Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation’s gun culture has gotten “way out of balance” and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”
Mostly I suspect because gun owners won’t vote for her, and those people need to be defenseless!
“I think again we’re way out of balance. I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” Clinton said. “And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”
First up, here’s one magical thinking of anti-rights cultists. No anybody CAN’T get a gun…well at least legally. We’ll get into that part in a bit. But legally there are prohibited people, and underage people, and people who simply can’t afford one. Still it strikes me as a huge logical disconnect, she supports the right people to own guns…but wants less people to own guns. Yeah, we call that lying! It’s really nothing more than a joke these days when somebody saying “I support the Second Amendment but….”
The next bit of magic has no quote. There is NOTHING to quote. How does Hillary plan on fixing this? Yeah, I’ll instead quote Joe Huffman who said it better than I could:
I find it very telling that if they enumerate what they think are “common-sense solutions” they don’t make them easy to find on their web site. I couldn’t find them. If they really had solutions don’t you think they would announce them all to the world? What this means to me is they are running an emotional appeal, as they have already admitted, and will push whatever restrictive law they believe has a chance of passing. Facts and logic aren’t their tools in trade.
If you have a plan, why not share it? A Devil’s advocate statement could be that they DON’T have a plan, which means they’re worthless spammers, but the reality is they DO have a plan, but they don’t dare speak it, or are willing to lie about it. See above “Supporting the 2nd Amendment” but wanting to ignore it, or various gun banners saying they don’t want to ban guns, or aren’t coming for your guns. L I E! Pants on FIRE!
Still the biggest one is this:
Clinton told attendees at the mental health conference that “at the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated” in settings like movie theaters where shootings have arisen over seemingly mundane things like loud gum chewing or cellphone use.
“That’s what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control and that is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention,” she said.
Well we covered the movie theater shooting she’s likely referencing here. Curtis Reeves shot a man for texting on his cellphone during a movie, and is now facing murder charges that I suspect he won’t be able to beat. He’s in Jail right now, and will likely never breath free air ever again.
So what’s with this comment comparing this event to countries that have no effective legal system?
Simple the anti-rights cult is promising something that will never happen. They promise that if we make something illegal that thing will no longer happen….you know like murder. See also the use of illegal drugs.
There is a reason why the anti-rights people when talking about US “Gun Death” they exclude huge numbers of countries. #1. Those countries have really strict gun laws AND high “Gun Death” rates, which is counter-productive to their argument and political goals. #2. Because of the weak legal system in these countries people are likely to get away with murder and other violent crime because police simply don’t exist, or can be bought for a price.
Does that sound like here?
At the basis of all anti-gun arguments are A) Worthless malum prohibitum laws that really have nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Stuff like if your gun has a “protruding pistol grip” or if you can buy your ammo online, or Numbers game where adding just one more round to a magazine becomes a serious crime, or adding a fraction of an inch to a bullet diameter, or shaving a fraction of an inch off a long-gun barrel. Also while the Magazine ban in Massachusetts makes it a felony for me to own an M&P9c Magazine that holds 12 rather than the restricted 10, or buying a new 20 round FAL magazine, they talk about 30 round Pistol magazines and 100 round rifle magazines! Their goal is to incite emotions when they’re not really targeting a 100 AR Beta mag, but your standard 30 or 20 round P-Mag! Or B) Laws that don’t actually target violent or anti-social behavior but promise to reduce or eliminate already illegal behavior. Take “Universal Background Checks”, this isn’t a law designed to combat the rampant problems with lending your buddy a hunting rifle for the weekend, or selling a weapon from your private collection face-to-face, instead people arguing these laws talk about criminals acquiring guns. Except a convicted felon cannot OWN a gun no matter how they acquire it! They talk about repealing Stand Your Ground law because some people have murdered other people and attempted (or in most cases didn’t attempt, but why let facts get in the way) to invoke the law to protect themselves. Only this doesn’t work! Murder is illegal! Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine does NOT make murder legal, and if you murder somebody you are just as much of a criminal in Florida as you are in New York.
So what do these laws ACTUALLY do? They simply make otherwise lawful and upstanding citizens criminals.