Powered by Topple

Hillary Clinton’s push to leave Americans defenseless while she’s safe shouldn’t be ignored in November

Powered by Topple

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BizPac Review.

One tell-tale trait you never want to see in a politician who makes rules that govern your life, is hypocrisy. Specifically, you don’t want any politician governing you who is unwilling to subject herself to the same rules.

Who might I talking about here? Let’s try Hillary Clinton on for size.

Her preference is to slash Second Amendment rights to bear arms, an issue on which she is left of even Bernie Sanders. Clinton is oblivious to the fears of normal Americans when they stray into dangerous parts of town, or are faced with a road-rage barbarian. She’d rather leave Americans unprepared to counter criminals and terrorists, while at the same time show sympathy to the Black Lives Matter crowd who want to de-fang the police whose very job is protecting law-abiding citizens.

At the same time Clinton would leave Americans unable to protect or defend themselves, she has no hesitancy to employ a bevy of armed guards to protect herself. Her message is “What’s good for me is not good for you.” Reasonable people call that hypocrisy.

This issue flared up Friday when Clinton opponent Donald Trump suggested she should disarm her bodyguards, “take their guns away, she doesn’t want guns” anyway and “let’s see what happens to her.” A perfectly logical suggestion which demonstrated Clinton’s hypocrisy. She won’t disarm her guards and Trump knows she won’t, yet she thinks it’s OK if limits are placed on normal Americans to protect themselves.

Of course, leftists went crazy with overreactions and false accusations of “inciting the assassination of” Clinton, and “daring someone to try to harm Clinton”. Trump supporters said he was just being “blunt” and criticizing her gun control stance.

Critics are missing the main point. What Trump did, and it was quite savvy, was to point out Clinton’s hypocrisy for all to see. He smartly used his comment as an example of her policy contradictions, her “what’s good for my goose is not good for your gander” inconsistencies. She wants protection and security from harm or injury but she’s not willing to allow others the same safeguards or insurance. She advocates her implausible position because she can’t see that her cockamamie policies simply won’t work — her brand of gun control will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, who can buy as many weapons as they want on the black market or can steal them.

Clinton misunderstands human nature, which blocks her from seeing that guns in the hands of citizens defending themselves deters the actions of evil people, who count on their victims being defenseless. If just one or two people in the crowd had been carrying weapons the night of the Orlando massacre—49 dead victims—far fewer innocents would have been killed.

Strength and adequate weapons are a deterrent for not only domestic violence, but global tyrants and demagogues as well. Weakness invites aggression and violence because “men are not angels” as Founder James Madison said. Clinton does not understand how to use deterrence against killers and despots. She is weak in that regard, and every voter should think about her policy judgments and the quality of her decisions if she becomes president and commander-in-chief.

John R. Smith

Comments

Latest Articles