"First, he falsely claimed that Clinton, his Democratic opponent, wants to 'essentially abolish the Second Amendment.' She has said repeatedly that she supports the Second Amendment right to own guns, though she does back some stricter gun control measures."
In what is an ostensibly "news" article, this is an editorial comment, and has no place on the front page of any newspaper. While Trump's statements are surely up for scrutiny, it is the place of pundits and opinion makers to decide the veracity of his claims, not purported "fact checking" reporters.
In addition, the author gets it wrong as he covers for Hillary. Here's Hillary's position on guns:
Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”
Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.
Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.
Every one of these statements is a impediment to keeping and bearing arms. While we can all debate the merit of her positions, it remains clear that Hillary is intent on restricting the possession of firearms in some measure. Remember that Trump is quoted as saying that Hillary wants to "essentially abolish the Second Amendment." He did not say she wants to repeal the amendment, as much of the Left has demanded, he said she wants to "essentially abolish" it. Thus our AP "fact checker" is wrong.
The Second Amendment reads, "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." The reader will note that government has no authority to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So it is clear that by advocating additional restrictions on gun ownership she is contravening the clear language of the amendment, which of course essentially abolishes it.
Indeed, the Washington Post claims she is wavering on the Second Amendment. Here's what she recently told George Stephanopoulos:
The Second Amendment reads, "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." The reader will note that government has no authority to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So it is clear that by advocating additional restrictions on gun ownership she is contravening the clear language of the amendment, which of course essentially abolishes it.
Indeed, the Washington Post claims she is wavering on the Second Amendment. Here's what she recently told George Stephanopoulos:
"If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else."
Hillary uses the word "if," which suggests there is a question as to whether keeping and bearing arms is a right. The Left argues strenuously that it is not an individual right. There is no reason to doubt that Hillary marches lock-step with the rest of the Left in this regard.
And what are "reasonable regulations?" We have many gun control regulations right now, but clearly she believes that more are needed. This of course means that existing regulations are not succeeding. She essentially wants more of what hasn't helped.
It also is interesting that the Left is happy to advocate "reasonable regulations" on provisions enumerated in the Constitution, like speech, assembly, and guns, but will not countenance any regulation of the "right" to abortion.
The AP reporter has obviously chosen sides. His bias shows through as as such can be dismissed as an advocate. His reporting, therefore is suspect and ought to be rejected.
And what are "reasonable regulations?" We have many gun control regulations right now, but clearly she believes that more are needed. This of course means that existing regulations are not succeeding. She essentially wants more of what hasn't helped.
It also is interesting that the Left is happy to advocate "reasonable regulations" on provisions enumerated in the Constitution, like speech, assembly, and guns, but will not countenance any regulation of the "right" to abortion.
The AP reporter has obviously chosen sides. His bias shows through as as such can be dismissed as an advocate. His reporting, therefore is suspect and ought to be rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment