Hillary Clinton has been equivocal when it comes to gun problems. This year she is left of Bernie Sanders, but back in 2008, she was running right against Barack Obama, arguing against “federal blanket rules,” National Review reported.
Addressing Pennsylvania’s high rate of gun ownership, Hillary said the following at Philadelphia’s St. Paul’s Baptist Church
“There is a Second Amendment, there are constitutional rights. We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners”
Her declaration contradicted the statement she made in New York City back in fall.
“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance that I get,” she said to donors.
Clinton was seen reiterating that point in Maryland last Thursday. She went on to promise that she would appoint to the Supreme Court justices who would overturn past decisions that struck down local and state gun-control measures.
The premises have added an aura of suspicion about what her true views exactly are.
Given that the only laws that the Supreme Court has objected to are complete gun bans or laws that made it a crime to chamber a bullet, one wonders what “constitutional rights” Clinton was talking about preserving in Philadelphia, columnist John R. Lott. Jr. wrote on National Review.
Gun control is not the only issue Hillary has remained inconsistent on throughout the campaign. She was harshly criticized for adjusting her views according to audience.
The twitter hashtag #whichhillary was trending on Twitter as thousands of people criticized Clinton for constantly shifting positions and for what they see as her hypocrisy, only for Twitter to censor the hashtag hours later.
Before the New Hampshire primary, her ads heavily featured the issues of gun control. But surprisingly, none of her ads included gun control in rural areas of Iowa. As a matter of fact, only six percent of her ads included gun control in the state of Iowa.
Back in October, she was full of praise about gun control laws of U.K. and Australia. She lauded the U.K.’s handgun ban and Australia’s requisiton of a third of legally-owned guns.
“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20-25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.”
But according to Crime Research, U.K’s homicide rates rose by 50 percent in the eight years after the ban on hand guns was implemented. The rate plummeted later but that was due to an 18 percent increase in the number of police.
She implied that the confiscation of guns had led to Australia’s declining rate of crimes, but the crime rates were already on the verge of decline even before the law was implemented.
Senator Bernie Sanders has remained rigid on gun control issues throughout his campaign. His issues are pretty clear: what works in some states might not work for all. But his pragmatic views on gun control were heavily criticized by Clinton campaign. Hillary went on so far that she even labelled his views racist.
What seems fishy is that she made exact same points when she was running against Obama back in 2008.
“What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana,” she said. “So for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t
Hillary has been widely criticized for her inconsistent views as well as some of her demeanor in the primary. Recently, she was criticized for using a static noise machine to not allow reporters listen what she was telling donors at a fundraiser.
[Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images]