CNN gave Hillary Clinton a whole bunch of time Tuesday to sell her book Hard Choices about choices that are hard. She managed to make it clear that she would be just as opposed to self defense rights as Barack Obama. Most have focused on her use of the word “terrorize” to describe gun owners, but that’s not even the most shocking thing about that sentence.
During the town hall style show, with a hand-picked pro-Hillary audience, one woman stood up and asked whether the “assault weapons” ban could be brought back, and would that help prevent mass shootings.
As Charles C. W. Cooke wrote, when President Obama was talking about gun control a week ago,
Obama gave the impression that gun-violence is on the increase. This is false. As both Pew and the Department of Justice recorded last year, the majority of Americans believe that gun violence is proliferating when it is in fact dropping. This year marked a 20-year low. More than anything, America has a copycat problem in its schools.
Hillary said bringing back an “assault weapons” ban would help curb this massive increase in crime that is not happening., and that she’s all for banning “automatic weapons.”
Automatic weapons are already effectively banned for ordinary citizens in the United States, and have been more or less since 1934. One can get them with great effort and expense, but they’re basically banned [This sentence was edited after publication to correct the date and add weasel words]. She is talking about banning standard semi-automatic rifles, as long as they’re painted black and have other superficial “assault” features.
Hillary learned the Obama tactic of pretending to acknowledge opposing points of view, but never actually doing so. She says we often have to “balance competing values” and calls for a “more thoughtful conversation,”
Ann Althouse says it perfectly.
The next thing she says is:
We cannot let a minority of people … hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.
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.
Whoa! That’s the line I was looking for. Read it again and see how shocking it is. Not only did Hillary completely turn her back on “balanc[ing] competing values” and “more thoughtful conversation,” she doesn’t want to allow the people on one side of the conversation even to believe what they believe. Those who care about gun rights and reject new gun regulations should be stopped from holding their viewpoint. Now, it isn’t possible to forcibly prevent people from holding a viewpoint. Our beliefs reside inside our head. And in our system of free speech rights, the government cannot censor the expression of a viewpoint. But the question is Hillary Clinton’s fitness for the highest office, and her statement reveals a grandiose and profoundly repressive mindset.