We get it. Hillary Clinton is still a little bitter about failing to win the presidency. As reported earlier, the former Democratic nominee jumped knee-deep into politicizing the tragedy in Las Vegas…and it turned out about as hilarious as you might think it would be.

The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017

Following her ill-advised tweet, it didn’t take long for people to take her to task over her disgusting display of partisanship or to school her in the reality of suppressors.

@hillary. NO ONE wants to hear your political opinion at this ti me. Another play on the peoples tragedy to benefit your agenda. #NRA

— OHIO 4 TRUMP 2020 (@OhioTrump2020) October 2, 2017

Silencers can be made with very basic items,of the shooter wanted one he could have made one with a flash light. He didn't use one fortunat

— Thomas Preston (@Artist_Papy) October 2, 2017

Shut up & sit down! Have you no shame? Politics at this time? #shameful

— Judigal (@Judigal) October 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/nelllllebell/status/914869524331147264

Shame on you.. making this political only hours after this horrible tragedy!!

— tom disanto (@tommydisanto) October 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/truthhurtsxxxxx/status/914870330115727361

https://twitter.com/gberg82/status/914870632755625989

Further, at this point, we know remarkably little about the 64-year-old shooter such as his motivations or his choice of what is almost certainly a fully-automatic weapon, but there is one thing we can deduce very easily. For one, if the weapon was purchased legally, then it’s unlikely the killer would have had any difficulty in securing a suppressor if he’d wanted one.

If the weapons were obtained illegally, meaning he bought an illegal, fully-automatic rifle, then it seems highly unlikely he would have been deterred by a law against using a suppressor.

If, however, he modified a legal rifle to be a fully-automatic weapon–an illegal act–then there’s no reason to suspect he couldn’t have built a suppressor for his own use.

In other words, regardless of how the killer got his weapon, it boggles the mind to think that someone could honestly think the Hearing Protection Act would have made this worse.

None of that even touches on the fact that suppressors don’t work like a James Bond movie. There’s still noise, for one thing. A lot of it.

Plus, let’s also not forget that despite the lack of a suppressor, people didn’t realize what they were hearing at first. The argument that people can’t respond to gunshots if killers use a suppressor is completely lacking when people clearly failed to recognize gunshots despite there being no suppressor.

It would be amazing how someone like Hillary could blame a device that wasn’t used for a tragedy like this if we hadn’t seen so much of this from so many anti-gun people through the years. They lock onto any tragedy to try and push through their draconian, anti-civil rights agenda simply because they can. As they say, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

However, it’s no less disgusting when they do it.

Look, if they want a conversation on guns, let’s wait and find out just what is going on before we start trying to create new laws that will affect millions of Americans. I’m not saying I’d bow down and accept it since I won’t,  but as it is at the moment, the anti-gun crowd are clowning themselves. Oh, I know the old saying about never interrupting your opponent when they’re making a mistake, but since they’re not likely to listen to me anyway, I think the harm will be minimum.

The least the gun grabbers could do is wait until they’ve identified all the dead before they start trying to use their corpses as political props.