Clinton using Trayvon Martin to push gun grab
Hillary Clinton pandered to an anti-gun crowd Saturday while accusing Donald Trump of pandering.
Hillary accused Trump of pandering to the gun lobby while she was giving a speech to a conference organized by the anti-gun Trayvon Martin Foundation. Her attack was in response to comments Trump made while accepting an endorsement of his campaign by the National Rifle Association. “Crooked Hillary is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate,” Trump remarked. “She wants to take your guns away from you, just remember that.”
The George Soros-owned, Democrat candidate for president is a professional and highly-paid panderer. She’s given uninspiring talks to all sorts of Wall Street banks for unGodly sums of money and regularly uses social action groups for her own benefit. The Trayvon Martin speech cost attendees a minimum $1500 donation to the Trayvon Martin foundation. Imagine where that money will end up…
The foundation was started by Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton who supports Clinton’s anti-second amendment views. Fulton endorsed Clinton’s presidential bid last year as she believes Hillary is the only candidate running who is “tough enough” to champion gun control.
From the stage of the conference, Hillary spouted anti-gun and anti-Trump red meat statements to a gun control-friendly crowd. “This is someone running to be president of the United States of America — a country facing a gun violence epidemic” Clinton barked.
Hillary may be putting gun control at the center of her campaign as she struggles to get to the left of Bernie Sanders on much else. If elected, she has already vowed to take executive action on guns should congress fail to do her bidding.
David Cox, the Executive Director of the NRA-ILA, emphasized the importance of this year’s election.
“The stakes in this year’s presidential election could not be higher for gun owners.
“If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. … So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump.”
Hillary’s own daughter spoke of her mother’s strong anti-gun stance and the fact that there was an opening for more gun control with Justice Antonin Scalia gone.
The whole family is for the federal government having the power to limit citizens’ right to bear arms. Former President Bill Clinton signed the now-expired Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 that restricted certain features on semi-auto rifles. He would have gone farther if congress had allowed it.
Hillary has little choice but to attack the second amendment. One of her largest financial backers and lead puppet-master, George Soros, expects his monetary favors to be repaid.
Billionaire mogul George Soros is well-known for his 1998 frivolous lawsuit against gun manufacturers. His ultimate loss in court and the subsequent passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act have done nothing to dampen his appetite for gun control, however. According to the most recent figures filed with the Federal Election Commission, out of the $112 million donated towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2015, more than 6 percent came from Soros.
If Clinton is elected, she will get to nominate at least one if not four or more Supreme Court Justices. If a democrat Senate majority rides in on her coat tails, she’ll get whomever she wants and a clear path to unconstitutional gun restrictions.
D.C. v. Heller was a landmark Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
The vote was 5 for and 4 against with Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion. Hillary Clinton could put an anti-gun justice in Scalia’s seat fundamentally changing the court’s balance on constitutional issues.
Mr. Cox had it right, “the stakes in this year’s presidential election could not be higher.”