Christopher Harper-Mercer murdered those people in Oregon, but judging from Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric you’d think the NRA pulled the trigger:
Hillary Clinton took aim at the National Rifle Association in Iowa on Wednesday, hitting the group for what she claims is its “absolutist” stance on gun rights and comparing it to “the Iranians and Communists.”
Worse, even! Liberals will negotiate with Commies and Iranians, but not with the NRA.
Clinton drew the connection to the gun rights group and murderous tyrants after a woman in the audience at a town hall meeting in Mount Vernon noted that President Obama seemed defeated during his remarks on gun control following last week’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore.
Maybe Clinton should check her fear-mongering, lest she inflame someone’s passions and incite him to kill. The psychologically unglued killer, after all, is the fatal constant in these shootings, not guns. There are millions of gun owners but only a relative handful of mentally ill, drug-addicted/over-medicated drones. But liberal pols cry about the millions of gun owners after every mass murder event, transparently pursuing the gun-grabbing agenda they’ve had for years. Open carry and concealed carry laws give them visions of the shootout at the O. K. Corral on every street corner, when indeed virtually none of the people with these permits will become violent criminals. Don’t miss the important fact that a gun in the hands of an Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof or gang banger is a totally different animal than a gun in the hands of a security guard or soldier. As always, the minds and the wills of people with similar abilities make up the biggest difference in their achievements.
There will be no “loyal dissent” during Clinton’s administration if she insists on waging rhetorical war on her own citizens, rather than working with them or accommodating them. It appears she not only expects a political insurgency against her presidency, but welcomes it. An insurgency is a problem if you can’t kill them all, and she sounds prepared to do that—politically speaking, of course.
Liberal democracy does not survive this intense a level of disagreement among coequal citizens. The liberal zeitgeist will destroy this country. We are fighting for our right to live as it is only possible to survive as a nation. Politeness and restraint are not virtues in this fight.
I had dinner the other night with a low-level Republican operative. He held forth on the issues of the day and demonstrated why establishment Republicans are feckless in the fight against ascendant liberalism. They just don’t understand the problems facing the country. To them, the problem is an insufficient political center and an inability to govern, itself the product of partisanship. Thus their animosity towards the “tea party,” which they deploy as a slur. Their solution is moderation to govern alongside liberals, as if there’s a stopping point short of complete disaster that they’ll be content with. My friend ridiculed the tea party for their “extreme” positions, like gun rights, illegal immigration, and the role of religion (which I understood as code for marriage, abortion, etc). He didn’t mention Obamacare, but I’m sure it’s somewhere down the list. The nation doesn’t have much a future with a defenseless citizenry, undefended borders, and utilitarian immorality, and he undercut the conservative position on every one of these fronts.
When you watch liberals, you can tell they’re not interested in getting along with conservatives. They want to win. They believe in what they fight for. The establishment doesn’t understand why liberals believe what they do, and I don’t think they much care. They’re terrified of government “not working” for the people, when clearly the greater evil is bad government working well. They compromise and retreat to the point of pretending marriage is what it isn’t for political peace.