Hillary Clinton has publicly admitted that, to achieve her gun bans, she would go even further than Barack Obama in sidestepping Congress and short-circuiting the legislative process by using unilateral executive orders.
And Hillary Clinton has compared the National Rifle Association and its principled defense of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to “the Iranians or the communists.”
In an attempt to define herself as the Democrats’ most anti-gun candidate in a field of contenders who are already solidly and consistently opposed to the Second Amendment’s guarantees of your right to keep and bear arms, Clinton this month unveiled a laundry list of anti-gun policies that she pledged to enact if elected president, including:
a ban on semi-automatic firearms;
a repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from baseless, politically motivated lawsuits that blame crimes committed by third parties on the firearms industry and have threatened to drive that industry into bankruptcy; and
a ban on private firearms transfers between family members, neighbors and friends.
Speaking at a south Florida community college just a day after a community college shooting in Oregon, Clinton sought to—in Barack Obama’s words—“politicize” the gun debate. Despite the fact that the Oregon killer had passed background checks to obtain his firearms, Clinton suggested—just as Obama did even before the facts were known—that the killer could have been stopped if just one more law had been in effect.
Then, before anyone had a chance to point out that the laws Clinton pushed wouldn’t have stopped the killer, she went on to try to score electoral points by blaming the entire Republican party for the bloodshed: “Republicans keep refusing to do anything to protect our communities,” Clinton complained. “They put the NRA ahead of American families.”“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” – Hillary Clinton
As anyone with any knowledge of current gun laws in general—or the facts of this case in particular—already knows, this is pure and unadulterated baloney.
As even Michael Bloomberg’s own Bloomberg News admitted, “Clinton may be making a mistake framing her argument in culture-war terms—as a battle against the National Rifle Association ... [S]ome of her ideas ... including her emphasis on ‘assault weapons,’ come straight from a tired, ineffective gun-control playbook.”
The truth is that the so-called “solutions” pushed by Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic contenders wouldn’t “solve” anything—unless the “problem” is that law-abiding people are allowed to keep and bear arms in the first place.
Most of the mass shootings that Clinton, Obama and the Democrats cite as justifications for their schemes have been committed by individuals who:
already passed their background checks;
wouldn’t have been stopped by so-called “universal” background checks; and
wouldn’t have been stopped by any of the proposals the Democrats are currently pushing.
So what could stop some of these deranged and dangerous madmen? Well, for one thing, flagging people who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent in the NICS background-check system could block gun sales to unstable people and thereby make a small but real difference.
Indeed, Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn has introduced legislation to do just that. So what’s the roadblock? For one thing, too many liberal Democrats would rather disarm 300 million law-abiding American gun owners than put the records of adjudicated mental patients into the NICS system.
Again, even Bloomberg’s gun-ban lobby admits this is the case. It looked at the states with the best and worst performance when it comes to flagging adjudicated mental patients in the background check system. As you might expect, the states with the worst records—among them Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Maryland—are also home to some of the most rabid anti-gun politicians.
Which suggests those politicians don’t really care about solving real problems. Instead, they just want to divert attention away from their refusal to do so by demonizing lawful gun owners like you and attacking your right to keep and bear arms.
But here’s what’s truly remarkable, and frankly frightening, about the devout gun-ban agenda pushed by Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats: They know it won’t work, but they don’t care.
They know it won’t work on a practical level to stop violent crime, for some of the reasons outlined above. As the Washington Post pointed out: “The Obama administration has already taken a long, internal look at the same executive-action proposal Clinton has promised to undertake, and has doubts over whether it can be made to work in practical terms ...”But here’s what’s truly remarkable, and frankly frightening, about the devout gun-ban agenda pushed by Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats: They know it won’t work, but they don’t care.
What’s more, Clinton knows that banning guns and attacking the NRA won’t work at the political level, either. On the contrary, it’s a proven strategy for defeat on Election Day. Indeed, Bill Clinton admitted that it was his gun-ban agenda that ended 40 years of Democrat control over Congress in 1994, and cost Al Gore the states of Arkansas, West Virginia and even his home state of Tennessee in 2000—any one of which would have won him the White House.
Clinton and the rest of the Democratic contenders also know that, if anything, American voters are even more opposed to gun bans and more dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment today than they were a decade ago, as long-running polls from Gallup and Pew have clearly proven.
So if they know their anti-gun agenda won’t reduce crime, and won’t win at the polls, why are they pushing it?
The only explanation that remains is that Clinton and her fellow contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are so committed to disarming the American people that they’re willing to risk falling on their swords and sacrificing their political careers to further their statist agenda—where only the police and military are allowed to own firearms ... where honest, law-abiding citizens are disarmed and defenseless against criminals on one side and governments on the other ... and where, as history proves as reliably and cyclically as the change of the seasons, human freedom in any of its forms is fragile, and fleeting, and ultimately falls.