Washington Post: “Democratic Candidates Vowed To Toughen Restrictions On Gun Owners”

Democrats and their enablers/supporters/defenders in the media constantly tell us that they do not want to restrict lawful gun owner’s Rights, they just want to stop shootings and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Here’s a big Kinsley gaffe

After years of hesitation, Democrats rally around calls for gun control

The Democratic presidential candidates have thrust gun control forward as a dominant issue for the national election, signaling a sea change in the politics of a controversial subject that recent Democratic nominees have often avoided.

After years of deadly mass shootings across the country, and with President Obama voicing deep frustration with inaction by Republicans in Congress, the Democratic candidates led by Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed in a debate here Tuesday night to toughen restrictions on gun owners and gun manufacturers.

Right there is the truth of the matter: Democrats want to toughen control on all gun owners, something we’ve known for years, but never ends up in print. Virtually every piece of legislation Democrats push and every talking point that passes their lips is about restricting the law abiding gun owners, rather than going after the criminals. How has gun control worked in Democratic Party cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Camden, and Chicago, among others?

Bans on “assault weapons”, which are simply scary (well, scary to the gun grabbers) looking weapons that tend to fire lower powered bullets and are lighter than non-scary looking weapons with wood stocks primarily affects those who want to purchase legally for recreation, hunting (not that many), and home defense. Guess who gets hurt the most? Women, for whom the lighter weight makes them ideal.

But Brian Walsh, a GOP consultant and former spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said that Clinton will almost certainly tone down her talk on gun control if she makes it to the general election.

“I don’t expect the same rhetoric from Clinton next fall,” Walsh said. “Is she going to go into eastern Ohio and talk to blue-collar Democrats and others in the same exact way on guns? Unlikely.”

Most likely true. Right now Democrats are throwing red meat to their far left base. When the general election time comes, though, their words will surely show up in opposition ads.

It is nice to know exactly what they really want to do, though, wouldn’t you say?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Washington Post: “Democratic Candidates Vowed To Toughen Restrictions On Gun Owners””

  1. Dana says:

    And when Carly Fiorina gets to debate Hillary Clinton when the two nominees are getting closer to the general election, she can point out, “See that man over there? He’s a Secret Service agent, and he’s carrying a weapon, specifically to protect you, Mrs Clinton. Why is it OK for you to have armed guards, but not OK for common people who might believe that they need firearms for security to have them?”

    Since January 11, 1983, when Mrs Clinton’s husband began his second stint as Governor of Arkansas, Mrs Clinton has had armed guards protecting her, every single day, from Arkansas state troopers to Secret Service agents. That’s 32½ straight years, half of her whole life, protected by armed men, but the Democrats would deny us ordinary peons the right to self-defense.

    Anyone with any sense at all — a condition which would exclude Democrats and liberals, I suppose — would realize that the only people who obey gun control laws are people who already obey the law, and they aren’t the problem. The people who are the problem, the people who would break the laws against assault and murder, aren’t going to obey gun control laws.

  2. john says:

    well Dana it IS OK for common people to have guns, BUT they like cars should be registered and not everyone should be able to use one.
    Yje 2nd Amendment has been limited on the past, machine guns require special license sawed off shotguns are restricted. Do you have a problem with these restrictions?
    What about RPGs? Certainly they would be better to fight “tyranny” should we legalize them?

  3. john says:

    100000 Americans get shot each year about 1/3 die.
    In my liffetime that would mean over 5 million would have been shot

  4. Hank_M says:

    “100000 Americans get shot each year about 1/3 die.”

    And roughly 3/4 million people are aborted each year, per the CDC.
    They all die John, but you’re ok with that.

  5. Dana says:

    Gun-grabber John wrote:

    well Dana it IS OK for common people to have guns, BUT they like cars should be registered and not everyone should be able to use one.

    Why should they have to be registered? Why should the government have to license people to exercise their rights? This isn’t something you would require for exercising any other constitutional right, is it?

    And when you say “not everyone should be able to use one,” who do you mean? The Fourteenth Amendment specifies that no state can deprive someone of his rights without due process of law, which would mean that the person mush have been convicted of a crime which has that as a penalty.

    What is it about the left that they are just so insistent about denying other people their rights?

  6. Jeffery says:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    To real Americans this means every resident citizen of the US has the right to any weapon deemed necessary for the security of a free state.

    In fact, the State’s restrictions on automatic weapons, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons is the poster child for the direct oppression of the American people. There is no way for the well regulated militia to secure a free state without access to the same hardware that the “State” has. Otherwise how will the people stand a chance against the modern US military Obama uses to oppress us?

Pirate's Cove