"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… We’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before."
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Obviously, Hillary, who appears to be in full campaign mode for the 2016 Presidential election, thinks that the "gun-rights" crowd in this country is such a "very, very, very small group" that she isn't going to waste the time pretending she likes or supports them so as to garner some of their votes. Well, isn't that a breath of fresh air? A politician that refuses to lie to get votes from people she loathes? Who would have thunk it? But there are certain ironies in what she did say that I would like to take a moment to point out.
Some libertarians have tried to split hairs with Hillary over the exact proportion of Americans that believe in their right to own weapons, but I think the simpler answer can be found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..." and among these unalienable rights is "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Now the last time I checked, "all" is equal to 100% which I think is the largest fraction one can derive from a single grouping which would therefore make that a clear majority. Now my area of expertise is not Advanced Mathematics so if someone who is more versed in the calculation and crunching of numbers and statistics can explain to me where my error is, I would be willing to listen.
Secondly, Hillary says, "We cannot let a minority of people...hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of (the people)..." But isn't that the very essence of government? For what is government but a small group of fallible human beings who have decided to "live long and prosper" at the expense of a large number of their fellow human beings who they terrorize and intimidate through fear of prosecution and punishment for disobedience. And we all know that Hillary and her family have prospered quite well (contrary to her own opinion on the matter) by being at the top of the food chain in that certain organized criminal enterprise.
Thirdly, Hillary, who has claimed in the past that she always sticks up for the "little guy," now appears to advocating for trampling on the rights of the minority as long as a majority of the voting electorate (but not necessarily of the affected population) agrees with her. Socialists of all types - Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and Progressives, as Hillary has described herself - have always embraced absolute, unfettered democracy as it worked for them to achieve total control over a nation, but not after they have obtained the pinnacle of power they desired. This was what Jefferson referred to as the "Tyranny of the Mob."
Unfortunately for them, the United States federal government was not established as a democracy, but rather as a Constitutionally-restricted Republic, where the powers of the government are few and limited while the rights of the people, particularly the small groups that are different from the larger population, are limitless and respected and protected by the government (supposedly, at least). It seems that Hillary wants to reverse this so if she gets the political backing of 50% plus one, she can then dispense with the Constitution and the restrictions placed on the powers of the government contained within.
Last, but not least and most certainly the most ironic point so far, is that the very type of firearms that Hillary is whining about here - what she calls "automatic weapons," though fully automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and other ignoramuses (or is that "ignorami?") call "assault weapons," which is a meaningless political term and not a genuine classification - are the best type of weapons to use when dealing with a criminally aggressive and unruly mob.
Imagine for a moment that a whole village is aroused to storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle. There they are marching up his driveway with torches and pitchforks in hand when suddenly Dr. Frankenstein (or his monster) steps out on the front porch (or is that a "portico?") with a Colt AR-15 at the ready with a standard-capacity magazine inserted and fully loaded and a dozen more securely attached on or about the good doctor's person. Can you not see one member of this crowd, realizing that Dr. Frankenstein has enough ammunition to deal with each and every person present twice over, shouting, "Hey everybody, 'America's Got Talent' is on in five minutes!" Then the whole mob disperses as everyone rushes home to watch television (and some people say you have to fire a gun to make it stop criminals in their tracks...hmmm?).
Now Hillary, the presumptive Presidential candidate for the Democrat party in 2016 (for some the presumptive next President in 2017), strikes me as a reasonably intelligent woman and she has to remember what happened to the Democrats during her husband's reign of terror in the White House after the 1994 "Assault Weapons" (sic) Ban was passed, so why would she hitch her wagon to the gun control/victim disarmament horse this early in the race for the Presidency and draw the ire of those who would vote against her on that issue alone? Two divergent, but possible paths come to my mind at this point.
The polls, or the Powers-that-be, have told Hillary that the job is hers for the asking and all she has to really do is show up on Inauguration Day. The fix is in and it's not who votes that counts but who counts the votes. In that case Hillary doesn't have to lie or otherwise engage in subterfuge to win any particular voting bloc. We can just consider her to be warming up the American people to be more accepting as she installs the Fourth Reich in our halls of government. Or...
The polls, the Powers-that-be, or her personal physician have told Hillary that she will not make it to the White House. Therefore, as a dutiful party member, she is running interference for a more moderate candidate to step forward. In the role of the "bad cop," she calls for more restrictive gun control laws as another candidate from either party, as long as he or she is a Progressive, will play the role of "good cop" by saying, "I respect the Second Amendment and I only ask for some reasonable laws that help keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands." What goes unsaid is that this candidate considers the "wrong hands" to be those at the end of our arms.
Only time will tell for sure but I wanted to give all of you a heads up as to what to watch for over the next couple of years. I hope you all appreciate the risk to life and limb I've taken here to post this little expose. Like many powerful people, Hillary maintains an enemies list. The good news is that it is a short list. The bad news is that it is a short list because people are just dying to get off of it. Maybe, if I'm lucky, she'll just throw a lamp at me...