Democratic Party Candidates Brazenly Attack Second Amendment During Debate

Democrats War on Guns
Democrats War on Guns
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, N.Y. –-(Ammoland.com)- While it may seem a waste of words even to discuss the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential candidates’ positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some elucidation is in order.

We can zero in on the current strategies each of the five Democratic candidates would employ for undermining the Second Amendment were that person elected to the Office of President.

So, let us consider, where each of the five candidates stand on the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as laid out during the October 13, 2015 Democratic Party Debate, held at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas.

Well, none of the Democratic Party candidates serve as a supporter, much less an exemplar, of the Second Amendment. That, we know.

But, if so, how can an American — any American — claim to represent all Americans who does not vow to uphold the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution – all Ten of them, not Nine or Eight of them?

Jim Webb
Jim Webb

Jim Webb

Now, some might argue that Jim Webb, who, as the moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out, had, at one time, at least, received an “‘A’ rating from the NRA,” is, in fact a supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, Cooper asked Webb whether Webb would agree that arming more people is Webb’s answer to a mass shooting. Webb did not take the bait but said that there are two fundamental issues involved in this discussion and that both need to be respected. The first issue, Webb said, goes to the question “who should be kept from having guns.

Webb said that criminals, gang members, and those who are mentally incapacitated should not have access to guns.

The second issue, Webb asserted, goes to the tradition in this Country. Webb pointed out that people have a right to have access to guns to protect their families from violence since they do not have bodyguards as those in high levels of Government do.

Now, these assertions might suggest that Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment but, if you carefully analyze what he said.

Webb qualified and effectively undermined his position by arguing for more “background checks,” and he clearly asserted that mental health practitioners should share their patients’ medical information with Government.

The use of background checks as well as the introduction of measures compelling mental health practitioners to divulge medical information that is subject to the doctor/patient privilege serve only to destroy the inherent right to privacy. And both measures result in secretive Government registration lists – all part of “Big Data” for the benefit of “Big Government.”

So, if you think that Jim Webb is a devoted protector of Americans’ Second Amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms, you better think twice.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders

Anderson Cooper then asked Bernie Sanders to address his position on guns. In his response Sanders corrected Cooper, beginning with Sanders' point that he had received a “D Minus” rating from the NRA — shamelessly boasting to the American public that the NRA does not approve of Sanders’ position on “guns.”

To exemplify the import of the “D-Minus” Rating, Sanders said that he had, since 1988, supported a ban on “assault weapons” – this coming from a man who also remarked that Vermont has virtually no gun control laws — a curious addendum to Sanders' statement, indeed.

Sanders also said that he has, through the years, supported instant background checks and that he ascribes to “doing away with this ‘terrible’ gun-show loophole.” He also said that we have to deal “aggressively” at the federal level, with straw man purchases. Finally, Sanders said that people who face mental health crises must get mental health counseling immediately.

Hillary Clinton

Anderson Cooper, obviously providing a leg up for Hillary Clinton, then asked Clinton whether she felt that “Bernie Sanders is tough enough on guns.” She responded, “no, not at all!” Clinton pointed out that we lose ninety people a day to gun violence and that this has gone on for far too long. Clinton didn’t trouble herself to support the assertion with evidence. Clinton never does. Nor did Clinton bother to explain what groups of people are responsible for the gun violence.

Clinton, as always, is notoriously vague.

Clinton in her remarks is essentially asserting that the NRA is something other than the millions of Americans who compose it and millions more who derive benefit from it – whose interests the NRA represents. Is Clinton suggesting that tens of millions of Americans – stand up against themselves – against their own interests? Clinton then unleashed another volley of ludicrous assertion. She blurted out that the majority of Americans support background checks and even the majority of gun owners do. Oh, really?

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton

Oh, and now that Hillary is on a roll, more nonsense gushes forth. She asks: Did you know that the gun manufacturing industry in America is the only industry immune from lawsuits? She further asserts that gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers who are not accountable. Clinton would have you believe that this nonsense is just common knowledge rather than vacuous remarks, devoid of any legal or logical substance.

Martin O’Malley
Martin O’Malley

Martin O’Malley

Not to be outdone, Martin O’Malley blurted out his own righteous indignation. O’Malley referred to a lawsuit that was filed by a couple against a person who sold several thousand rounds to the individual who killed their daughter in a “mass shooting” in Aurora, Colorado. O’Malley said that the game was rigged against this couple. And, who was responsible for this alleged perversion of justice, according to O'Malley?

The proverbial Bogeyman! The NRA of course.

The NRA, according to O’Malley, gets its way in Congress and “we” – whoever “we” refers to – take a backseat. O’Malley concludes his rant with: “It’s time to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation in this Nation!” More applause…..

Lincoln Chafee

Lincoln Chafee
Lincoln Chafee

Finally, Cooper deigns to give the lost black sheep of the herd, Lincoln Chafee, a couple of minutes to chime in. Chaffee remarks that he has consistently voted for “commonsense gun safety legislation.”

Continuing to smile at seemingly nothing, as he has done throughout the “debate,” Chafee adds that “commonsense” gun safety legislation cannot be passed because the “Gun Lobby” comes in and tells the people, “they’re coming to take away your guns.”

Well, aren’t they though?

So, there you have it: the Democratic Presidential Candidates' policy positions and strategies for undermining the Second Amendment.

Oddly enough, though, as each of the Democratic Party candidates for President denigrated “guns,” during the lengthy ten minute tirade, not one of them bothered to explicitly mention the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is really what the “gun” issue is all about, which the candidates talked roundabout, climbing over each other in their mindless zeal to excoriate.

About The Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

www.arbalestquarrel.com

  • 15 thoughts on “Democratic Party Candidates Brazenly Attack Second Amendment During Debate

    1. after the nazi’s banned firearms, they proclaimed the streets would be safer now…well, we all know just how safe it got.

    2. Were all the Democratic candidates ‘picked on’ in grade school. Their pictures indicate that may be possible, and now America may have to pay the price?

      1. You do realize that Webb was a combat decorated Marine officer? Doubtful that he is the “wimp” You are making him out to be.

        1. No telling how being ‘picked on’ in grade school effects a person’s future life choices. Some just want to get ‘even’, some want to overcome their fears. Rumor has it that one of the ‘Watergate’ burglars overcame his fears by chewing the heads off of rats.

    3. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

      Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

      No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media whores tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

      These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.
      Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

      Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

      American Thinker

      1. Rich, thank you for your response. First, the Second Amendment does, in fact, tacitly support the right of self-defense. In fact, that right to protect one’s life and those he holds dear to him, through the best means available to do so — a firearm — is so obvious that it requires no explication. Moreover, if that were all that was at stake, it is quite possible that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms. . .” would not have been codified — indeed crystallized — in the Bill of Rights through the Second Amendment, but would have existed as one of the unstated “enumerated” rights of the Ninth Amendment. Second, as to your point, “Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government,” that point gets much closer to the truth as to why the Founders of our Republic mandated that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” was set forth as a distinct right. The Founders were extremely concerned at the prospect of tyranny manifesting at some point in the Republic they created. They hoped that the Constitution setting forth limited powers of a Federal Government would be a sufficient guard against the establishment of Tyranny. And, if the Articles failed to prevent the introduction of Tyranny, then the Second Amendment would be the final arbiter — the fallback, “fail safe” mechanism to “reboot” our system of Government. Not, unsurprisingly, Republicans, themselves, will not ever talk, in public, about the “real” purpose of the Second Amendment. They will mention, and, in fact, have mentioned, that the People have a right to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defense. But, none of them, to the extent that I am aware, has actually stated or even implied that the Second Amendment is the absolute check on Tyranny. Clearly, establishment centrist Republicans, as well as Democrats — and those powerful, ruthless individuals here and abroad whom we do not see — are very much concerned, even fearful, of the import of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Consider the cautious words of Jeb Bush, during the Second Republican Debate on the subject of the Second Amendment. Does Bush sound like a fervent supporter of the Second Amendment? Does he sound, for that matter, like someone who would wish to defend the Second Amendment at all? One cannot but wonder whether our Founders, were they to see what our Federal Government has become, would nod knowingly — despite any doubts that some of them might have harbored at the time as to the need for the language of the Second Amendment — that the need for — indeed the absolute necessity for — our sacred Second Amendment is now well demonstrated and firmly established.

    4. I used to worry about my gun rights, but I don’t worry (nearly at all) anymore. It’s becase of recent events in CT, NY, and WA.

      CT passed a draconian assault weapon registration law in 2013. By the deadline for registration, Jan 1, 2014, approximately 48,000 of the estimated 370,000 covered firearms (15%) and 37,000 of the estimated 4 million “high capacity magazines” (1%) had been registered.

      85% of heretofore-otherwise-law-abiding CT gun owners just gave CT the finger. If the state is going to make them felons, then by God they’re going to be the very best felons anywhere.

      NYS did the same thing with the NYSAFE Act and their compliance rate is thought to be under 10%.

      WA passed a law mandating universal background checks for all “transfers” (not just sales). Two months later a WA gun-owners organization held a widely-advertised “no BGC gun show” and broke the law on several thousand occasions with police standing there observing but making no arrests.

      The game is over; thank you for playing. No one can or will enforce these laws for fear of touching off a new civil war. And make no mistake: the next civil war will be a 4GW conflict. No ranks of soldiers firing at ranks of soldiers; the targets in 4GW are senators, cabinet members, CEOs, publishers, and support staff for all of those.

      I’m absolutely positive none of those Democratic Presidential candidates want to go there. I know I don’t.

    Leave a Comment 15 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *