Lying liars (Guest Post)

By 10 Comments 2,429 views


Lying is nothing new for Hillary Clinton. From the Whitewater scandal, to the Bosnian Sniper Lie, the Benghazi Cover-up lies, to the Email Scandal, Hillary will lie her ass off. And not one of her supporters will give a good God Damn. This is really no surprise. America is used to being lied to by its government. Lying is a pretty much given when it comes to politics. None of these lies really affect the average Joe. So the average Joe becomes a Hillary Whore. Ignoring the integrity of the individual, because we need to elect a President who squats to pee.

But when you lie about something that has a direct affect on a huge demographic, that can be a problem. And Hillary has a problem. Her lies about gun control are about to bite her in the ass.

Gun owners in America are a diverse demographic. It includes Democrats, Republicans, and every other political party. In the campaign leading up to the 2008 election, many Gun Rights Activists warned that the Democrats and Barrack Obama specifically would try to institute sweeping gun control legislation to trample the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. There was just enough double talk from the Democratic Party to raise the hairs on the back of the necks of most gun owners. Except the Democrat gun owners. From 2008 all the way up until Sandy Hook in 2012, the Democrats would always confront the Gun Rights activist with the statement “No one is trying to take your guns away from you”.

With the tragedy of Sandy Hook, all that changed. A flurry of legislation was introduced in what the Democrats said was an attempt to stem the tide of gun violence. “Sensible Gun Control” became the new catch phrase for every bit of new rules and restrictions the Gun Control crowd tried to get passed. ALL of it supported by Obama.

The problem was none of the new legislation or regulations would have prevented Sandy Hook. Or Isla Vista. Or the Charleston Church tragedy. Or the Oregon College tragedy. It amounted to nothing more than feel good legislation: regulations that make us feel good about the notion that we did something, regardless of what impact it may or may not have on gun violence.

In order to bolster their efforts to further restrict gun ownership, the Gun Control crowd tried to use statistics to justify the feel good legislation. While many different statistics on many different aspects were used, all of them were debunked. One big statistic that they used, and provided talking points for Obama, and VP Biden was the 40% figure.

“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”
–President Obama, remarks on gun violence, Jan. 16, 2013

“Studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.”

“Now Is the Time: The president’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence,” released Jan. 16

“That’s why we need, and I’ve recommended to the president, universal background checks. Studies show that up to 40 percent of the people — and there’s no — let me be honest with you again, which I’ll get to in a moment. Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check] system, outside the background check system.”

Vice President Biden, remarks to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Jan. 17

Okay, let’s put this to bed once and for all. The 40% figure came from a study released in 1997, based on a survey in 1994. The survey asked questions about purchases in 1993, and early 1994. The Brady Law, which requires complete background checks on any retail purchase didn’t go into effect until 1994. I won’t get into the ambiguity of the questions actually asked, or the method of determining a yes or no answer. To use a survey that asks if you followed a law before the law was even in place is disingenuous. It should be noted that the 40% figure is used by the Gun Control crowd to define sales within what they term the “Gun-Show Loophole”. The problem is the survey showed that only 3.9% of respondents purchased their firearm at a Gun Show.

So what does this have to do with Hillary? Simple. She continues to trot out this mythical figure in her efforts to appear ready to institute “sensible gun control” if she were elected. IF you are a politician, and you use the 40% figure to support your argument, you are lying. Period.

But that’s not her only lie. And it’s not her biggest, or most dangerous.

“Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability. They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences.”

Hillary Clinton, Iowa, Oct 7th.

Hillary is referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law, passed in 2005, was designed to preserve the law’s handling of liability with guns. Basically the law says that if you are a manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or are a dealer in firearms and ammunition, and you follow ALL the laws in place when you sell a firearm, you are not liable for the actions if someone uses the firearm in a crime. The law does not protect the manufacturer if the firearm is defective and causes injury or death. Nor does it protect the dealer who knowingly sells a firearm to someone they know or should have known was prohibited from purchasing it.

There’s several things wrong with Hillary’s statement. Let’s start with this: “They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” That statement is false. There are several anti-tort laws that are in place to prevent frivolous lawsuits against specific businesses. The Communications Decency Act protects service providers and content providers from online defamation suits. Vaccine manufactures have tort protection from injuries from defective vaccines. Medical devices and the Airline industry also have specific laws to protect them as well.

Think of it this way. If a drunk driver kills a van load of children while driving drunk, is Ford Motor Company responsible because he was driving a Ford F-150? What about the dealer who sold him the truck? Certainly there could be some liability if the driver was a repeat offender, and could not provide a license when he purchased the vehicle because it was suspended or revoked.

The second part of her statement, “They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences” is completely false. The law is specific. A dealer must abide by all laws in place. This means he must perform a Brady Background Check. But more than that, if he suspects that a person is prohibited, he must refuse the sale, or he can be held liable. Badger Guns in West Milwaukee was found liable in a civil case where two off duty police officers were shot by a man who obtained a gun through a straw purchase. The gun shop owner even coached the purchaser on how to answer specific questions on the background form. So no, Hillary, the law does not protect a dealer who knowingly sells a gun illegally.

Here’s the problem for Hillary in these lies. While lying about a sniper in Bosnia, or the cover-up in Benghazi, or the emailing of classified material may not affect the average Joe, lying about gun control can. And many of those Democrat and Independent gun owners have finally realized that liberal gun control efforts WILL affect them. And when you base your policy on lies, they take note. This is one demographic you will lose.

About Brother of the Phin

View all posts by Brother of the Phin

50 something veteran of the deep blue Submarine Force. Rancher, amateur gunsmith, hunter, conservative.

10 Responses to “Lying liars (Guest Post)”

  1. 4


    Perhaps Hillary should make an example out of Gabby Gifford’s former astronaut and big gun control proponent (Democrat) husband, Mark Kelly.

    Kelly should know all the gun laws since he supports making them even more restrictive, but that didn’t stop him from trying to purchase a hand gun at a gun shop in Arizona. The gun dealer was an honest broker and informed Kelly he would be happy to sell him the gun which would be sent to an FFL in Texas where Kelly could take possession of the gun. Why Texas? Kelly held a Texas driver’s license and the laws states you cannot take receipt of a hand gun in another state and it has to be sent to a FFL in the state where you reside.

    Kelly made a big deal out of it claiming he lived in Arizona at the time. Only he had a few problems in that area as well. He had never changed his driver’s license (as required by law) and still claimed a resident homestead tax exemption on the house he owned in League City, Texas. Because of Kelly’s big mouth trying to make a reputable Arizona gun dealer look bad, the dealer finally refused to sell Kelly ANY hand gun.

    So hey, Hillary, there is someone you can show was trying to cut an illegal gun deal. So what if Kelly’s a Democrat? Make an example out of him to further your own agenda.

  2. 5


    People people people, I am also tired of this name calling. Hillary is not a liar, she is TRUTH CHALLENGED. This is a condition to be pitied ,oops have empathy for. Why them Democrats are raising funds for her right now. Even though I don’t think there is a cure I hear there is a treatment it may involve massive amounts of botox injected into her lips. This freezes the lips preventing all movement, often the first sign of this condition is their lips begin to move.
    So lets have empathy for those afflicted with this terminal incurable condition that plagues so many in Washington DC. She will need most of donations for burncream to be applied from waist to ankle, after her testimony on Benghazi, hey save them tigers.

  3. 6


    — Police permission was required to own a handgun;

    — All firearms had to be registered;

    — Any Germans who enjoyed shooting bolt-action rifles were told to join the army “if they wished to shoot ‘military’ rifles,” writes LaPierre, in his book;

    — The Nazi regime “also enacted the “Regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” within the days of Kristallnacht – the ‘night of broken glass’ – when stormtroopers attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany,” he wrote;

    — Firearms registration lists were used to identify (and persecute) gun owners (bear in mind that a New York newspaper just published the names and addresses of legal handgun permit holders after obtaining them via a Freedom of Information Act request, because permit holders by the very nature of obtaining the permit had to be registered []).

    Let’s compare these Nazi-era gun control requirements to what Feinstein is proposing. As posted on her Senate website, her legislation would:

    — Ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacture of 120 specifically-named firearms;

    — “Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics;”

    — “Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;”

    — Require that currently owned weapons that would be grandfathered in nevertheless be registered under the National Firearms Act;

    — Require a background check of any owner and/or transferee;

    — Provide the government with the type and serial number of the weapon;

    — Require a photograph and fingerprint to be on file with the government;
    It doesn’t take a genius (or conspiracy theorist) to figure out the parallels between Nazi gun control laws and some of the same provisions being pushed by Feinstein. Understanding that our country is not a totalitarian state (yet), Feinstein and other gun-controllers like President Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others all know they have to take a longer, more measured approach to disarming the U.S. public, that they can’t just mandate it overnight.

    But make no mistake, new gun control laws like those being proposed are nothing more than rehashed mandates dredged up from the past, with similar intentions: To make political opponents and the masses less powerful and less able to resist.
    Copied from infowars website

  4. 7


    “They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences”

    Fast and Furious. Eric Holder. Barack Obama.

    Fast and Furious was intended, I believe, to provide illegal guns to criminals which would inevitably be used in crimes and be tracked back to the original sellers. The left was already perpetrating the lie that 90% of all guns used in crimes in Mexico came from the US; F & F was to confirm the lie.

    I always ask myself, if their position is righteous, why are they lying? The answer is always because they KNOW what their goal is is NOT what they say they are trying to accomplish. If their “common sense” gun control worked, we couldn’t keep using Chicago as a glaring example of what a failure it is.

    But, for the purposes of gun confiscation and an end to gun ownership, the failures are the most useful part of the plan. For, while they celebrate their gun control “achievements” which never address a REAL problem, they can then renew their cries for MORE gun control every time someone that has ignore their worthless restrictions commits a heinous crime.

  5. 8


    The problem isn’t that there’s nothing. The problem is Clinton whores (no other word fits) who simply do not care, when, if Bush did the same thing, they’d be demanding he go to jail.

    But you’re right, we got nothing. Thanks to you.

    This has always been one of the scariest of her crimes–not just because she got off because she was a poor little woman trying to make a buck for her hungry children (I think there were 12), but because her fans and the media simply decided it probably was all true, but they just didn’t care:

    Cattle-Futures Miracle – Hillary’s first commodity trade was in cattle futures where she ordered 10 futures contracts which normally cost $12,000 dollars with only $1,000 dollars in her account. This turned into $6,300 dollars by the next morning and after 10 months totaled $100,000, with trading help from James B. Blair.

    “Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas’ largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain. . .” reports The WashingtonPost.
    Robert L. “Red” Bone ran the Springdale, AK financial services company REFCO allowed the trades and later, after investigation, had to pay the largest fine at the time in the exchanges history and was suspended for three years. Hillary Clinton said she was able to make the successful trading because she read the Wall Street Journal for research.

  6. 9


    @Reem: Well…the MSM is for sure covering up for her. But we’ll see what the FBI does. Assume the DOJ will do nothing but cover up…some in the FBI may leak the true findings. We’ll see.

Leave a Reply

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