Why would you want to elect Hillary Clinton president? Why, so she can “rein in” these silly notions you have of being able to exercise the rights the Constitution guarantees you. After all, you might think you’re getting a gun to protect yourself from bad guys (whether of the street variety or of the official variety), but Hillary Clinton is smarter and more sophisticated than you, and she knows that what you will really do is pull out your piece and blow away some stranger who is annoying you by talking on their phone or chewing gum.
How do I know she thinks this? Because she said it:
Speaking at a National Council for Behavioral Health conference outside of Washington, Clinton was asked about the role guns play in suicides. While Clinton said she supports Second Amendment rights, she added that there needs to be a proper trade-off between safety and freedom, and that things have swung too far toward the latter.
“I think again we’re way out of balance. We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people,” she said.
She referred to recent high-profile incidents of minor disputes in movie theaters or parking lots that escalated into lethal shootings, saying, “That’s what happens in the countries I’ve visited that have no rule of law.”
She decried new laws proliferating across the country that allow people to carry weapons in churches, bars, and other public places, saying that they will only lead to more deadly violence that could otherwise be avoided. “At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns,” she continued, “in settings where … [they] decide they have a perfect right to defend themselves against the gum chewer or the cell-phone talker.”
Interesting how Hillary views the “rule of law” in this discussion. It seems to me that it’s quite against the law in America to shoot people in parking lots and movie theaters because you’re having a dispute with them. You do that, you get arrested, you get convicted, you go to prison. That’s the rule of law.
But not to Hillary. To her, the “rule of law” apparently means that the government has to “rein in” your notions of constitutional freedom because of the possibility that someone somewhere might commit such a crime.
Oh, just so you know, Hillary says she supports Second Amendment right. But just so you know, she is lying. She does not support Second Amendment rights. Because if she did, she wouldn’t be proposing to curtail them by citing isolated situations for which there is already a prescription in law to address.
The key to understanding Hillary’s thinking here is to look carefully at what she says needs to be “reined in.” It is not gun violence itself, but the notions people have of their rights. That is consistent with her thinking throughout her entire career. She is a collectivist at heart, and thinks the working of centrally controlled “systems” is far more important than the rights of any individual. We can’t have all these people just running around willy nilly doing whatever they want!
It gets to a fundamental question about American governance: Do the people tell government the limits of its power? Or does the government tell people the limits of their rights? There is no question at all - none - that Hillary Clinton believes the latter is correct. And she believes she is the perfect person to head that government and decide how to “rein in” your rights.
If America elects this woman, it deserves to go the way of the Soviet Union, and probably will.
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
A new edition of Dan’s book “Powers and Principalities” is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement