GUEST | HRC v. NRA

The following is an guest editorial submitted by a reader.

Hillary Rodham Clinton     }
                                                 } In the Court of
                      v.                      }
                                                 } Public Opinion
National Rifle Association  }

During Tuesday night’s democrat primary presidential candidate debate, former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton said:

“I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose ninety people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.”

While I do not doubt that ninety people are gunned down daily in America, the National Rifle Association is not pulling the triggers. I agree that the entire county should unite against gun violence, however the effort should be directed towards the criminals and psychopaths whose actions are responsible for the infliction of death and injuries. The NRA, as far as I can tell, is against the unlawful use of firearms. Even going as far as abolishing the NRA and confiscating members’ weapons would seemingly have negligible impact on the rate of gun violence in America.

Inciting fervor against the National Rifle Association not only fails to deter those who enact or simply consider gun violence, but also wastes valuable effort that should instead be directed towards the actual perpetrators and their enablers. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that any NRA executives, employees or members belongs to the criminal cohort committing the gun violence in large numbers.

Mrs. Clinton apparently stated this in order to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. Judging by the volume and duration of the subsequent applause, Clinton’s rhetoric was highly effective among the audience.

Mrs. Clinton apparently knew that such magician-worthy misdirection would quickly alter the tenor of the debate on “gun control”, far away from honesty. After all, she has done this before, and enjoyed similar outstanding results. Recall that after four Americans were executed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary Clinton told the father of a slain SEAL:

“We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”

This was long before our government acknowledgment that the embassy attack was pre-planned terrorism and had nothing to do with the anti-Islamic YouTube video, “The Innocence of Muslims”. Hopefully readers as well as the electorate will see the pattern of deception. Hillary R. Clinton manufactures false anger against a convenient patsy while simultaneously obfuscating the truth, since clarity would lead to having to answer uncomfortable questions concerning her culpable lapses and misguided beliefs. The responses, whether true or false, could rapidly end her political career.

David Breznick, MD
October 15, 2015