Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
From the Editors’ Desk: Clinton vs. the NRA?
Via the WSJ, Hillary Clinton is doubling down on her anti-Second Amendment message:
Durham, N. C.—Hillary Clinton is making gun violence a central theme of her campaign, becoming the first leading presidential candidate to directly confront the National Rifle Association without the cover of a hunting license. She is holding town halls with a group known as the Mothers of the Movement, composed of mothers of victims of “gun violence, police and racially charged incidents,” including Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager fatally shot by a white neighborhood-watch volunteer in 2012. In Ohio, six leaders of the group, all of whom lost children in high-profile shootings or police altercations, are set to campaign on her behalf again this weekend in Akron, Cleveland and Columbus, ahead of Tuesday’s Democratic primary.
And while this may be smart politics in the Democratic primaries, she may find herself downrange of one of the most powerful and effective lobbies in the land come the general election:
Published in Domestic Policy, Guns, PoliticsRegistered voters overall are more concerned the government would go too far in restricting gun rights, 52%, than fail to do enough to regulate access to firearms, at 44%, a December Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found. But the survey also showed a deep partisan divide, with 74% of Democratic primary voters saying they were worried government would do too little and 73% of Republicans worried the government would do too much.
“downrange” – nice
This tracking to the left of Bernie thing is going to make the pivot to the general election look like something out of Swan Lake.
I think Clintons move is simply to pull another special interest group into her campaign. One that will bring a lot of emotion into her campaign. Her move maybe to put more fire and emotion into her campaign to shore up support she may be losing in other areas.
The issue of gun control brings out a paradox in Democratic politics. Union workers strongly support Democrats because of their support of laws and government funding that benefit unions. However a lot of those workers are hunters which raises the question of whether or not Clinton could be vulnerable on this topic.
So does this put the Police Unions in play, or just their members?
Clinton has already said that she is proud that she considers the NRA (and it membership) her enemies. After she become POTUS I would not be surprised if the NRA and its membership are considered criminal and terrorist and treated accordingly.
The union hierarchy. Here in Ohio, the police unions have universally lobbied against concealed carry (which, when they could not stop it, they injected with some utterly stupid restrictions on vehicle carry, c/o the Highway Patrol union), lobbied against Castle Doctrine, lobbied against easing concealed carry, etc. The patrol officers and sheriffs, however, have all opposed the union bosses.
The police unions universally support the Dems, even if the rank and file do not. But Ohio is not a Right to Work state, and union dues and membership are compulsory.
This is good, perhaps the only good political news so far this year (but it’s only March). The NRA does well with candidate support.
I think Hillary is fooling herself in thinking that gun control is a good presidential election issue. Why she really brings this up is that Sanders is not a gun control nut, so it is an issue that she can separate herself from Sanders on.
Once she’s got the nomination, expect to hear the phrase “I support the 2nd Amendment” from Hilary about a hundred times. It will be a lie, of course, just like every time Barack Obama says it.
The key in the campaign will be for Cruz to keep pinning her into corners until she’s essentially forced to articulate specific proposals, and then examine the wisdom and constitutionality of those proposals. Democrats love to stay on the edges and lament “gun violence” (who doesn’t?), while making vague statements about too many guns, etc., etc. One rarely, if ever, hears specifics.