To wit: she has never cracked the cover of the Constitution, apparently.
This elementary mistake was brought to you in the context of a discussion on the Second Amendment, of course. Because believing too strongly in gun control apparently causes neurological damage. And yes, I know that sounds harsh, but I keep seeing anecdotal evidence to support that…
PS: For the benefit of anybody who might have wandered in here: ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It’s certainly not a Constitutional amendment, like, say: 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.
Can’t say I blame her.
Also, buried lede: Chelsea Clinton is a little nuts when it comes to gun control. I recommend that she see her neurologist at the earliest possible opportunity. No, seriously: that particular opinion is like a illithid when it comes to a victim’s long-term cognitive function.
The bolded part is simply good, self-evident sense:
African-Americans are disproportionately affected by gun violence, and many black leaders are among the most vocal advocates of gun control. But there is a segment of the black community that believes gun ownership has helped keep them alive through several generations, and won’t give them up.
Damn straight they shouldn’t. The situation in Dizzy City is complicated by the fact that the District has a frankly unconstitutional and even more frankly useless gun control regime attached to it; so, technically, even the responsible gun owners there are doing something illegal. But that could be fixed with some rational gun laws*.
*The kind that you get when you actually read the actual Constitution, and not the version that that one professor in college taught. You know the guy I’m talking about. The ultra liberal who went to the other side of the street whenever he saw an African-American approaching.
It didn’t even win its time slot (note: there is an ever-so-slightly esoteric debate as to whether that statement is true). Total viewership was 2.4 million, which is great news for CNN and no-so-great news for Barack Obama and everybody else who’d like to take your guns away. And yes, I don’t believe Barack Obama when he says that he doesn’t want to take people’s guns away. I may not worry about it – based on Barack Obama’s past history, any confiscation scheme of his is likely to somehow take all of Uruguay’s guns and distribute them across the British Commonwealth – but that’s because I’m not impressed with the President’s basic competence level.
Anyway. I should probably apologize to CNN: they apparently let people take legitimate smacks at the President’s, ah, flawed logic. I didn’t expect that CNN would do that. My apologies for the unwarranted assumption.
Even the NRA apparently checked out, much to the President’s barely-throttled fury:
“The National Rifle Association sees no reason to participate in a public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told the network [CNN].
You can definitely detect a sneer in the NRA spokesman’s voice, there. Possibly even a sniff of disdain. Which is precisely the way that one should act in this situation. This is Barack Obama’s last year as President. His job is to stay the heck out of the way and let people get on the with the business of electing a new leadership, and while I certainly don’t mind the President making life hell for Democrats I suppose that the Democrats themselves might have a different opinion. And maybe eventually they’ll even be brave enough to express that opinion, too.
You know who’s looking at this Tweet, and grinning?
A bunch of Republican Senators who are up for reelection. Forcing* Democratic candidates to embrace an F rating from the NRA is an excellent way for Democrats to lose a bunch of Senate races. Admittedly, the Democrats were going to lose ’em anyway, but it’s always nice to have a backup plan in place.
*There are places where being a full-fledged gun control activist is not a hindrance to one’s electoral processes. It’s just that typically those places don’t have incumbent Republican Senators representing them.
I mention this not because I plan to watch it, because I won’t; nor because I expect any of you plan to watch it, because I doubt that many of you will. I mention it because maybe some day somebody might actually try to ding CNN for making this kind of in-kind contribution to the Democratic party. Every little bit of a proper evidence trail helps.
Found here. Short version? Well, look.
I’m telling you: there’s a hostage situation going on over there.
This describes today’s gun control ‘announcement’ pretty well, I think:
…and at that it’s a bit more sensible than I frankly expected from the President, honestly. I wonder if he’s feeling well? Or maybe some of his staffers – the ones who will need to find jobs next year – talked him down…
Charles W Cooke has worked out how useful such things (in this particular case, a 125% reimbursement of market value) are with admirable speed: “Were I so minded, I’d just use the money on the debit card to pay for the things I have to buy anyway, and then buy all my guns back with the money in my bank account that I hadn’t had to spend.” …Yup, that’s how it works. With the extra wrinkle that ‘market value’ is a flexible concept, given that the gun control people desperately need to buy back as many guns as possible for propaganda purposes.
So you take your worn-out guns, get new-gun prices for them, get an extra 25% off of that, and use the money to buy new guns and more ammo. This happens all the time when they do buybacks. You can even talk about it in public, because, well, the Left doesn’t let its smart people go fight in the gun control arena…
DRINKING THEIR OWN INK BY THE BARREL FULL: Democrats Introduce Bill to Buy Me Some Brand New Guns….