people than the 5 least populated states combined…almost 3 million in Chicago..i think hardly the minority is firearm owners

Rich

God knows I tried. Elections. For the love of God, if you don’t hear anything else I say for the rest of the evening, listen to this. Elections are no longer free. They are staged theater, designed to maintain the illusion of representative governance and to enrich the political class. This is despotism. If after this mess that we just went through, if you do not understand this, you are beyond hope. My God. And then you have election fraud on top of it. Here in Colorado ten counties had voter turnout in excess of the total adult population of… Read more »

george

DEFINITIVE: PRECISELY DEFINING OR OUTLINING; EXPLICIT. IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE MORE EDUCATED CITIZENS WANT TO QUESTION THE MEANING OF EVERY WORD THAT THE COMMONERS USE. THEY FIND THAT IF THEY TALK USING BIG WORDS THAT THEY CAN CONFUSE THE IGNORANT MASSES. WHEN I WAS GROWING UP THEY STILL TAUGHT US ABOUT THE ENGLISH LANGAUGE AND THAT WORDS ACTUALLY MEANT WHAT THEY WHERE USED FOR. THE WAY SHE(Clintons’ daughter) SPEAKS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT MAKING A DEFINITIVE RULING EMPLIES THAT IT WOULD BE A DONE DEAL, BUT SHE MEANS THAT ONLY IF THEY CAN ELECT OTHER INTELLECTS THAT CAN… Read more »

freewill

the 1st 2nd and 4th amendment says..the right of the people!! the bill of Rights protects us “from” government, theres no reason to believe well regulated meant government control

Rich

There is NO reason to trust Trump either!

chuck
Rich

Trump is looking to CFR Richard Haas to be a huge member of his team…

In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/1213council-on-foreign-relations

TEX

There is NO reason not to !

peterson

That depends on how much research you have done

Rich

The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+%22supremacy+clause

Peterson

you really believe that their is a difference between the two of them?? Step out of the Matrix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaYf0zDGrrc

Rich

there is NO reason to trust Trump either..
he brought mental health into the gun debate – A SLIPPERY SLOPE..

With an ever increasing intensity, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the collectivist agenda being pushed by the Obama administration and their media cohorts.
Donald Trump is the epitome of what Americans have wanted to see in a presidential candidate as he continues to make a mockery of the main stream media while defending American values. Unfortunately, it isn’t real. This article is not about Donald Trump; rather, it is about the silent weapon of psychological manipulation.
http://radicalconservativerisso.blogspot.com/2015/12/psychology-silent-weapon-of-elites.html

freewill

gun control didnt work in their cities, what makes them think it will work in ours..our crime rates are alot lower!!..perhaps they should look at our program instead of us looking at theirs.

Bill

If they really want gun crime to diminish, they ought to look to Switzerland where owning a gun is required after a certain age, their violent crime rate is the lowest in the World. Now you’ve got to know that our government knows this and if nothing else notices that where there is the toughest gun laws, gun crime is worst. SO this whole gun thing is nothing but control and the second Holocaust against Christians.

freewill

yup…its required by law to own and have readily available a fully auto rifle and and emergency bullet pack of 24 rounds, that pack must be accounted for, anyone that can afford it can purchase almost any weapon.and they havent had a war in 400 years, i wonder why?

timothyf7

In “EVERY” instance of guns being banned (England, Ireland, Australia, etc), the results had zero effect long term. Death rates went up immediately afterward and then leveled back to those prior to the ban. These are facts, not a biased opinion, Anyone that knows how to research can get this information. With this in mind, the only reason to ban guns is to enslave the populace. The very reason for the 2nd Amendment is and was, to protect citizens from a tyrannical government – period. You can twist the wording anyway you like, but research the writings from the framers… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD

I JUST CANNOT IMAGINE ANYONE NOT KNOWING CLINTON IS A LYING CHEATING THIEVING SCUMBAG TRAITOR WHO SHOULD BE SWINGING FROM A ROPE BY HER FEET….. MURDER IS ANOTHER THING SHE KNOWS ABOUT….. HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE WHO HOLD SIGNS BEHIND HER THAT SHE CARES FOR THEM….BWHAHAHA….SHE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ANY KIDS DYING IN ANY SHOOTINGS…

NONE OF THEM GO AFTER 400,000 PLUS KILLER TOBACCO YET SHE IS WILLING TO GO AFTER 1/10 THAT IN GUN MURDERS…… AND THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW SHES A SCUMBAG LIAR…. AND IS ONLY GOING AFTER GUNS

PERIOD – john c is a fool…..

TRUTH BE TOLD

Seems some don’t understand the end game… its not about control its about killing you off….
The new world order is the same one world government that John speaks of in Revelation…

Those 10 kings that give power to the one world leader are the same one’s that the UN titles 10 kings for 10 kingdoms……. see the 10 kingdoms are already staked out waiting for 10 leaders……. and how do you get down to 10 leaders….. world economic failure…… this is what’s coming……

Mike B.

John is correct. Clinton can’t abolish the 2nd Amendment, nor can any other politician. Attempts to regulate firearms aren’t the equivalent of confiscation or abolishing the 2nd. In this case, Trump has overstated the facts – significantly – and deserved to be called on it. It seems to be a habit he has.

Wild Bill

Mike, John C is correct!? HAAAAAhaaaaahaaaaa! Stop you are hurting my stomach. Clinton on her own can’t abolish the 2nd Amendment, but she can ignore it out of existence and the S. Ct. can interpret it into oblivion. Attemps to regulate are unconstitutional infringements, yet armed police and Federal Agents do it every day.

Joel

These fact check authors must have gone to the Mike Bloomberg School of Journalism.

Maluka

If the USA is disarmed it gives the followers of the “fat one” and the black muslim the power to make the country an unopposed police state. The we become prisoners of the government. It is as simple as that.

Bill

In every Country in the World that citizens were disarmed, violent crime went up 300%. So why do Democrats want us disarmed? Control, it’s all about control and the purpose for the Second Amendment threatens their agenda.

Nathan Hale

John C … how stupid can you be. You get on this channel and all you do is talk sh*t.
The Clintons were the ones who approved of giving the NUCLEAR REACTORS TO NORTH KOREA, dummie. Now you want to blame all the sabre rattling on Trump. Why don’t you stop your god-forsaken BS and go somewhere else? I’m so tired you. You’re probably some paid Gov’t shill who comes here to spread disinformation.

Mike McAllister

So you won’t vote for Trump (which is a vote for Hillary, don’t fool yourself). It this is so then you are not reading this article or you are against guns. No other choice. PEROID!!!

JohnC

Mike there is more than one issue important to this election. Clinton or any other politician can not remove our gun ownership rights.
Trump is likely to get us into a shooting war with N. Korea or any other nation led by an egotistical blowhard like himself.

fishunter

JohnC: How can you say “Trump is likely …shooting war with N. Korea”? Do you know of any evidence or position he has taken on this topic? He has stated that he wants to make the military stronger, but this says nothing about N. Korea. Would you have us lie down and be sub servant to the rest of the world? We are all capable of making broad general statements that have no or little basis and thought behind them. This is proven every day by reading what our politicians say and do, don’t be like them!

freewill

N.Korea would be a desolate barren waste land in 30 minutes,

kenneth kaplan

She stated that she would use the Blue hats of the U,N,(troops). To collected weapons from all American citizens. Can one imagine the gun battles that would erupt. At this point in time it would start a war. If she tries to appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd article.Tax $1,000 or more on weapon:s or ammo.Every gun shop in the U.S would have to close.No one could pay this tax.Either way a war will take place.We the citizens can not allow our God giving rights to be taking away. She does not want to be… Read more »

Rich

If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarchy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand! In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under… Read more »

freewill

Patrick Henry , Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 9, 1788..This Government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow liberties of the people.