It’s the one issue where she can claim ground to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders, so it’s not surprising to see Hillary Clinton continue to make gun control a central component of her presidential campaign. And of course it’s a favorite topic of Obama’s, and Clinton is apparently on a mission to convince voters that she’s Obama in a dress. Or a pantsuit, as the case may be.

At a gun violence event in Port Washington, New York on Monday, Clinton said, “If anything else was killing 33,000 people a year, we would be mobilized.”


In 2013, drug overdoses killed 46,000 Americans. Car crashes typically claim approximately 35,000 lives a year. Why don’t we hear Clinton and Obama talking about all of the innocent people who have been sent to early graves by these societal menaces?

Furthermore, that “33,000” number is inaccurate. If you take suicides out of the mix, the number goes down to about 12,000. But really, the number is irrelevant anyway. What is an acceptable number of gun deaths to have each year? What would make Democrats happy? Once you realize there’s no possible answer to this question, you can see that this has nothing to do with saving lives. This is purely about dismantling American freedom.

“We also have to reverse the gift that was given to the gun lobby with the passage of a law that grants special immunity from the general responsibilities of showing reasonable care in making and selling products,” she said. “This is the rule for every other business that makes every other thing and sells it in our country. It is a rule that is rooted in centuries of legal history and cases.”

This is where Clinton really demonstrates how dangerous she is. According to her (and she’s right in line with mainstream Democratic Party ideology on this), victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearms manufacturers for damages. When Sanders spoke out against this, the New York Daily News crucified him on the cover, calling it his “Sandy Hook Shame.” And Clinton – still virtually assured the nomination but losing state after state to her rival – is eager to prove that she is a true liberal.

But it’s based on a lie. If we were to allow these lawsuits, it would mean certain doom for the firearms industry. It would be like allowing a pedestrian to sue General Motors because his neighbor intentionally ran him over. How is that the car company’s fault? In what way is Bushmaster responsible for the actions of Adam Lanza?

Gun manufacturers do not enjoy “special immunity.” If a gun blows up in a customer’s hand, they are perfectly entitled to sue. Clinton doesn’t want to even out the playing field; she wants to apply special liability to gun manufacturers that would hold them legally responsible for things they have no control over. It’s a way to go around the Second Amendment and nothing more.