Hillary Clinton suggested that there was something inherently violent about Second Amendment activists. In response to Donald Trump's comments that the Second Amendment supporters might have something to say about Hillary's election as president, Hillary suggested that his remarks were a violent innuendo.
I take great offense to Hillary's remarks. It shows her lack of sensitivity to the Constitution and supporters of the Second Amendment. Her offhand stereotypical statement makes it clear that she, like many of her liberal supporters, have a preconceived notion (in other words: prejudice) against gun owners, despite the fact that gun owners might be liberal or conservative. After the Orlando massacre many from the LGBT community lined up to purchase weapons. A gun does not choose it's owner, it is the other way around and many of those choosing to arm themselves in a more dangerous environment since the terrorist attacks that have taken place in America as a result of Obama's policies, are liberal.
Hillary's mistake is in believing that Second Amendment supporters look to their weapons as answers to political problems and yet that has NEVER happened, not in the long line of injustices and infringements endured by the Second Amendment crowd. They do not protest. They do not threaten violence as the liberals generally do. They do not call for the murder of policemen, because they feel an injustice when a criminal is killed by police. Not even when Philando Castile, an innocent man and a concealed carry permit holder, was shot down by police.
Today, in New Mexico, a bread truck driver who was being robbed of goods, informed the thief that he was a concealed carry weapons holder and to desist. The thief continued to loot the vehicle and the driver fired his firearm, not killing the thief, but wounding him in the leg. The thief was taken to the hospital and the driver was not charged. This is how responsible gun owners help to stop crime and prevent millions of other crimes that would have been committed had the perpetrators not turned and left when being informed of the presence of the weapon. This is just one instance of such heroism on the very day I wrote this article. I bet it happens several times a day all over America, but the press won't report this sort of logical and prudent use of a firearm, because they are dishonest and all too willing to commit LIES OF OMISSION.
The society Hillary Clinton prefers is one where all citizens are victims and the wanton crime calls for more police and bigger departments, who (thanks to George Bush and Barack Obama) fall ultimately under the control of the Department of Homeland Security.
But, what Hillary Should keep in mind is that infringing a right that "shall not be infringed" and eliminating that right are two entirely different things. It doesn't matter how many liberal justices she appoints to the Supreme Court, one does not need to be a lawyer to understand the violation of one's rights.
There is a point, I suppose, when the ballot box has failed and the United States Government is in the hands of a known (if not convicted) felon and the lawlessness of the government has gone so far as to inspire the words of our founding fathers as a new rally cry to "alter or abolish" that we, Second Amendment supporters begin to see that the only option available is to do just that.
Mrs. Clinton, we are not the unorganized rabble that Black Lives Matter is (depending on what the definition of "is" is. We are not the untrained and unprepared fools who feel they have to go out and pound their chests and scream horrible epithets at their opposition. When it is time to push our political advantage (and it is a considerable advantage, including some police officers) you will know it and you will feel the heat of our political fire. Whether that ever comes down to a full-blown revolution, is strictly up to you.