URGENT – Leak Exposes Hillary’s Plot to Confiscate Americans’ Guns, This is TREASON!

The long awaited October surprise Wikileaks dump finally took place at 6pm Friday. The dump included hundreds of emails between Clinton campaign higher-ups and texts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street big-money financial institutions, the same ones she rails against on the campaign trail.

One email string that should concern every Second Amendment supporter in the country emerged from the document dump. As reported by Breitbart.com, one email generated by Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon confirmed that, if elected, Hillary Clinton would use Executive Orders to go far beyond what President Obama has done to neuter the Second Amendment. In one email Fallon said, Clinton, “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

While Progressives and Democrats routinely cite past Presidents’ uses of Executive Orders, none have gone so far over the line of the Separation of Powers as has Barack Obama. That Hillary Clinton would surpass Obama’s usurpation of the Separation of Powers should be alarming to everyone.

Over his tenure in office, Barack Obama has routinely used Executive Orders to “legislate” through regulation and executive order decree. These actions encroach on the authority of Congress and their constitutional authority to create laws. Obama has done this with the Second Amendment and with immigration law, to example two issues.

In the email, dated October 4, 2015, Fallon mentions that the producers of NBC’s Today show had made it clear they were going to ask Clinton about guns and gun control. At the time Clinton was still locked in a tightening primary race with Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, (S-VT). Many pundits and analysis believed that, in an effort to out-flank Sanders to the Left, Clinton was staking claims on gun control that she would eventually pivot on.

In the email, released Friday by Wikileaks, Fallon appeared to extinguish any idea that Clinton’s gun policies were subject to a pivot point, instead, a cornerstone issue of her platform. Fallon wrote:

“Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask about guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.”

Clinton had publicly pledged gun control by Executive Order after the shooting at Umpqua Community College gun free zone; a shooting that took place in a “gun free zone.” That incident occurred on October 1, 2015, just three days before Fallon’s email. This was symbiotic with a Washington Post report that Clinton intended to use – if elected – Executive Orders “to go further than Obama” went on gun control.

Ironically, the Umpqua Community College gunman had passed a background check for his weapons and he didn’t purchase them at a gun show. So Clinton’s “universal background checks” and closing of the gun show “loophole” would have changed nothing on that fateful day.

Regarding her plan to open gun manufacturers to lawsuits by crime victims, this is tantamount to allowing people to sue car companies for the actions of drunk drivers. In fact, it would be the exact same rationale. What facilitating this targeting of gun owners would do is to effectively bankrupt gun manufacturers while going a long way to ending gun manufacturing completely of American soil.

To that notion – one supported by many Progressives and Clinton herself, even Sanders stood in opposition. He warned of the consequences of allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed with firearms during the March 6, 2016, Democrat debate, saying, “If [gun makers] are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.”

Mrs. Clinton’s hatred of the Second Amendment is understandable if, in fact, you understand the Progressive mindset and motivations. In order to complete the fundamental transformation of America from a representative Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy existing as a cash-cow generator for a global economy, they may very well have to be a quelling of descent amongst the people. Firearm ownership would make that a bloody proposition. Ridding the nation of firearms would make their goal that much easier.

This is just one of countless reasons Clinton must be kept away from the Oval Office.

H/T: Angry Patriot Movement

What do you think about Hillary Clinton pledging to use Executive Orders to remove Second Amendment rights?? Please share the story on Facebook and tell us because we want to hear YOUR voice!

If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

Leave a comment...