Stephanopoulos sought to frame Clinton’s response by prefacing his question thus: “As you know, Donald Trump has been out on the stump talking about the 2nd Amendment, saying you want to abolish the 2nd Amendment—I know you reject that.” Having set the stage, he then tried to sound like an unbiased journalist asking the tough questions: “ I want to ask you a specific question. Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right—that’s it is not linked to service in a militia?”
Now that is a fairly straightforward question coming from this weasel, and most folks would be able to answer it with ease perhaps accompanied by a little clarification. But this was not the case with Mrs. Clinton, who appeared to not want to answer the question at all, but understood that not answering it was not an option.
Clinton responded by saying, “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, and that there was no argument until then that localities and state and federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations.” Here Mrs. Clinton was referring to a Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case whereby the court ruled five to four that the individual does have the right to bear arms irrespective of military status and that the restrictions placed by the District of Columbia on gun owners—e.g., keeping arms disassembled/disabled or banning handguns—was inconsistent with that right. Mrs. Clinton believes this ruling was in error and blames the dead Justice Scalia for tipping the balance.
Given the fact that the Bill of Rights was created to protect the citizenry from the tentacles of government, Clinton’s opinion is quite hard to swallow. Had Stephanopoulos been a real journalist he might have followed up with, “So, you believe the constitution does give the government the authority to regulate rights of the individual that are granted under that same constitution?” But of course, the water boy was not going to ask that question.
Still trying to portray himself as a hardnosed journalist, Stephanopoulos pressed Mrs. Clinton to respond to his original question, saying, “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe...their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton then replied, “If it’s a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic.” Well, there ya’ go! Not only did Mrs. Clinton say “If it’s a constitutional right,” she reiterated her position that the government has the authority to regulate rights of the individual.
Poor Mrs. Clinton. She is trying to appeal to her base but not unduly anger gun owners. She uses the Heller case ruling to highlight her position that government should have the power to make “reasonable” laws regulating gun ownership. Any thinking gun owner shouldn’t have an issue with that. At the same time, she rejects the notion that the 2nd Amendment applies to the militia and the individual. In her book, it only applies to the militia, not the individual—the individual has no right to protect himself or, if he does, those rights that can be tinkered with. The fly in the ointment is, of course, Hillary Clinton would not recognize reasonable regulation if it were right in front of her face.
After Mrs. Clinton’s fuzzy response a second time, Stephanopoulos’ full-court press on the 2nd Amendment issue was laid to rest. The deed was done—the seed was planted that Hillary is willing to let the government decide what constitutes reasonable restrictions on gun ownership while at the same time, she appears to respect the tenets of the 2nd Amendment. I believe that’s called threading the needle and you can credit Stephanopoulos with an assist on that play.
Clinton, like Obama, looks at the Constitution with disdain—it is an encumbrance to what she really wants to accomplish. In Mrs. Clinton’s world, reasonable regulation of the 2nd Amendment would probably allow the average law-abiding citizen to keep a small air rifle in his closet complete with a cork-stopper on a string. In her mind, the decision to do that is not one that lies with the people but is the domain of the government totally and completely. There’s no need to legislate it, vote on it, or discuss it—it’s her way or the highway. It’s that simple. You see, when it comes to the socialist agenda, Hillary is a trooper who always marches straight for the goal and the goal is and always has been to abolish the 2nd Amendment rights of the individual—a necessity in the socialist playbook for transforming this nation. After all, if the individual is armed to the teeth against government aggression, that won’t do, will it?
The annoying thing is that there are far more pressing issues that require her attention rather than her obsession with taking guns from citizens who have every right UNDER GOD to protect themselves. Quite irrespective of the 2nd Amendment, we have the God given right to survival, whether or not we do it with guns. Instead of incessantly carping on gun control, Mrs. Clinton should turn her tunnel vision to the issues that have festered under Obama: a crappy economy, porous border security, terrorism, and reining in an out-of-control federal government. Sadly it appears Mrs. Clinton is only interested in capturing the power of the presidency and taking our guns away. How silly of her. Americans are a resilient and enterprising lot. We will always find a way to defend ourselves, guns or not.
© Copyright WBrown2016. All Rights Reserved.