By Selwyn Duke

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, David Kopel discusses Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s newfound love of guns.  The piece is titled "The Democrats and Gun Control," and Kopel does an excellent job of exposing the comic hypocrisy exhibited by these hard-core leftists who now masquerade as staunch supporters of second-amendment rights.  Kopel begins:

Imagine an election race of Pat Robertson versus James Dobson, each of
them appearing at organic grocery stores and Starbucks throughout
Massachusetts, with each candidate insisting that he alone deserves the
vote of gay-marriage advocates. An equally silly spectacle is taking
place these days in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West
Virginia and Kentucky, as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
compete for the pro-gun vote.

It’s an apt analogy.  And I can’t imagine a greater insult to one’s intelligence; I mean, c’mon, don’t spit down my back and tell me it’s rainin’.  What kind of two-brain cell wonders would believe that these two peas in a pod wouldn’t outlaw every firearm if they could do so with political impunity?  It’s much as if John McCain were to portray himself as a nativist who aims to deport every invader posthaste.  While he certainly has modified his rhetoric on the issue, saying that he has heard the people and understands the need for border security first, he hasn’t backtracked on his goal to provide a path to citizenship (he gets credit for relative consistency, not wisdom, mind you).

Yes, Obama and Clinton certainly have chutzpah.  Perhaps you could call this strategy "The Audacity for the Dopes" or "It takes a Village Idiot to Vote for Me."  Kopel writes of Obama’s audacious gun-control proposals:

In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law
prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a
school or park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire
inhabited portion of the United States.

As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama
endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama
campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and
that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama’s handwriting.

He trained his sites on Clinton, too:

Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly voted for antigun
proposals, and co-sponsored many of them. After Hurricane Katrina, the
New Orleans and St. Tammany police confiscated guns from law-abiding
citizens, violating an explicit Louisiana law. In some cases, the
confiscation was carried out with the assistance of federal agents, and
was perpetrated via warrantless break-ins into homes.

The next year, the U.S. Senate voted 84-16 for a
homeland security appropriations rider stating: "None of the funds
appropriated by this Act shall be used for the seizure of a firearm
based on the existence of a declaration or state of emergency." Mrs.
Clinton was one of the 16 who voted "no."

But, really, does any of this even need to be said?  Don’t get me wrong, I know there are people ignorant enough to believe these two demagogues, but I don’t imagine such folks are reading The Wall Street Journal.  OK, hyperbole aside, I’m sure it will enlighten a few souls; it’s just that it boggles the mind how some people are so detached from reality.

Oh, I should mention also that Hillary Clinton has said her father taught her to shoot when she was a girl.  This actually is possible, since her childhood was long ago and her father was not the kind of liberal he spawned, but I don’t think the lessons took.  If they had, I can’t imagine that Bill would have ever made it to the presidency.

Anyhow, any firearm owner who supports these candidates in the belief that they pose no threat to second-amendment rights deserves what he gets.  Such a person is probably too dumb to own a gun anyway.

                                     Protected by Copyright