Sponsored by:

Hillary Clinton has been on the war path this week, having all but defeated the insurgent Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Even before her win in New York, she was after everyone’s guns, most notably blaming the State of Vermont for crimes committed in New York. She said during a CNN interview “the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing the crimes in New York come from out of State.” Did you catch that? She blames guns for committing crimes, not criminals. Last I checked none of my guns have the ability to fire themselves. This quote makes it clear to me that Mrs. Clinton is not serious about gun crime and fixing that problem, but rather serious about taking all of our guns.

In California, two top democrats are fighting about how to take away the guns (at least, any guns that haven’t been taken away already). In what has to be the stupidest war of words I have ever heard, one man wants the legislature to execute the mass confiscation, while the other is seeking a ballot measure. My question is this: who the hell cares? Confiscation is confiscation, and if you’re going to violate the constitution, why would you compete over who gets to do it? Shouldn’t you be trying to avoid such a catastrophe?

Liberals, specifically those working at the Washington Post, are searching for a new way to define gun violence. You know, to make the problem sound much worse and much more widespread so that they’re weak argument for prohibiting guns sounds a little stronger. This is an attempt to look beyond just the homicide and suicide rates. Fair, but the method they pick is ultimately misleading: they want to count “shots fired,” which would equate to either shots seen or heard. Not only is that a little too reliant on witnesses, who often don’t know what they’re seeing or hearing, but if you think about it, that method would increase gun violence right next to shooting ranges. That doesn’t seem to get at the problem. Next we’ll be hearing that it’s violent to even own a gun.

Finally this week, Harriet Tubman was picked to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Some see such a move as way too “politically correct,” which I suppose is fair. Others see it as long overdue. And I guess that’s true as well – after all, not all of our important political figures were old white men. But I wanted to say a quick word about this story: it’s great, but it doesn’t really change much. It’s just symbolic: it doesn’t change the inequalities in our country at all, nor is it inherently unfair to anyone. It doesn’t even change the value of the bill. So great for everyone who wants to feel good about putting Tubman’s face on one of our most popular bills. I’m still waiting for someone to suggest real change.