The Hill is reporting this morning that “gun control advocates have high hopes for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, viewing her as an ally who can finish the push for tightened background checks that has stalled in President Obama’s second term.”
Evidently, all of those criticisms and warnings aimed at Clinton by Second Amendment advocates are correct, then. It is not just background checks that a Hillary presidency would tighten, those activists fear, but the regulatory noose around their necks as gun owners.
After all, how can tens of millions of law-abiding citizens view a Hillary presidency with anything other than concern after hearing this remark: “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that terrorizes the majority of people.” That’s what she said last year during a CNN town hall event at which she suggested that groups opposed to more gun control, including bans on semi-autos, are “out of step” with public opinion.
The Hill said in its morning report, “While an emphasis on guns could help Clinton win over the left, it could prove to be a liability in several battleground states that could decide the presidential election.” The story noted something this column reported several days ago, that for the first time in recent memory, more Americans believe it is more important to protect gun rights than to discourage gun ownership, according to Pew Research.
That Pew poll also revealed that more than twice the number of people think having a gun in the home makes it safer (63%) than those who think having a gun in the home makes it more dangerous (30%). That’s quite a reversal from a poll 15 years ago, the Pew article noted, when more than half of those surveyed thought guns in the home made things more dangerous, and only 35 percent believed a gun made the home safer.
Perhaps it is Hillary, not American gun owners, who is out of step with public opinion. Or, if one takes a look at the National Journal, it might be concluded that Hillary’s Democratic Party is getting more out of step. According to the story that appeared yesterday, “On guns, Democratic attitudes have changed little, while the GOP has tilted dramatically toward emphasizing gun rights over gun control.”
It appears the GOP has kept up more with the changing public attitude toward the Second Amendment than Democrats. Perhaps it is not so hard, then, to understand why Democrats have come to be known as “the party of gun control,” despite there being some very staunch pro-gun Democrats.
MEANWHILE, it appears the plan by gun control proponents to march from Seattle across the I-90 floating bridge to Mercer Island on Saturday, May 9, has apparently been scrapped. This appears to be due to concerns about a proposed counter-march by Second Amendment activists, including many from the Open Carry community, according to an e-mail forwarded to this column.
Firearms owners have never shown any reticence about interacting with gun prohibitionists; quite the opposite, actually. It is the gun control people who seem to be repulsed by the prospect of even being in the same room with armed citizens, as witnessed by the efforts of Moms Demand Action to coerce major chains including Safeway and Kroger to prohibit firearms in their stores.
But remember what happened earlier this month at a Yakima Wal-Mart? A man legally carrying his sidearm openly while shopping with his son was attacked by another man using a metal bat. While the armed citizen would likely have been justified in shooting his attacker, he instead held the man at gunpoint until police arrived. The attacker now faces criminal charges.
Hillary Clinton has a legal background. Perhaps someone might ask her on her next swing to pick up some cash from Evergreen State supporters how she feels about defending one’s self against an attack with a metal bat. Maybe Clinton would be willing to meet with local gun rights activists. If she had promised to be here for the May 9 event, that might have easily been arranged.
Got an opinion about this column? Share your views in the “Comments” section below.