Clinton’s Constitutional Contempt
“If” bearing arms is a constitutional right, she says, it should be regulated.
Hillary Clinton is no fan of guns or of the Second Amendment. That’s not news to anyone reading these pages, or anyone who’s been paying attention since she advocated banning “assault weapons” in the early 1990s. As for this campaign, back in October, she discussed her plan for more gun control. Beyond the leftist platitude of “universal background checks,” which we already essentially have, she declared that gun manufacturers should be liable for how their products are used. She has also praised Australian gun confiscation as something worth looking into.
So questions about her interpretation of the Second Amendment are justified. And former Clintonista George Stephanopoulos actually asked her a tough one: “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right — that it’s not linked to service in a militia?”
Clinton did her best to evade the question beyond blaming “the late Justice Scalia” for his ruling in the Heller case. Before that ruling, she argued, “there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment.” She proceeded to regurgitate her policy preferences, before insisting, “If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation” (emphasis added). Clinton is only grudgingly conceding that the Supreme Court has ruled bearing arms an individual right, not that the Constitution clearly enumerates it. She’s also strongly implying that she would both regulate it further and nominate judges who would work to limit it. Democrats have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, though they cloak it in rhetoric of feigned respect.
Start a conversation using these share links: