This is sickening.
In a Monday piece, liberal website The Daily Beast looked at recent statements about guns made by both President Barack Obama and 2016 Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton and concluded that “civil war could erupt on American soil” if the Democrat leaders follow through on their gun control plans.
The piece looked at recent statements made by Obama and Clinton about the possibility of an Australia-style gun confiscation and whether it would be a good approach to America’s gun problem.
“When Australia had a mass killing — I think it was in Tasmania — about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking, the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did,” Obama said in June, after the shooting of nine blacks at a Bible study group in Charleston, South Carolina, that pushed gun grabbers to new efforts to restrict gun rights.
Obama, of course, failed to mention that Australia’s plan was an enforced buyback of all guns. He also failed to mention that Australia only had 650,000 guns in private hands, as opposed to 350 million in the United States.
Meanwhile, in an appearance last month in New Hampshire, Clinton told an audience that “Australia is a good example” of effective gun control laws whose example “would be worth considering.”
Paradoxically, one week after calling for gun confiscation, Hillary actually mocked the NRA, saying that the gun rights group has convinced supporters “they’re the only thing that’s going to stop the black helicopters from landing in the front yard and people’s guns being seized.”
The Daily Beast piece was far from conservative in tone; it said that “confiscation on a massive scale” may be “the only way to solve American gun violence.”
It also largely looked at the gun rights side in the form of a straw man argument.
“What gun-rights advocates necessarily believe but choose not to say is that the right to bear arms takes precedence over the negative externalities of ensuring that right … Just as we must tolerate the airing of all sorts of unpopular opinions as the consequence of unfettered free speech, so is gun crime the inevitable cost of living in a free society,” the piece read, apparently without bothering to source that argument to any actual conservative or to any facts about gun crime.
It also took a mocking tone when it discussed the conservative idea “that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the sake of hunters or people who want to protect their homes and businesses from criminals, but also to allow the population to resist an overreaching government.”