Last night’s Democratic debate was something of a snoozer. Uh . . . Where was I? Oh right, former First Lady Hillary Clinton reckons that “guns in and of themselves will not make Americans safer” and “it’s not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to discourage people from owning guns, apparently. All he wants to do: “create a consensus” on gun control. Judging from Bernie’s wish list, that word doesn’t mean what the self-avowed democratic socialist wants it to mean . . .
Sanders reckons gun owners are down with strengthening the background checks, closing the “gun show loophole” and making sure that “military weapons designed to kill people are not in the hands of civilians.” How do we join this consensus of which you speak? You know what? Never mind.
After that pronouncement, Governor O’Malley bullied his way in to attack Sanders and Clinton for their waffling on guns, and went on a tear on “combat assault weapons.” Hello? What good would a ban do given that there are millions of “assault rifles” already in circulation? Would you confiscate them? “No I would not,” O’Malley finally answered, with a straight face. He then went on another tear on “combat assault weapons” and his opponents’ records on gun control.
Dander up, Bernie referred to “fully automatic rifles” in his subsequent wander down gun control memory lane, mistakenly claiming the pro-gun side wanted to protect the sale of machine guns. Well I do, but you know what I mean. Anyway, win! When Democrats scrap over who’s the more rabid gun control advocate everyone knows on which side of the firearms freedom fence they sit. The wrong side.