Hillary Clinton's Revealing Statement: Guns, Not People, Commit Crimes

Anyone who has been following the election news 
knows that Sec. Clinton has said some
very scary things

Anyone who follows the gun rights vs. gun control debate quickly realizes that most gun control advocates believe that firearms, not criminals, are responsible for gun related violence.  This can be seen in their philosophy and positions.  Consider these examples:

1) In spite of strong evidence to the contrary, they continue to believe that more guns equal more crime.  The reality is exactly the opposite.  More guns in law abiding hands equals less crime, even in Europe.  However, because they believe that the guns themselves, not people, are responsible for crimes, they simply ignore these facts.

2) In spite of the fact that the predicted bloodbaths have never happened in a single one of the 43 states that have adopted shall issue concealed carry, they continue to predict it will happen in the next state that does so.  Why?  Simple: If you believe that guns commit crimes, then this has to be the outcome.

3) In spite of the fact that there is zero evidence that gun "buy backs" have any impact on the criminal use of firearms, and that most firearms turned in were owned by law abiding gun control groups continue to push them.  Why?  You guessed it - if guns commit crimes, then getting rid of any gun, owned by anyone, is a good thing.

Even Sen. Sanders has pointed out how extreme

Sec. Clinton's gun policies are - if he gets it we
should too!

Most of the time, gun control advocates are smart enough not to come out and say that guns, not people, are responsible for crimes.  However, deliberately, or more likely unintentionally, Sec. Clinton recently said just that.  In attacking Sen. Sanders, who while not a gun rights advocate has not consumed the "gun control Koolaid", Sec. Clinton accused Vermot of supplying many New York crime guns.  Everyone initially focused upon the fact that her figures were highly deceptive,  Nobody took note of her exact words about the state of Vermont being,  "the highest per capita number of guns that end up committing crimes in New York."

Yes, you read that right.  In Hillary's world, it is the guns that commit the crimes, not criminals.  That's why she wants to hold gun makers and retailers responsible for criminal acts committed with firearms they have legally sold.  That's why she advocates a 25% sales tax on all firearms.  In her political philosophy, people aren't responsible for criminal acts - the guns are!

Of course, there is way in which Sec. Clinton and hundreds of other anti-gun rights politicians benefit by blaming guns rather than the criminals who use them: They gain the "criminal vote".   This is precisely why so many anti-gun rights politicians are soft on criminals.  Not only does it go hand in hand with blaming guns, it also gains the "criminal vote".

Just what is the "criminal vote"?  Well, first of all, it is the votes of actual criminals, in those states where they are permitted to vote.  The greatest part of the criminal vote is not the criminals - it is their extended families.  Many - though by no means all - families of criminals find it hard to accept that their loved one has committed a horrible crime.  It is very much easier to think or even say, "If that gun had not been available, my son or daughter or brother or sister or friend would never have committed that crime.  They therefore would not be in jail or prison".  Every criminal has relatives, many have a lot of relatives.  In high crime areas, the criminal vote can be quite high - high enough to tip an election one way or the other.

If Sec. Clinton survives to be the democratic nominee, she will have no choice but to stand by her radical, anti-gun rights positions.  Although this will make her, by far, the most anti-gun presidential candidate in history, she cannot take back all that she has said during the primary elections - and she needs those criminal votes to win.