Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Features News

DNC Part 2: More Big Lies From Philly

DNC Part 2: More Big Lies From Philly

While nearly completely ignoring violent crime and the dire threat of radical Islamic terrorism, Democrat leaders at their national convention in Philadelphia have instead chosen to target America’s law-abiding gun owners. 

That’s little surprise, as Hillary Clinton, in a debate late last year, named NRA’s 5 million law-abiding members as the enemy she is most proud of, even ahead of Iran and ISIS. Now, apparently, the entire party has partaken the Clinton Kool-Aid and harbors that same disdain for the Second Amendment—and for those who protect it.

Consequently, Wednesday night was filled with half-truths, prevarications and outright lies. And that’s putting it mildly.

But before gun-ban advocates ever took center stage at the Wells Fargo Center on Wednesday night, anti-gun shill Mark Kelly kicked things off by setting a decidedly untruthful tone. “Hillary Clinton, no matter what the NRA says or the Republican nominee, Hillary Clinton is not calling for a change in the Second Amendment or a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Kelly said.

Wednesday night was filled with half-truths, prevarications and outright lies.Of course that’s not true. But don’t take it from me—Clinton hasn’t exactly been hiding the fact.

Clinton was caught and recorded at a closed-door political event late last year saying, “The Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.” Of course she was talking about the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. What’s the big ruling that Clinton finds oh so “wrong”? The court simply ruled that Americans have a right to keep a firearm in their homes for self-defense.

If that decision was “wrong,” it means Clinton believes Americans do not have a right to keep a firearm in their own homes for self-defense. No matter what Kelly says, that would certainly represent a “change” in the Second Amendment as we know it.

Additionally, Clinton has suggested that she supports forced confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens. But again, don’t take my word for it. She has said so herself.

At a town hall meeting late last year, Clinton was asked why America can’t adopt the Australia model of total gun confiscation. Her response: “Certainly, the Australia example is worth looking at.”

Many gun-ban advocates might, indeed, believe that Australia example is “worth looking at.” But it’s hard to claim that the mass forced confiscation of more than 650,000 firearms of all kinds from their lawful owners wouldn’t “infringe” on the “right to keep and bear arms.” It’s just not possible to do in America without changing the Second Amendment, no matter how much Clinton would like to. But changing the Second Amendment is exactly what Kelly claims Clinton doesn’t want to do.

Over at the convention hall, the hijinks continued. Here are a few more choice morsels from Wednesday night’s Democratic misdirection play:

Kelly, at the podium later, said that Clinton “is ready to take on one of our country's greatest moral failures here on our soil: the gun violence that is tearing so many of our communities apart.” In saying that, Kelly sought to base future gun bans on the fallacy of “gun violence.” As we explained in-depth yesterday, there is no “gun violence” problem in America; only a “violent criminal” problem that could be solved by targeting and locking up those who are already breaking existing laws against robbery, assault and murder.(Clinton’s) response: “Certainly, the Australia example is worth looking at.”

Stephanie Mobley, whose son was shot and killed in 2007, unfairly compared law-abiding American gun owners to drunk drivers, citing Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s success in helping curb drunk driving deaths. “Why can’t we do it the same way?” she said.

Actually, we can, but Clinton doesn’t want to do so. The way drunk driving deaths have been reduced hasn’t been by banning cars, but by cracking down on those who illegally drive while intoxicated. The same would work for criminal violence. In fact, NRA and gun-rights advocates have long called for cracking down on violent criminals, while leaving the rights of law-abiding citizens intact. No further laws are necessary to accomplish that.

Former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey also spoke, further pushing the untrue narrative that Americans somehow have access to military weaponry. “We need a strong, steady leader … to stop our officers from being outgunned by weapons of war,” he said.

In truth, the AR-15—the gun he is referring to—isn’t used by the military, and never has been. The fully automatic M-16 is a military weapon, but the AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that shoots only one shot every time the trigger is pulled, just like semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic shotguns, and other semi-automatic rifles used for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., also hit some favorite anti-gun talking points while offering solutions that won’t solve anything. “We have had enough!” Murphy said. “There is no reason to feel helpless about the horrifying trajectory of cascading massacres. Smart gun policy, like background checks, can change this.” 

The way drunk driving deaths have been reduced is not by banning cars, but by cracking down on those who illegally drive while intoxicated.In truth—and Murphy, no doubt, knows this—so-called “universal” background checks would not have stopped even one of the highly publicized mass shootings over the past several years. And drug-gang members fighting for turf in inner-city Chicago could care less about any kind of background check. 

All of this gun-control talk came after the revelation just last week of a plan to remarket gun control by using “common-sense gun safety” and other innocuous terms when talking about gun-ban plans. Alternate Hillary Clinton delegate Mary Bayer understood this scheme very well when talking to an undercover reporter in a Philly bar earlier this week.

In a video now posted to YouTube, Bayer revealed Clinton’s sneaky strategy to ban firearms by using rhetoric that hides her true agenda. Before admitting that Clinton “for sure” supports banning firearms, Bayer said that to impose such bans, “you’ve got to say ‘that’s common-sense gun legislation’” to ensure that Clinton “doesn’t take any positions that are too terribly extreme” and thereby lose the presidential election. 

Explaining Clinton’s strategy of “bait and switch”—of saying one thing and then doing something far more extreme—Bayer said the messaging Clinton uses is crucial, suggesting statements like: “We just want to have common-sense gun legislation so our children are safe. You say s--t like that and then people will buy into it.”

Unfortunately for pop singer Kesha, she apparently didn’t get the memo. At a late-night concert for Democratic delegates across town from the convention, she was happy to brag about “controlling” gun owners. 

“We as a nation, we can’t control who feels hurt, we can’t control who feels pain,” she said between songs. “You can’t control every single person and know how they’re going to deal with things and know if they’re going to pick up a weapon—you don’t know that. But what we can control is who we give the f---ing weapons to.” 

While quite appalling, Kesha’s statement at least brought a rare whiff of honesty to the convention—a commodity otherwise greatly lacking among Democratic speakers in the City of Brotherly Love.