Too many guns?
"... [W]e have just too many guns, on the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods..."
--Hillary Clinton, 20 April, Philadelphia
Hillary Clinton thinks we have too many guns.
Perhaps there's never been a presidential candidate with a greater disdain for privately owned firearms than Hillary Clinton. She's on the verge of beating out Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential bid, and her candidacy should be cause for concern among even the most casual of gun owners. A quick search reveals that guns are central to her campaign. She boasts that her No. 1 enemy is the National Rifle Association, and has touted her brand of "reasonable" gun safety measure paralleling that of Australia.
In case you don't remember, the widespread confiscation began in 1996 with PM John Major cutting deals with states prohibiting the sale and possession of semi-auto rifles and shotguns and then implemented a buyback--the National Firearms Buyback Program--that effectively disarmed the whole country of these and other firearms. It's estimated that between 700,000 and 1 million guns have been confiscated between the 1996 and 2003 buyback, which amounts to roughly a quarter of the guns in the country, costing the government $500 million. To pay for this, Australia raised the cost of its Medicare. What's been the effect on Australian society since implementing this plan that aimed at reducing homicides? Plenty, including a booming black market for guns and, according The New Daily, "... a massive 83 percent increase of firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria in the same period." Bravo. And this is the template Clinton aspires to follow.
Clinton also recently engaged in the highest form of pandering to A1 Sharpton's National Action Network, a racist, antiquated and farcial organization (Obama has spoken at the organization's National Convention, and frequently invites the "good reverend" to the White House). As pertaining to guns, her speech was the typical emotion-based rhetoric that we've come to expect from those who have a phobia of facts. "The man who killed Trayvon Martin should never have had a gun in the first place..." Clinton said. OK, that's a good start, now WHY should he not have had a gun?
Her emotion-based, fact-void speech is kin to Obama surrounding himself with the families of those affected by the Sandy Hook shooting. It tugs on the heartstrings of those stupid enough to buy into the ruse. Can you imagine if NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre spoke and was flanked by victims of violence who used a gun to defend themselves? He'd be vilified and accused of celebrating "murderers," which is tame compared to what he's been accused of in the past.
The point is, the tirades and emotion-based rants of Clinton and her ilk will continue, regardless of whether or not she becomes president. The danger lies in if she IS elected and can do something about it. "Something" in this case seems to be Constitution-violating totalitarian-esque executive actions, which she has alluded to in recent speeches, including one where she said she'd "go further than Obama" on gun control.
More on that later.
Best, David Hunter Jones