Washington Post Shilling For Hillary—And Against The Second Amendment

posted on August 12, 2016

If the consequences weren’t so devastating, the Washington Post editorial board’s defense of Hillary Clinton’s plans for the Second Amendment would almost be funny, even if macabre. “… Mrs. Clinton does not appear to be interested in pressing a radical re-interpretation of the Second Amendment,” the Post claimed, and immediately directs the reader to a fact sheet that outlines her plan to do precisely that. 

Once again: The founders codified the Second Amendment to protect private arms possession and as a check against standing armies, period. Even in the wake of the Revolutionary War, they still feared over-reaching government more than invasion. The Second Amendment was intended to keep the governing and the governed talking, not the former dictating—with radically superior arms—to the latter. 

When Clinton talks of winding the clock back with “assault weapon” bans and winding it forward with registration (as “universal” background checks) and SCOTUS appointments that would prime—and then permit—wholesale confiscation, you can bet she means it.

You can also bet the Washington Post knows and approves of the same.

Latest

The Armed Citizen
The Armed Citizen

The Armed Citizen® December 4, 2023

True stories of the right to keep and bear arms.

NRA 2023 Year In Review

None of this would be possible without the enduring support of NRA members.

A Fact Check of Gov. Newsom and Gov. DeSantis on Crime and Guns

To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Montana’s AG Explains Why NRA v. Vullo is a Critical Supreme Court Case

“Government should not be able to come in and act like the mafia,” says Montana Attorney General Knudsen.

The Armed Citizen® December 1, 2023

True stories of the right to keep and bear arms.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.