If Clinton Wins, the 2nd Amendment Will Suffer

The best thing many conservatives can say about President Obama is that he has been largely ineffective as leader of the free world. That’s probably not an adjective he’s eager to add to his resume, but it’s considerably better than the alternative, especially if you care about the direction of this country. The things he has managed to get done – Obamacare chief among them – have been unmitigated disasters. One can only wonder what would have become of our right to bear arms had Republicans not fought him tooth and nail following the Newtown massacre.

Well, actually, we may not have to wonder much longer. Because if Obama dislikes guns, Democratic nominee-in-waiting Hillary Clinton despises them. And while there’s little to indicate that Hillary would be any more effective than Obama when it comes to advancing her liberal agenda, she does have one thing that he didn’t have: Bill Clinton. And say what you will about ol’ Slick Willie, the fact is that no one plays Washington like the nation’s 42nd president. If Clinton can summon even a fraction of his negotiating talent, it could spell serious trouble for the 2nd Amendment.

“Something is deeply wrong,” Hillary said on Friday, days after the shocking murders in Roanoke, VA. “I believe we can have common sense gun reform that keeps weapons out of the hands that should not have them – domestic abusers, the violently unstable – while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners.”

She’s wrong. Quite frankly, we already have laws that aim to do just that – laws that already violate the rights of responsible gun owners – and they do little to curb gun violence. Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles have some of the toughest gun laws in the country while simultaneously boasting the highest murder rates. If you believe the likes of Hillary Clinton, you must think all of those shooters took advantage of the “gun show loophole.” Or something.

“It happens every day,” she said, “and there is so much evidence that if guns were not so readily available, if we had universal background checks, if we could put some timeout between the person who is upset because he got fired or the domestic abuse or whatever other motivation may be working on someone who does this – that maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage.”

This remark is especially silly in light of the fact that Vester Lee Flanagan, the Roanoke shooter, bought his gun legally. Passed a background check. Waited some two months before carrying out the “carnage.” Democrats hear that and say, well, it’s not about this specific event. But they’re more than happy to use this specific event if it matches their aims. It’s only when the facts come out that they back away and try to generalize it once more.

As Obamacare takes us a step closer to federalized healthcare, so Clinton’s gun proposals would take us closer to universal confiscation of firearms. Once they have their national registry in place, the Second Amendment is there for the burning. And when that happens, gangs and violent criminals will still have their guns. Only the law-abiding will be disarmed.

Comments are closed.