Democrat front runner Hillary Rodham Clinton will be honored this evening by the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence at a dinner ceremony in New York, which is part of the first annual “Bear Awards” named in memory of the late James Brady, in whose name the gun control lobbying group was founded.
According to The Hill, other high-profile gun prohibitionists are also on the program. Anti-gun New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York Sen. Charles Schumer also have speaking parts. But one can bet it will be Clinton hogging the spotlight; no small feat in the presence of Cuomo and Schumer.
This evening’s bash is no small potatoes affair. Basic tickets were $1,000 apiece. But one can step up to the plate with a bronze level table sponsorship of $15,000, or shell out $25,000 for “select table seating for ten guests,” and go whole hog for $50,000 for a preferred table for ten, and reach the “platinum level” for a paltry $75,000, which covers the cost of “two premier/VIP tables” with seating for 20 guests.
Clinton is hardly the only Democrat to push gun control. Earlier this week, Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky came under harsh criticism for exploiting last Friday’s terrorist slaughter in Paris to push gun control in this country.
Quoted by various news agencies including The Hill, Schakowsky said in a radio interview that the Paris attack “ought to be a chilling reminder because, aside from blowing themselves up, which is, of course, not about small weapons, these people used the kinds of weapons that are still available in the United States of America. I think it ought to cause us to have another consideration of sensible gun-safety laws.” Her remarks can be heard here.
Gun prohibitionists took full advantage of yesterday’s report in the Seattle Times about King County Sheriff John Urquhart’s suggestion to his commissioned deputies Tuesday that they carry sidearms and spare ammunition while off-duty. It stirred more than 250 comments from readers, many using the opportunity to sneer at armed private citizens.
To his credit, the sheriff told this column that, “It would be presumptuous of me to say a citizen should or should not arm themselves. That’s a personal decision.” No political grandstanding, just matter-of-fact logic.
Several pundits, and at least one Republican presidential candidate, have suggested that French gun control laws, which leave citizens disarmed, may be partly to blame for last Friday’s carnage. After every such mass shooting, there is invariably speculation that things might have been different, had someone been able to return fire. And the response to that speculation from anti-gunners is predictably condescending if not downright hostile.
The proverbial bottom line is that one cannot return fire if one is disarmed by strict gun laws. There can be no chance to stop a killer in his tracks, or distract and perhaps disorient a kook or terrorist with responding gunfire – perhaps making it possible for intended victims to escape – if honest citizens are hampered by “gun-free” zones. Ditto off-duty sheriff’s deputies, who have just as much right to defend themselves as anyone else in an emergency.
Clinton can enjoy tonight’s warm glow of the spotlight among friends, many of whom have their own private armed security, in a venue that will undoubtedly have armed security, but tomorrow her policies and those of other anti-gunners will be the same. Armed security for she, but not for thee.
Got an opinion about this column? Share your views in the “Comments” section below.