Deplorable Hillary Uses Tragedy to Lie about Gun Suppressors

Editorial credit: Michael F. Hiatt / Shutterstock.com

Hillary Clinton isn’t the most politically astute person in the world. How else can you explain the constant losing?

Trending: Trump Breaks Silence on Swamp-Draining Declassification

She proved her idiocy again on Monday morning when in the immediate aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting she began calling for more gun control, and of a specific variety.

She wants to BAN “silencers.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Why?

FOR THE LAST TIME:

This is NOT how SUPPRESSORS work. The gun would have still been incredibly loud. Why won’t the media tell the truth about suppressor technology? Why do they continue to allow Democrats to lie about how suppressors work, and what kind of sound they allow to escape the firearm?

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/914859190589562880

The illegal firearm (Yes, the gun the Las Vegas shooter used to commit his crime was already BANNED) that the Vegas shooter used, would have sounded like a jackhammer on steroids if he would have used a suppressor. Meaning, the crowd would have still heard the gunshots.

Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins further explains:

In reality, suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a gunshot. Rather, they muffle that sharp, ear-piercing wave released from the end of the barrel when a gun is fired. The sound of the gunshot remains but the suppressor removes the aspect of the sound that damages the ear.

Clinton’s disgusting blame of the NRA, while simultaneously saying this isn’t a time “for politics,” is deplorable.

Everything Clinton has ever done has been done for political motivations. Including using this tragedy, which had nothing to do with suppressors, to politicize the gun control debate… again. Why is it that every time a Democrat calls for new laws banning guns, the laws they talk about passing don’t actually speak to the event that just took place.

If we had banned suppressors would Stephen Paddock have been stopped from committing his terrible violence? NO.

Why? Because suppressors are currently very difficult to obtain AND Paddock didn’t use one in his crime!

Yet, here is Hillary Clinton calling for new laws banning a product that didn’t have anything to do with the event.

It’s foolishness.

Constitution.com 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.