This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, September 4, 2015:
Now that President Obama has essentially given up in his efforts to foist further restrictions on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, and political odds makers have virtually declared Hillary Clinton as president of the United States in 2017, she now is feeling free to tell everyone how she really feels about the Second Amendment. If those pollsters are right (and they have an uncanny and unsettling history of being right), the long war against private gun ownership will continue long after Obama is gone.
Chris Cillizza, a staffer at The Washington Post, first noticed the change in Obama’s demeanor back in June when he spoke about the murders of nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina:
The first was anger – at the fact that he was, once again, addressing the country in the wake of a mass shooting. The second was more along the lines of resignation – a head-shaking weariness about the almost-certain fact that this latest shooting would do little to move the needle on gun control legislation.
Having gambled that the Newtown shooting would generate enough public empathy for new gun laws sufficient to override good sense, Obama went for broke, and lost. At the time Obama said: “There are no coherent arguments for why we didn’t do this. All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.” Cillizza concluded:
His grudging resignation in the fact of that reality was on full display [that] Thursday at the White House. This was truly a president in the fourth quarter of his time in office: bruised and scratched, his uniform ripped here and there, worn down from so many collisions with so little to show for them.
It didn’t take long for Hillary to seize the opportunity and rush in to fill the space. Within days she ramped up her indignation over the “gun lobby” and its outsized influence in protecting the Second Amendment:
We have to take on the gun lobby. This is a controversial issue. I am well aware of that. But I think it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.
She’s been talking about it for years:
In 1993, she praised the Brady Bill.
In 2000, while campaigning for the Senate, she supported legislation sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to license handguns with photo-IDs.
In 2004, she voted against banning lawsuits against gun makers.
In 2007, referring to the Columbine High School shooting she stated her goal: “to limit access to people who should not have guns.”
In 2008, she said she “want[s] to be sure that we keep guns out of the wrong hands.”
In 2014, she told a town hall meeting that she believed reinstating the assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines would help limit gun violence, adding “I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook.”
And, following the murders in Roanoke, she raised the volume of her anti-gun rhetoric further:
I feel just great heartache at what happened. I want to reiterate how important it is [that] we not let yet another terrible instance go by without trying to do something more to prevent this terrible killing that is stalking our country….
It happens every day, and there is so much evidence that if guns were not so readily available, if we had universal background checks, if we could put some timeout between the person who is upset because he got fired or the domestic abuse or whatever other motivation may be working on someone who does this – that maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage….
We have got to do something about gun violence in America – and I will take it on.
This shift from keeping her real feelings under wraps until her nomination is secure was noticed by Phillip Rucker at the Washington Post almost immediately:
In a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake of recent mass shootings – and of Clinton’s determination to stake out liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control [now] but also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.
With Obama’s de facto abdication and the only other Democrat candidate a distant second to Hillary in the running, the opportunity to come clean about her intentions was confirmed when political odds makers all but declared Hillary not only as the winner of the Democrat Party’s nomination but the winner of the White House next November as well.
There are risks, of course. The continual exsanguination from Benghazi and her emails could drain her campaign long before next November. Other examples of corruption could surface in the meantime. And with her blatant public challenge to the gun rights movement, the NRA has taken notice. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, said: “We’ve been down this road before with the Clintons. She needs to read her husband’s book [My Life].”
In that book Bill Clinton noted that one of the primary reasons Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election was because of backlash over the ban on “assault” weapons he signed into law in 1995. He also noted that many anti-gun Democrat lawmakers also lost their seats in elections after that ban was put in place.
And Democrat strategists like David “Mudcat” Saunders warned that letting this cat out of the bag so soon could be costly:
Never in the history of the Democratic Party have they started a gun control debate that didn’t cost them numbers in the general election.
She’s trying to get to the left of Bernie, but I think it’ll hurt her in the long run – and it’ll cost anybody on the down ticket in the South and in rural America.
If the odds makers are right and Hillary finds herself taking over the reins in 2017, American gun owners and others who still think the Second Amendment counts for something will learn that the long war against guns will continue long after Obama is gone.
Washington Post: President Obama waves the white flag on gun control