Dr. John Lott’s new piece at Fox News was on the top of the Front page and it was for at least the last two hours the most read article on the entire website. The piece starts this way:
Donald Trump keeps saying that Hillary Clinton wants to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment.” But the media fact checkers are having none of it. Last week, CNN called his accusation “persistent” and “false.” At the same time, a Washington Post editorial also called the claim “absurd.”
In his analysis for CNN, Eric Bradner acknowledges Clinton’s support for many different types of gun control — a 25 percent tax on handguns, an assault weapons ban, repeal of laws allowing permitted concealed handguns, and background checks on the private transfer of guns. Clinton also has supported increased fees and a variety of regulations that her husband imposed. Thanks to Bill Clinton’s regulations, the number of licensed firearms dealers from 248,155 in 1992 to 67,479 in 2000 — a 73 percent reduction.
The media picks and chooses when to take Clinton at her word. CNN pointed to a recent Fox News Sunday appearance where Hillary Clinton claimed: “I’m not looking to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not looking to take people’s guns away.” The Washington Post noted a statement from her campaign website about how “gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities.”
But in June, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns. “But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right . . . .”
Similarly, in New York City in the fall, she told donors: “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance that I get.” In Maryland in April, Chelsea Clinton promised that her mom would appoint to the Supreme Court justices who would overturn past decisions that struck down gun-control measures. But the only laws that the Supreme Court evaluated were complete gun bans and a law that made it a crime to use a gun.
Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban in place until 2008. It was also a felony, punishable by five years in prison, to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. This amounted to a complete gun ban on using guns for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down that ban.
Clinton told Stephanopoulos her opinion of this ruling: “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia.” She continued, “There was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.”
Clinton went on to talk about her push for expanded background checks, an issue that was irrelevant to Scalia’s decision in Heller. Instead, the question is why was D.C.’s local gun ban a “reasonable regulation.” Why should people be imprisoned for five years for defending their families? . . .
The rest of the article is available here.
For several hours the piece was the most read article on the Fox News website.