They’re so compassionate and concerned, don’t you know. If you don’t believe it, just ask ’em.
“The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place,” Hillary Clinton declared to the crowd at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. The statement was pure, opportunistic political pandering. Clinton didn’t say why George Zimmerman — completely exonerated of homicide charges by a court of law — should have been prohibited by the government from owning a gun. That’s important to know, because, if elected, Clinton will be in a position to call for and sign “gun laws.” In a way, we ought to be grateful that, occasionally, totalitarians give us glimpses of their end game. Which doesn’t stop Hillary from doing what she does best, that is, lying…
I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns…
Hillary said that right before showing everyone her huge “but,” which includes a veritable wish list of citizen disarmament fantasies documented by On the Issues. She has also endorsed adding a 25% federal sales tax on guns. Add to that her assertion that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.”
No one wants to take your guns? If everything Hillary wants is enacted, what difference does it make?
Of COURSE Zimmerman shouldn’t have had a gun. Then he’d be dead, just another nameless and unlamented victim of rampant and unchecked black thuggery, and nobody would ever have heard of him, and no liberal idiots would have had to trouble themselves with confronting the real issue and could just go right on with their various wet-brained campaigns to remake the nation into something it was never supposed to be, and everything would be JUST FINE.
No, Zimmerman most certainly should not have had a gun, according to liberals. And neither should anybody else. Excepting, of course, their squads of personal bodyguards, the cops, the Secret Service, and the security personnel at the gates of their tony neighborhoods who protect their obscenely rich politicians from their marauding, lawless constituents.
Read on to the end of it, where Codrea asks a most, umm, penetrating question.