Newest National Review piece: "On Guns, Clinton Runs Both Left and Right, Depending on Her Audience"

Hillary on Australia's gun laws 2
CPRC's John Lott has a new piece at National Review on Hillary Clinton's views on gun control.
What does Hillary Clinton really believe on guns? This year, she is running to the left of Bernie Sanders. In 2008, she ran well to the right of Obama, arguing against any kind of federal “blanket rules.” 
On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton gave an address at Philadelphia’s St. Paul’s Baptist Church. With a nod to Pennsylvania’s high rate of gun ownership, she declared: “There is a Second Amendment, there are constitutional rights. We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners.” 
But in New York City in the fall, she told donors: “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance that I get.” In Maryland last Thursday, Chelsea Clinton reiterated that point, promising that her mom would appoint to the Supreme Court justices who would overturn past decisions that struck down local and state gun-control measures. Given that the only laws that the Supreme Court has objected to are complete gun bans or laws that made it a crime to chamber a bullet, one wonders what “constitutional rights” Clinton was talking about preserving in Philadelphia. 
Clinton has shown this split personality on guns at other points in the campaign. In the month leading up to the New Hampshire primary, gun control was the focus of a quarter of her campaign ads there. By contrast, she ran not a single gun-control ad in rural areas of Iowa. In Iowa as a whole, only 6 percent of her ads discussed guns in any way. 
When asked last October about gun laws in the U.K. and Australia, Clinton responded by extolling their virtues. She spoke highly of the U.K.’s handgun ban and of Australia’s confiscation of a third of legally owned guns. She failed to note that the U.K.’s homicide rate soared by 50 percent in the eight years after the handgun ban took full effect in 1997. The rate later fell, but only after an 18 percent increase in the number of police. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.

Labels: ,


Blogger Jerry The Geek said...

Clinton's 'antigun' comments were predicated on the votes, not the guns. She was looking for the points against Bernie, because she wanted to win in the Primaries ... not because she cared a bit about guns.

when we focus on hillary's "anti-gun agenda", we lose track of her Primary Election Agenda.
She cares nothing at all about Gun Laws; she only cares about beating her Primary Opponent; that would be Bernard Sanders.

After she wins the Democratic Primaries (which she will!) you can expect that Gun Controls will never ever again be mentioned. All she needs to do is to "beat Bernie"; from that point on, Gun Control is not an issue.

Which is not to say that in later days she won't bring it up again. Regardless of her reminiscences about having learned to shoot a gun at "Lake Whatever", it's not a priority to her;
It's a talking point. Nothing more. But it serves to placate her ignorant Democratic supporters, to whom "Gun Control" IS a priority.

As usual, Hillary will say whatever is necessary to win the Primaries. When the final election season begins, expect her to do an about-face and espouse private ownership of whatever guns are the issue ... if that's what it takes.

It's not the guns; it's the votes. During the primaries, she gets more votes from the states with a LOT of delegates, and where there are a lot of black voters ... who are generally democrats and generally against 2nd Amendment issues because they can't get guns due to Liberal baloney ...
Do the math.

(G0 Figure!)

4/26/2016 8:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home