My level of tolerance for watching The Hillary being interviewed on liberal news shows isn’t very high. After the first couple of silly, self-serving questions, I change the channel. I’d really like to see her asked serious about issues that are important to me.
- As the wife of a former president, a candidate for president and possibly the next president of the United States, you will have Secret Service protection for the rest of your life, yet you constantly call for restrictions on individual citizen’s ability to protect themselves from violent crimes. Isn’t that elitist? Are some people better than others and deserve personal protection while others don’t?
- You recently came out with the stance that the Supreme Court was wrong on the 2nd Amendment; that it does not protect individual rights to own firearms. So you are saying that in a time when Indian attacks were still a possibility, people lived on remote farms and there were no established police forces, that the founding fathers believed you had no right to self-protection? Explain please.
- You have said on many occasions that the assault weapon ban passed by your husband, in effect for ten years, should be re-instituted. Yet multiple studies done after the ban ended show it had absolutely no effect on crime. Why re-institute the ban when it had to effect the last time?
- I assume you are aware that the assault weapon ban passed by your husband did not make ownership of assault weapons illegal; it just banned NEW production of assault weapons. With millions of assault weapons already in the hands of civilians, how would a new assault weapon ban reduce crime especially since they are so rarely used in a crime? Or are you suggesting that assault weapons already in civilian hands be confiscated?
- The rich such as yourself, Michael Bloomberg, Rosy O’Donnell and others who abhor private gun ownership will always be able to afford armed private security for your personal protection. Why is it acceptable for your security detail to be armed, but wrong for an individual citizen who isn’t an important, millionaire politician to be able to protect themselves? Should your security detail be limited to guns with ten round magazines; the same limit you want to restrict everyone else to?
- Would you feel safe walking at night on the streets of Chicago, Detroit or Washington DC alone, without your armed security detail? If yes, then why do you have a 24/7 security detail? If no, then why do you insist that the average American walk these streets without protection?
- The recently released FBI crime data for 2014 shows that 16 States had no murders committed with rifles, 8 States had one murder committed with a rifle and 5 States had two murders committed with a rifle for a total of 18 rifle murders in 26 States. These were not assault rifles, but rifles in general. Since rifles were responsible for less than 1% (0.67%) of these States murders, why the demand to ban assault rifles when they’re rarely used in murders? Bear in mind, these same 26 States had 161 murders (6%) committed with bare hands.
- When speaking about Benghazi to a Congressional Committee you said,” With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? “ Would it make a difference if your daughter was killed in the attack? Would you want to know if she died because of an unpredictable, spontaneous attack or a failure of government bureaucrats to provide adequate protection?