Chelsea Clinton spilled the beans last spring.
“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down…”
With the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment champion Antonin Scalia safely in the grave, it was time for Hillary Clinton’s pride and joy to toss some red meat to the home crowd in attendance at a campaign stop in Maryland.
“So if you listen to Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the major efforts pushing for smart, sensible and enforceable gun control across our country, disclosure, have endorsed my mom, they say they believe the next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling,” Chelsea said. “So it matters to me that my mom is the only person running for president who not only constantly makes that connection but also has a strong record on gun control and standing up to the NRA.”
The Lefties who attempt to cover for Hillary and her tribe on this issue have done a great job attempting to disarm the opposition, maintaining that even if they wanted to take the guns away, it would be impossible because of constitutional guarantees against it. As you can see in the well travelled picture accompanying this column, they wrote up a tidy denial. An intellectually dishonest denial, but a tidy one, nonetheless.
If it did not concern such a serious issue, the internet “playbill” could be called a laughable lie. Ask a law-abiding gun owner in Washington, DC, or Chicago if the outright ban on civilians carrying handguns in public has resulted in more or less gun crime there. The two landmark gun cases heard in the last few years by the Supreme Court involved the attempt to ban gun possession in the private homes of citizens by those same local governments. The Supreme Court rejected the overreach both times, but only by a margin of 5-4.
And as Chelsea so eloquently stressed to the gathered Dems a few months ago, her mom is keenly aware that vote No. 5 is securely and quite permanently sealed up in his crypt.
So let’s cut the bullshizzle, shall we? Of course there will be no outright attempt by President Hillary or her Dem minions to “ban” guns. They know better than the damn fools in Chicago and D.C.
Those Lefties operate in a Liberal Garden of Eden with no Right Wing wrath to slow their perpetual tree hugging lovefests. These national politicians are much slicker because they have to be.
So how will the end of gun rights as we know them manifest?
Death by a thousand cuts.
Rightwing website Conservapedia listed them like this:
Restricting which persons can own firearms.
Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, “handguns” or assault rifles
Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
Requiring a “background check” and/or a “waiting period” to purchase a firearm
Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
Outright bans on private possession of firearms (which were the Supreme Court cases, Chicago vs. McDonald and DC vs. Heller, noted above, unsuccessful by a one vote margin that does not exist anymore)
Many of the above listed “controls” are common sense, but almost all of those rules can be, or have been, perverted in the attempt to get guns off the streets.
Hillary assured a crowd last week, “I don’t want to take guns away from law abiding citizens,” even though that is exactly what the standing laws of (her home town of) Chicago and (her part time hometown of) DC do every single day. Owning a gun in Chicago affords you security inside your house. Step outside, and you are square in the midst of an urban setting that sees more people die violent deaths via illegal gunfire in one month, than we saw killed during most months of our 25 years of combat in the Middle East.
And that is just one city.
The undeniable truth, based on Hillary’s track record of promises on the stump, it really doesn’t matter what she swears she will or won’t do. Do remember that on multiple occasions over her last 30 years of public service, she rejected the concept of gay marriage. Loudly. For that matter, so did President Barack Obama, also on the campaign trail at the time.
Noted gay activist and writer Andrew Sullivan described her attitude and behavior on the issue as quite damaging on several different fronts:
“She was the second most powerful person in an administration in a critical era for gay rights. And in that era, her husband signed the HIV travel ban into law (it remained on the books for 22 years thereafter), making it the only medical condition ever legislated as a bar to even a tourist entering the US. Clinton also left gay service-members in the lurch, doubling the rate of their discharges from the military, and signed DOMA, the high watermark of anti-gay legislation in American history.
Where and when it counted, the Clintons gave critical credibility to the religious right’s jihad against us.
And on the day we testified against DOMA in 1996, their Justice Department argued that there were no constitutional problems with DOMA at all (the Supreme Court eventually disagreed).
Of course, the gay eights folks forgive her and line right up to support her (as they did Obama) because they believe she had to lie about the issue to get votes (for her and/or Bill).
With Lefties, often the ends justify the means, and it is with the provided historical perspective above that I promise you, no I guarantee you, if Hillary’s Supreme Court picks have their way, they will deliver more gun control and less personal liberty, just as her own daughter promised you they would.
Don’t believe the lies they are feeding you, to convince you it won’t happen.