Thursday, May 8, 2014

Hillary's Foray into Gun Control

An axiom of politics is that one must run to the base to secure the nomination, then pivot to the center to win the election.  Is that why Hillary went to great length to spell out her stance on gun control?

Speaking from an armchair to an assembly of the National Council of Behavioral Health, she responded to a question about the use of guns in suicides by hovering near a third rail of political discourse – an attempt to spell out a position on gun control, a forlorn hope with the Left in all cases up to now.
I think again we're way out of balance.  We've got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time.  And I don't believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.

[High-profile incidents in movie theaters and parking lots are] what happens in the countries I've visited that have no rule of law.

At the rate we're going, we're going to have so many people with guns in settings where … [they] decide they have a perfect right to defend themselves against the gum chewer or the cell-phone talker.
People who are bound and determined to take out a cell-phone talker don't need permission to do so; it is the others who have a perfect right to defend themselves against such maniacs and criminals.

I could go much further on that principle, but the focus here is on why she would introduce a relatively lengthy explanation beyond the question.  (To add some precision about the original question at the conference, some two-thirds of gun deaths in America are from suicide, lest we be led to believe that there are raging gun battles in our streets – other than in Chicago, Detroit, Washington, Los Angeles – those areas with strict gun control laws.  But guns don't commit suicide; people do.)

The Left has sought to impose gun control restrictions for years now, ignoring the clear meaning of the Second Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms, clarified in recent years by the Supreme Court.  Nevertheless, people such as former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg persist in bankrolling efforts to set up obstacles despite the fact that now all fifty states have some form of carry permit for citizens.  That evolution has seen an increase in the general public of gun possession and a huge increase in concealed carry permits, yet a definite decrease in gun crime, the opposite of Hillary's doomsday scenario.

Hillary and others like her are rolling against the tide, and the Left loses track of the fact that gun control attempts consistently fail or are at the very least only temporarily successful.  Attempts by Dukakis, Bill Clinton (losing Congress in a landslide in 1994), and Gore all had painful consequences, and states like Colorado, New York, and Connecticut are seeing stiff resistance – civil disobedience from citizens and law enforcement alike.

What would compel her to talk at length about 'reining in the rights' of citizens in a prospective presidential campaign?  She is touted as a shoo-in for the Democrat nomination (but then, she was before), despite her age.  (Reagan was criticized for being the oldest President in history at his inauguration.  Hillary would be just shy of that age at [*gag] hers.)

There is talk that the Democrat field could have a challenge from the deeper blue part of the spectrum, perhaps from Elizabeth 'Fauxcahontas' Warren, who demurs at the present but I expect that she could be prevailed upon.  After making such a declaration in favor of gun control, could Hillary pivot back again?  Sure, she's done it before.  That's easy when you are a professional politician, blessed with such a credulous audience.


  1. "What would compel her to talk at length about 'reining in the rights' of citizens in a prospective presidential campaign?"

    Because all they have is rhetorical posturng.They don't have facts on their side...they don't have logic and reason on ther side....and they don't have the Constitution on their side. All they have is "guns are icky...mmmkay?"

  2. She is, to put it politely, crazy as hell. In the way the Left usually is. They're always ought to stop something or other.

    1. Yes, they have to add their tremulous vocal support to some hair-brained scheme.


Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.

Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.

Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.

I will also delete all comments that link to a commercial site.