Concealed Carry & Home Defense

Clearly Hillary Is Neither A Constitutional Scholar Nor A Gun Violence Policy Expert

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Susan Smith Columnist

Just a week or so ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton rather spectacularly confused the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the two most sacred documents from our Founding.   This was in relation to where her various future ‘gun safety’ proposals would relate and/or be lodged.

One would, of course, think that the smartest woman in the world, as she has been called repeatedly, would not do something so idiotic, as these two documents are short, to the point and stated in simple, clear and quite beautiful language.  One is one page in length, 1,337 words to be exact, with the bottom half of the Declaration taken up by the signatures of 56 very brave men, and the other is 6 pages in length, and establishes the rules of how our nation is meant to operate.  These two documents were considered by the entire world to be quite stunning, indeed revolutionary at the time of their publication and later enactment, and set into motion a new kind of nation that achieved never-before-seen success.

Clearly, the Saul Alinsky screeds hold more fascination and awe for Clinton.  She was in fact rather belligerent when she was called upon to explain this rather remarkable historical error.  To have just two succinct documents create a nation that happened to be her own is a rather memorable event, and despite this she gave the impression that it was nothing short of idiotic for average Americans to think that anyone, especially she, the future President of the United States, should actually recognize such an irrelevancy as the differences between them.

More recently, she came up with an even more remarkable proposition vis-a-vis ‘gun safety’ efforts in America and the appropriate such adherence to our Founding documents:

“I think we have to try everything that works to try to limit the numbers of people and the kinds of people who are given access to firearms,” Hillary Clinton said at last Sunday night’s Democrat debate in Michigan.

Another rather significant bit of historical ignorance comes into play here on the part of Mrs. C.: the Second Amendment, the Founding document which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, does not qualify who that is to be by ‘numbers’ and ‘kinds’ of Americans who are allowed by their government to do so, and is clearly not meant to include that proviso.

She went on to say: “The Brady Bill, which has been in effect now for about 23 years, has kept more than two million purchases from going forward. So we do have to continue to try to work on that because not every killer will have the same profile.”  Clinton endorsed “comprehensive background checks” for online purchases and those at guns shows. She also wants to make sure gun sales do not proceed if background checks are not completed in three days.

Clinton called for a “public discussion” on “a culture in which people grab for guns all the time.”

One wonders how many of these two million non-purchases actually prevented potentially legal gun owners from achieving the protection to which they are currently legally entitled.

I also wonder how many of these American citizens just might know the differences between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.