If you’re beginning to get the feeling that Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is one of the most outspokenly anti-gun presidential candidates in history, you are correct. Her attacks on guns—and law-abiding gun owners—have been nearly nonstop since the primary campaign season began.
And if you are beginning to believe that Clinton thinks guns are the problem—not the violent criminals who misuse guns to prey on the defenseless—you are again correct. Proof of that is easy to see, although the concept is hard to understand for intelligent people who realize that a gun is just a tool that can, like other tools, be used by human beings for good or bad.
In mid-April, Clinton showed her disregard for common sense and disdain for firearms when questioned by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Pressing Clinton on her misleading statements blaming Vermont gun laws for New York’s crime, Blitzer asked her, “Why did you put out that statement blaming Vermont and its gun policy for some of the death of … by guns in New York?”
Clinton’s answer reveals an important nugget of deception fostered by so many in the gun-ban movement. Clinton stated, “Well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from out of state.”
The important part of that statement is, of course, “guns that end up committing crimes.” The message: Guns are bad. “Well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from out of state.” — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton
We all know—as do most thinking people—that guns don’t “end up committing crimes,” just as they don’t end up defending families or harvesting deer. As a tool, a firearm is useful for a variety of different functions. But the intent and actions of the user determine what the gun actually does.
In truth, such statements by Clinton and other gun-banners referencing guns committing crimes are part of the overall anti-gun strategy of demonizing an entire class of legally made, legally owned and constitutionally protected products. The main reason to do so is that by demonizing these products, it makes it easier for them to demonize the products’ users—namely you, me and millions of other law-abiding gun owners who use our guns for positive purposes.
Clinton’s recent comments stand out as perhaps the most vivid illustration of the gun-control movement’s perverse illogic. While many gun-ban supporters may casually utter some version of “guns kill people,” few would anthropomorphize firearms to the extent that they would claim guns actually commit crimes.
As NRA-ILA pointed out in a recent feature: “In criminal law, in order to be convicted of a crime such as murder or armed robbery, the prosecution must prove that the perpetrator had the necessary guilty mindset, or mens rea, as an element of the offense. When Clinton contends that guns commit crimes, she is imparting a morally blameworthy mindset onto a piece of steel. Perhaps Clinton would allow prosecutors to charge the individual misusing the firearm as an accomplice.”
In fact, Clinton and others know what they are doing when blaming guns and gun owners for crime, while rarely talking about criminals. Placing the blame squarely where it belongs—on violent criminals—isn’t popular among liberal circles, and likely never will be. Consequently, murder rates are skyrocketing in gun-ban utopias like Chicago and Los Angeles.
It’s too bad Blitzer and others in the media don’t challenge such blatantly ignorant statements when Clinton and others utter them during interviews. Perhaps having to directly answer a question on how inanimate objects “end up committing murders” would make Clinton a little more careful with her words.