Hillary Clinton couldn't definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment. While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn't true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left.
"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?" he asked.
"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 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," she said. "So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."
| Short answer: no. She'll elaborate after she wins... |
"And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions, but that's not what I asked," he said. "I said, do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?"
"If it is 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, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms," Clinton said.
| Still #NeverTrump? |
| All those early laws, Hillary, and not one of them denied the rights of ordinary citizens to own firearms. But let's say Hillary were to succeed: she becomes President. She nominates a rabid, anti-gun Supreme Court justice. The Senate provides consent. A case makes its way to the Court, and now the new Court, by 5-4 vote, reverses Heller, McDonald, etc., and takes away the right of common citizens to own ordinary firearms. What happens next, oh liberals? I'll tell you what happens next: 34 states pass a call for a constitutional convention with the purpose to restore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that's what happens. Pubs control the governorships and legislatures of 31 states today, so it's not unlikely that this would happen. Once that convention (not guided by the Congress, and not controlled by the progressives) passes the 29th Amendment which says, "The Second Amendment shall always be construed as to protect the right of citizens to own, possess and operate ordinary firearms, and the ammunition required for such", it will go back to the states. Oh liberals: do you really think you can stop 38 states from ratifying that amendment? And if you try and come anywhere close to doing so, what do you think the country does NEXT? |