The third presidential debate opened up with Fox News moderator Chris Wallace asking Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican rival Donald Trump to talk about the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.
While Trump made a passionate case for conservative justices and defending the right to bear arms, Clinton went on a long-winded rant about the Supreme Court case D.C. vs. Heller and how it was supposed to stop toddlers from getting guns.
Clinton tried to defend her disappointment in the outcome of the court case by claiming that it was all about whether or not toddlers should be allowed around firearms — a claim that was completely false, The Federalist reported.
The Heller case was about whether or not an American citizen could legally own a firearm in his own home. (Spoiler alert: The Supreme Court concluded that in fact, he could.) Not once did the court’s ruling or description of the case refer to toddlers and firearms.
Perhaps Clinton’s medication was particularly strong on Wednesday night — that would explain her very bizarre answer.
“Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration,” stated a description of the facts of the case from the Supreme Court.
The full text can be read here.
Since the regular fact-checking sites are too busy psychoanalyzing every word that Trump said last night, Conservative Tribune has decided to do their job for them and label Clinton’s claim about the Heller case being about toddlers as “pants on fire.”
Although perhaps we should revise that to “pantsuit on fire” in this case.
Like Us On Facebook – USA Liberty News
Who do you think won the exchange on the Supreme Court? Scroll down to comment below!