WASHINGTON, Oct. 26, 2015 – If we boil the arguments of the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds down to their bases, we come up with the following back and forth exchange: “They want to take our guns!” Which gets the all too familiar response of “No one is trying to take your guns!”
To anyone who has had this conversation, it is familiar and it is without a winner or a loser. If one were to take this argument to nearly any Facebook post about gun politics, one would find more colorful manifestations of this timeless tug of war, but the sentiment would remain the same.
Conservatives will call the Democrats “libtards” and blame them for every evil that has befallen mankind.
Progressives will call Conservatives “ammosexuals” and blame them for every evil that has befallen mankind.
Are the Democrats coming for your guns? It would seem that there is no end in sight for this argument.
But perhaps we can take a swing at it.
With recent publicized shootings, the gun debate is once more at the forefront of national politics, allowing multiple candidates to take aim at the gun issue with the trademark vigor of an individual trying to make an impression on the deserted hellscape that is American politics.
Perhaps the most notable, or at least most recent, of these contributions is that of Hillary Clinton, 2016 presidential hopeful and recent congressional testimony survivalist. Seeking to garner attention and probably to pick up some new supporters, the former First Lady said that she believed Australian-style gun politics is something that the U.S. should mull over.
“I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at…”
Let’s do the math on this. Yes, the math.
Let’s allow A to equal Hillary Clinton’s gun politics, and we allow B to equal Australia’s gun politics. Hillary Clinton has stated that she believes Australia’s gun policies are worth considering. So A=B. We will allow C to equal gun confiscation, which is exactly what B is. Australia bought back roughly 650,000 firearms in a mandatory confiscation program brought about by a terrible massacre at the hands of a gunman. So B=C.
Using the transitive property in mathematics, if A (Clinton’s Gun Politics) = B (Australia’s Gun Politics), and B (Australia’s Gun Politics) = C (Confiscation), then we can deduce that the frontrunner of the Democratic Party for the 2016 Presidential election, A, means to C, institute a government mandated firearms buyback program. A=C.
The same formula can be applied to that of President Obama, who has recently made remarks praising Australia and the UK for their firearms policies.
This is the math, take it as you please.
Read, follow, share @bckprchpolitics on Twitter, and Back Porch Politics on Facebook.