In the latest round of primaries, liberal candidates seem to be competing in a race to the bottom when it comes to the Second Amendment, and currently Hillary Clinton is leading the charge.
Clinton, the lead Democratic candidate, has been adamant about changing the “gun culture” in the United States. Unfortunately, Senator Bernie Sanders has significantly shifted his stance on the issue to favor more gun control in order to compete.
But what does Clinton mean by gun culture, exactly? As in America is a nation that allows you the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense? Or, is she talking about the gun culture that has actually saved lives and prevented potential tragedies? (These occasions often receive significantly less media attention).
An example of the right to bear arms saving lives would be the May, 2015 Prophet Muhammed Art Contest where a security guard shot and killed two armed gunmen in a matter of minutes. Had the off-duty police officer not been there or been unarmed, many innocent people could have lost their lives.
During this presidential election, I’ve observed a serious difference between the parties when discussing gun control. Hillary Clinton, like other gun-control advocates, uses school shootings to push forward her agenda of more gun control, more regulations and increased government interference.
In an attempt to further erode our rights as Americans, liberals and the media often use incorrect rhetoric about the functionality of certain firearms and firearm features. Specifically, the media often latches onto semi-automatic weapons for aesthetic purposes rather than functionality. I applaud the way that conservatives have consistently cut through media-coined terms surrounding firearms by focusing on the facts.
Those advocating for gun rights reject the misleading term ‘assault weapon,’ and instead use factually-accurate terms like ‘modern sporting rifle’ or simply ‘semi-automatic weapons.’ Not only is the term ‘assault weapon’ misleading, but those who use it often times struggle to define what that term even means.
While conservatives focus their language on the facts, liberals are more likely to use emotional terms like “assault rifles” or “weapons of war” to help characterize certain firearms as extreme, non-mainstream weapons with no legitimate purpose. However, no matter what anyone decides to call semi-automatic rifles, the fact remains that rifles of ALL kinds account for only 2.5% of U.S. homicides. Rifles, including the common media villain, the AR-15, are extremely common sporting firearms that have legitimate roles in hunting, sport, collecting and self-defense.
It seems that liberals like Hillary Clinton are focused on knee-jerk reactions to gun tragedies. These tragedies should not go unacknowledged or unnoticed, but more laws and regulations are not the answer to preventing tragedies from occuring.
The fact remains that the vast majority of gun related tragedies this country has faced would not have been prevented by more laws. In most cases, the perpetrators either stole the weapon or passed a background check. This speaks volumes to the fact that background checks cannot predict future crimes, and that laws do not stop criminals from committing crimes.
The Second Amendment has been a part of our national DNA since our country was founded. It states in part “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
To me, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to “changing the gun culture” is unproductive and misleading.
Comments