Second Amendment supporters often labor under the mistaken belief that we have won the Second Amendment debate. It may be true that we have seen tremendous victories in recent years, but if there is one thing for which the left is known it is their relentless pursuit of their “progressive” agenda.
In short: whenever we feel calm and secure regarding our Second Amendment rights, it means that we are in the eye of the storm. Liberal tyrants are gathering strength for yet another push to separate us from our constitutional rights. Be ready.
Case in point: Hillary Clinton is far more threatening to our Second Amendment rights than Barack Obama. Obama has yielded to certain political realities and despite his tyrannical edicts and nauseating, immoral rhetoric, he has at the very least conceded that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to firearm ownership.
Of course, he argues simultaneously that only certain people should be allowed their constitutional rights.
Clinton, in contrast, is far more dangerous because she has telegraphed a willingness to simply disregard constitutional interpretations that are now legal bedrock.
In October, Clinton praised Australia’s gun control “buyback” as a policy worth implementing here in the United States. She conspicuously neglected to note that the “buyback” was merely a full-force gun confiscation and that such a program is directly in opposition to even the most-liberal understandings of our constitutional rights.
Her willingness to even discuss this tyrannical act should leave all Americans with an understanding that Clinton views the Constitution as an obstacle, not as a wonderful affirmation of enlightenment thought.
In case her position seemed unclear, Clinton doubled-down on Sunday and declared that late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the Heller opinion, destroyed out historical “nuanced reading of the Second Amendment.”
On “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, the host noted that some fear Clinton would “abolish the Second Amendment.” He asked,
“Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton hedged and claimed that while she did believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, such a constitutional right is subject to regulation.
“I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And 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 regulations.”
You know, because “shall not be infringed” is just so ambiguous and clearly means “open to regulation and infringement.”
Stephanopoulos saw that she was dodging and asked again, “Do you believe…that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”
Clinton wouldn’t budge. “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulation.”
However, unlike every other constitutional right, the Second Amendment is the only right that explicitly declares that it is not subject to “regulation” via the “shall not be infringed” clause.
Further, it’s astonishing that this former lawyer would lack the historical understanding of Second Amendment challenges and claim that “there was no argument.”
The Second Amendment was largely uncontested up until the National Firearms Act of 1934. After 1939’s fizzled-out Miller decision, the Supreme Court remained hands-off until 2008 making very few (and minor) Second Amendment decisions as tyranny spread throughout the country and cities and states denied basic civil rights to millions of American citizens.
For her to claim that this was an era of agreement is not only intellectually dishonest; it’s downright insulting.
Heller and the architects of that decision did not destroy a “nuanced” understanding of our Second Amendment; they righted a horrendous wrong.
Clinton has been very clear: she intends to destroy the Second Amendment; if she cannot do it explicitly, she will do it via the enactment of “reasonable regulations” that will render this important protection void.