In previous posts I've highlighted the threats facing the right to keep and bear arms in America for 2016. Hillary Clinton has come out of the woodwork, saying that 'gun culture' needs to be reigned in by banning guns she doesn't like, banning guns from places she doesn't like, and banning accessories she doesn't like.
Clinton is using examples of tragedies to push for her political agenda, insinuating that all gun owners who carry firearms will act like a man who murdered a teen for his loud music, or the older gentleman who shot someone in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him.
She says laws need to be put in place to 'stop' these acts of 'gun violence'. Turns out, laws already exist to punish people who unreasonably use force or murder people. If Clinton truly wanted to woo gun owners to her cause, she would drop the gun ban schemes all together and push to enforce the laws already on the books. If Clinton remained neutral on the issue of guns, but insisted the law be enforced- I would probably support her, even though she is a democrat.
The democratic party has declared a war on legal gun ownership in America, often equating law abiding gun owners with thugs, murderers and gang bangers, as Chicago has done in the past. I know from personal experience.
Destroying a proud gun culture in America of responsibility and integrity is central to Clinton's mission; playing right into the Brady 3 step playbook of pistol banning, registration, then confiscation. Fudds who are Democrat will likely support her without thinking, but with a statement that gun culture in America should be 'attacked' will piss off some of the Fudds who at least have half of a brain.
As an gun owner who is distancing himself from the National Rifle Association on non-firearm issues, I am not, for one second- buying anything Hillary Clinton says. The focus of her efforts should be on educating people in what to do if they see a firearm, safe lessons for children, supporting educational scouting initiatives, enforcing the law to punish those who are irresponsible with their firearms, and of course- throw the book at people who misuse the awesome responsibility of carrying around a lethal weapon. These things are the right things to do. The federal government has declared that these initiatives are 'too expensive' and 'too hard' to accomplish, let alone outline. Instead they are coming after the lawful gun owners- and my girls Madison, Hilde and Alexis.
Her definitions of everything I've talked about are the polar opposite to everything I say and believe in as a moderate American who is liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal and grab bag issues. In other words, ultra-conservative people hate me, in addition to ultra-liberals thinking I am in league with some ulterior motive.
Regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, societal status or beliefs- I believe every American has the fundamental rights enshrined (not given by) the Constitution to the United States of America.
No one can own a gun anywhere at anytime. Felons are prohibited from owning guns. Spouse beaters are prohibited from owning guns. I have to fill out a background check every time I go to a gun show or an FFL dealer. The universal background checks you are pushing are impossible to enforce on the general population. The reality of the matter is contradictory to what you say and believe. The criminals are going to buy guns off of the streets or steal them. If you want to get anywhere, start enforcing federal gun crime laws while promoting safe firearms handling and education. Your proclamations are rooted in political ideologies and fantasies. We cannot have such an impractical politician running the known free world.
You are basically saying that an inalienable right is irresponsible and outdated; and that Americans should not be able to exercise it. That kind of rhetoric is extremely dangerous to our rights and to our constitutional federal republic. You say that we have to 'reign in' culture by instituting laws that aim to destroy it, but completely fail to grasp the fact that there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. If you don't enforce them to begin with, why do you think one additional law will do any better when the tools to fight illegal gun use exist? You claim that the 'dark road ahead' that is established 'gun culture' is seen in comparable 3rd world countries where there is no force of law.
Give me a f-----g break.
"The proliferation of guns combined with few restrictions on where they
can be carried can “give someone the means to respond in the moment in a
way that he wouldn’t if a few minutes passed and there was no means to
inflict harm …"
There is no way to truly stop occurrences of irresponsibility. This is why there are consequences to our actions (note: politicians have little to no consequences for their actions because we do not hold them accountable). Are you insinuating that if my life is in danger, that I don't have the right to protect myself? Are you saying that if someone pisses me off, I am going to shoot him or her instead of 'thinking it through?'
Did you know that, as a law abiding gun owner I think murder and assault with a deadly weapon are wrong? Did you also know that there are punishments for those who abuse their rights to harm others unjustifiably? You are claiming that a fundamental right is irresponsible and that the only way to 'reign it in' is to 'destroy gun culture' and begin the process of banning and confiscating firearms from law abiding people. You're going after the wrong type of people and you know it. I want none of what you're smoking.
Homicide is justifiable only if the person who shoots had a reasonable; and I mean [a common man's idea of] REASONABLE belief that death or serious injury was imminent. If you believe that an honest American has no right to protect themselves as a last resort, and you insist on keeping bodyguards with weapons surrounding you, then there is no way you and I can have a serious discussion due to your hypocrisy.
I know you don't like guns and you don't like gun owners. Your party has shown a knack for hating others that disagree with you. The opposite party is no different, Mrs. Clinton. Before we have an honest discussion about how to make people more safe and knowledgeable about firearms, we need to drop the act, the ideology, the political agenda, the hatred of guns and the idea that the government will be coming to the rescue on an extremely short notice.
Also Mrs. Clinton. As a general statistic, you are three times more likely [as a normal Joe] to be shot by the gun of a cop than by my gun. Let's be real Mrs. Clinton- there are ways we can respect 2nd amendment rights and get people the help they need in addition to... you know... actually requiring armed security in gun free zones.