Critics and pundits from all over the political landscape have weighed in on Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton’s acceptance speech Thursday, from calling it “historic” to “boilerplate,” and at least one fact-checker on Fox News Friday morning suggested she fibbed when she finally got around to talking about guns.
“I’m not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment,” she insisted. “I’m not here to take away your guns.”
Of course not, sarcastic critics contend, she will simply appoint Supreme Court justices and federal court judges to take care of that. A single appointment by Clinton to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the historic 2008 Heller decision, could tilt the high court to the left.
Watch the speech here.
When Clinton contended that, “We should be working with responsible gun owners to pass common-sense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all others who would do us harm,” what was she really saying?
First, one must determine what she thinks is a “responsible gun owner.” Is that someone who obediently falls in line with assorted gun control schemes without question? She should provide specifics.
Next, she needs to clearly define what she thinks are “common-sense reforms.” Would such “reforms” include gun bans, licensing and registration? Those measures frequently seem hidden in the small print of the gun control agenda.
In her remarks, Clinton deftly used the gun control vocabulary, where “control” is not even mentioned. The term is replaced by “reform” or “safety” or some other deceptive term.
Remember, Democrat Clinton is the candidate who, during a debate last October, said she was proud to have the National Rifle Association as an enemy. This was about two weeks after the Washington Free Beacon leaked an audio of her statement at a private fundraiser in New York, where she said “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
If she is elected to succeed Barack Obama, Clinton could have the opportunity to replace two or three sitting Supreme Court justices and a lot of federal judges. Based on her past statements and votes while in the Senate, those nominees will likely share her anti-gun bias, critics suggest. That may even be the acid test.
- Follow-up: Northwest gun banners have huge credibility problem
- Historic: Dems nominate most evil person to run for President
- New report: More than 14.5 million now licensed to carry
- Pop singer at DNC: We can control who we give ‘f—ing weapons to’