From the HuffingtonPost.com:
Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
by Paige Lavender
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.
Translation: we cannot let those who cling to God and guns to stand in the way of the various Leftist goals of a completely defenseless society subject to — well — being nothing more than Subjects. Proles. Serfs. Groundlings.
For one thing, that’s working so well for Mexico — a country controlled by a corrupt government and drug cartels armed to the teeth and willing to set your children on fire.
It’s also working so well for the civilians in Africa. Name a nation. Any nation.
And the civilians in Iraq. Working really well there. Yes?
This is a shocking statement to me, frankly. This is Hillary Clinton kicking the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights aside. Which indicates to me that she has no concept whatsoever of the purpose and reasons for the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. This is the most disturbing point of all.
As I wrote here back in May of 2010, the issue is that of positive vs negative rights. I said:
Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.
- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures
– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment
And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.
By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”
Meaning: the conscription of bank accounts, and the redistribution of wealth. Not just of the so-called “wealthy,” but of you and of me.
In other words, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights purposely constricts the government; it seeks not to expand the role of government.
But back to the present: Hillary Clinton cannot stand that the US Constitution is not a so-called “living document” that is subject to change but upon a whim. And in her mind, your First and Second Amendments are nothing but fairy dust subject to the temper of the times, as dictated by Leftists.
And that is so incredibly frustrating to her and fellow LeftProgs.
Just clinging to our God and our guns. As the barbarians we are. We: who believe in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Plus this from TheNewAmerican.com:
Obama, Media Mislead on Gun Crime Statistics in U.S., Australia
by Bob Adelmann
The Troutdale, Oregon, shooting on June 10 gave both the president and the liberal media another opportunity to rehash old arguments and repeat old lies about the need for more gun control in the United States. When Jared Padgett entered a boys’ locker room at Reynolds High School on June 10, he murdered a classmate before being confronted by armed officers. Following that confrontation, Padgett took his own life.
The fact that he stole the weapons from his family home, defeating various security measures, meant that he also defeated any background check measures that were in place to prevent such a shooting from occurring.
That simple fact escaped the attention of the president who, taking advantage of the tragedy, pushed his ongoing agenda for more gun control measures.
He (Obama) then reiterated the myth that gun confiscation measures implemented nearly 20 years ago in Australia had significantly reduced such mass shootings there and that, by implication, the United States should go and do likewise:
A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, “Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,” and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.
But here’s the rub: statistics are statistics.
Neither the president nor Washington Post referred to the latest report from Pew Research which showed that the gun homicide rate in the United States has declined by half since 1993. Said Pew:
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew.
The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm — assaults, robberies and sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.
Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
This startling downward trend was taking place at the same time that the number of firearms, and their owners, have been increasing. In just one year, for example, the percentage of American households owning at least one firearm has increased by five percent from 2012 to 2013.
Neither the president nor the Post noted that according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008.” When using four deaths per incident, as a recent Congressional Research report did, there were a total of just 547 deaths from mass shootings in the United States in the 30 years from 1983 through 2012, far less than the “one per week” quoted by the president.
And yes. When gun crime is actually down, gun crime reporting is actually up and purposely so. For obvious reasons.
Again, more truth that no one wants to have exposed — but I shall do so now and here at Bloviating Zeppelin:
As far as Australia is concerned, the president also failed the Pinocchio test by suggesting that violent crime and gun homicides had declined there since that country confiscated long guns and bought back more than 70,000 handguns following passage of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in 1996. In August, 2008 the University of Melbourne published the results of its study of the matter (“The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths”) and concluded that “the results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” But it most certainly did have an effect on relegating its citizens to second-class status. As Australian member of parliament David Leyonhjelm wrote in an email to Guns.com:
The gun laws have made no difference [in] the level of homicides, up or down….
The bottom line is [that] we are suffering under draconian gun laws that treat us like criminals in waiting, with zero public benefit but substantial public cost.
If President Obama genuinely believes Australia offers a model for reducing firearm crime … he is seriously misinformed.