|
Hillary Clinton: Australia-Style Gun Confiscation ‘Worth Considering’ for U.S.
Hillary Clinton said that a gun confiscation measure similar to the one implemented in Australia “would be worth considering” at the national level on Friday.
Clinton was asked at a New Hampshire town hall whether she thought an Australian-style policy could be implemented in the U.S.
“Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?” A New Hampshire man asked Clinton.
“I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at,” Clinton said.
President Obama Shows His True Gun Control Agenda
Most of the media attention on President Obama’s renewed calls for gun control has focused on the tone of his remarks, rather than on the substance of what he said. You don’t have to scratch very deep, however, to understand that what the president really wants to see in the U.S. is gun confiscation.
Reiterating his support for gun control last week, Obama vowed, “I am going to talk about this, on a regular basis, and I will politicize it.…”
For once, we are willing to take the president at his word.
Clinton Says That the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
A recent CNN/ORC International Poll found that 57-percent of Americans do not find Hillary Clinton “honest or trustworthy.” If there are figures in American public life with a stronger disregard for the rights of the American people, they have yet to come to our attention.
Obviously, Clinton is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The central conclusion in Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The McDonald decision made clear that this right is fundamental and applies to all Americans.
When Clinton said, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” she was making clear her opposition to our individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense; to her, governments at every level can strip us of this right without restriction.
“F” Stands for Fail: Politifact Flip-Flops to Advocate Anti-Gun Narrative
As we’ve reported here, here, and here, one of the more favored, yet discredited, claims made by gun control advocates is that 40% of firearm transfers take place without a background check. Mark Kelly, of Americans for Responsible Solutions, is particularly attached to this deception, bringing it up once again in the wake of the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, OR last week.
Fact checkers have routinely pointed out numerous problems with the 40% statistic, with the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler giving Obama “Three Pinocchios” when the President cited the bogus claim back in 2013.
Anti Gun Democrats Renew Call for … Well, You Know the Rest
Surrounded by armed law enforcement officers, thirty partisan senators gathered on the Capitol steps Thursday, demanding that the public create “a groundswell of urgency” for gun control. Their sentiments parroted earlier comments by the president, who insisted that each American will “just have to, for a while be a single issue voter” for the cause.
Neither the president nor the senators actually unveiled legislative language for the American people to evaluate.
Gallup: More Americans Say Federal Government a Threat
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is there for a simple reason: Our Founding Fathers wisely understood that even a national government of supposedly limited powers could overstep its bounds and infringe upon the rights of the people. In the landmark Heller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the Founders considered the Second Amendment a failsafe that would provide the people with the means “to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”
Whatever else can be said about the efficacy or integrity of the government these days, America is fortunate that its people still have ample means to seek peaceful redress of grievances. Yet a new poll shows that the Founders’ concerns about the overreaching tendencies of centralized power remain on the mind of many U.S. citizens. Gallup reported on Monday that the share of Americans saying that the federal government poses “an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens” has risen from 30 percent in 2003 to 49 percent today.
|
