On April 20, Hillary Clinton attended a gun violence forum in Philadelphia, PA, where she said that there are too many guns in America–and that the gun lobby’s power is almost unmatched when it comes to competing special interests in Washington (via WFB):
“When it comes to guns, we have just too many guns,” Clinton said. “On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods. And, you know, there’s been a lot of talk in this campaign, in the primary campaign, about the power of certain interests in our country. And we do have a bunch of powerful interests, make no mistake about it. But there is no more powerful lobby than the gun lobby.”
Now, of course, she has to say this with Democratic voters, many of whom are anti-gun. It’s a way to solidify the base and drive a wedge into Sen. Bernie Sanders’ base of support since he’s slightly (for lack of a better word) more open to Second Amendment rights. Don’t get me wrong, his rating with the National Rifle Association is awful, but as a congressman–he did vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He’s from a constitutional carry state that virtually has no gun control, where anywhere from 70-80 percent of its residents own firearms for hunting and target practice. And yet, Vermont isn’t drowning in its own blood like in Chicago.
On April 21, Clinton ventured into Connecticut, where she said she would spend time working to “change gun culture” if elected president (via PJ Media):
At a meeting with families of gun-violence victims in Hartford, Conn., today, Hillary Clinton vowed to use "every single minute of every day" to "change the gun culture" in America.
Participants at the event included Erica Smegielski, daughter of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, and Nelba Marquez-Greene, whose 6-year-old daughter, Ana Grace, was also among the Sandy Hook victims.
Clinton, who has been hammering at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over gun control, said, "if anything else were killing 33,000 Americans a year...we would be fully mobilized, doing everything we possible could to save lives."
"I am not here to make promises I can’t keep. I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every day, if I am so fortunate enough to be your president, looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture," she said. "It is just too easy for people to reach for a gun to settle their problems. It makes no sense."
Again, Democrats are inflating the number of gun deaths. Even the Bloomberg-backed Trace publication noted that there were only 12,942 people killed in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide. I bet that figure is even lower if you only look at homicides, which anti-gun liberals like to embellish, usually by including suicides, to paint America as having a gun violence epidemic. We’re not. Data from the FBI shows that gun homicides dropped 3.9 percent in 2014. Granted, it’s still high and the best way to reduce fatalities brought on by unintentional shootings, another source of anti-gun hysteria is to promote gun safety, which is a pillar of the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. In fact, shooting accidents in the home are at 20-year lows, and unintentional firearms fatalities in a dwelling are at all-time lows.
In short, is it tragic that we have over 10,000 deaths from firearms? Yes, but that doesn’t mean we should alter the Constitution to enact stricter gun laws since that’s one sure way to increase the number of gun deaths by disarming the law-abiding, while allowing criminals to reap havoc in our communities. Moreover, if liberals want to play the number game, 12,942 isn’t the same as 33,00–especially when you compare the more accurate figure (12,942) to vehicular fatalities and deaths due to tobacco smoking. If anything, there’s more of a reason to ban tobacco in America (which I also oppose), but that’s a separate debate.
Should we be freaking out? Yes and no. Yes, we should always remain vigilant, but this sort of rhetoric is typical of the urban-based liberal elite that dots the Acela Corridor. And it’s not surprising at all that Clinton said she’s going to try and change our gun culture in one of the most anti-gun states in the country. She’s just campaigning and shoring up the liberal base. If elected, the truth of the matter is that she has so much political baggage; I doubt she could get anything meaningful passed in Congress, especially if Republicans retain control of the House. The wild card is the Supreme Court, where a Clinton administration could potentially fill multiple vacancies with anti-gun jurists. That’s the nightmare situation.
There are over 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S; over 100 million have been bought during Obama’s presidency alone. More Americans are obtaining carry permits, less Americans support so-called assault weapons bans, more Americans view guns as the solution to reduce to crime. These aren’t controversial positions. They’re the right ones. And if Clinton and the liberals want to push for such things, like banning AR-15 rifles, magazine limits, the ineffective policy of universal background checks, and aspects of Australia’s gun control policy (i.e. confiscation, bans, and registries) to change our culture on firearms, then they can die on that hill. They’re not changing anything. As long as the GOP controls the most state legislatures (66/99), has the most elected state lawmakers since 1920, and two-thirds of the governorships, there is not much progressive change happening, let alone a shift in gun culture. So, yes, a Clinton administration may very well win the next election, but their support would barely get past the Potomac looking westward. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight to the death any politicians proposes laws that would limit our Second Amendment rights. We should fight like hell, and with Clinton—it’s looking like the NRA, NSSF, Gun Owners of America, and other pro-Second Amendment organizations and supporters sure have a fight on their hands.