Yesterday, Politico ran an article about Hillary Clinton commenting, in detail, on domestic policy. No surprise, she was pushing for more gun control:
“We have to rein in what has become [an] almost article of faith, that anybody can own a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that,” [Hillary Clinton] said.
Why? If people are peaceful, non-violent people, why does it matter if they have guns or not?
Should violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill be blocked from possessing firearms? Certainly, but considering that the vast, vast majority of people are ordinary, responsible, peaceful people it seems silly to worry about them responsibly owning and carrying arms.
Clinton, who argued it was possible to hold her position and still support the right to gun ownership, warned that unfettered access to guns could have dangerous consequences. She called the country’s approach to guns “way out of balance,” and referred to cases in which gun violence has erupted over minor issues.
I fail to see how overturning restrictive, unconstitutional laws and restoring liberty is somehow “way out of balance”.
I’m not sure what sort of cognitive gymnastics are needed to simultaneously think that restricting the right to keep and bear arms is somehow also supporting that right, but such a performance would be worthy of an Olympic-level gymnast.
And yes, while violence involving firearms has arisen over minor issues, overall gun violence is way, way down since the time her husband was in office, even though the number of guns in private hands has dramatically increased and gun laws have been liberalized.
She painted a dark picture, warning that, “At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don’t like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gum chewer or cell phone user by shooting.”
Clinton continued, “That’s what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there’s no rule of law.”
So people who undergo the training and checks needed to get a carry permit — that is, they’re following the law — are somehow more apt to fits of violence? Seems unlikely to me. Certainly, such incidents have happened but they are the exception rather than the rule, and the people who committed such acts are either in jail or facing criminal charges.
It’s nonsensical to compare people who obey the law, get training, background checks, and permits with people in lawless countries.
The proliferation of guns combined with few restrictions on where they can be carried can “give someone the means to respond in the moment in a way that he wouldn’t if a few minutes passed and there was no means to inflict harm … We really have got to get our arms around this,” she said.
I agree with her but not in the way she intends.
I wholeheartedly agree that widespread carriage of arms by the public “give[s] someone the means to respond” that they would otherwise lack if they had “no means to inflict harm”. I think that’s a good thing, because honest people can defend themselves from violent criminals. Without a gun, the honest person is considerably less able to offer meaningful resistance.
While it was always obvious that Mrs. Clinton was never a friend of the Second Amendment or legal gun owners, this is pretty clear-cut evidence that she’s opposed to gun rights.