Hillary Clinton

It's Pretty Clear Clinton Does Not Think Americans Have a Constitutional Right to Guns

The Democrats' choice for president refuses to say what the Second Amendment protects.

|

ABC News

During an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Hillary Clinton reinforced the impression that she does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. Stephanopoulos put the question to her directly, and she dodged it twice (italics added):

Stephanopoulos: 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: 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 regulation.

So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and in fact what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.

So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.

And once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I'm going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done, and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.

Stephanopoulos: And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions. 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: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. 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.

So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right—I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

Clinton and Stephanopoulos are referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense. The Court ruled that the District of Columbia's firearm restrictions, which banned handguns and required owners of long guns to keep them disassembled or disabled by trigger locks, were inconsistent with that right. Clinton thinks Heller was wrongly decided, which at the very least means she thinks the District's law was constitutional. As I noted in a column last month, that position is hard to reconcile with a meaningful right to armed self-defense, since the regulations overturned by the Court made it impossible to exercise that right. But it seems clear that Clinton also disagrees with the idea that the Second Amendment protects any sort of individual right to guns. No one who accepts that view would answer a question about whether he does by saying, "If it is a constitutional right…" Clinton is implicitly saying that she does not believe people have a constitutional right to firearms but that even voters who do believe that should still be OK with her gun control proposals.

In that light, the few references to the Second Amendment on Clinton's campaign website make more sense. Four out of 11 scold people—NRA leaders, Republican presidential candidates (here and here), and potential Supreme Court nominees listed by Donald Trump—for reading the Second Amendment too broadly. Here are the other Second Amendment mentions:

1. Former U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was gravely injured in a Tucson mass shooting five years ago, and her husband say Clinton's gun control agenda "would help reduce gun violence and save lives—all while respecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners."

2. Nelba Márquez-Greene, the mother of a 6-year-old girl killed in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, says "we need a candidate that will balance Second Amendment protection with the protection of human life."

3. Campaign staffer Elizabeth Chan describes President Obama's executive actions regarding guns as "important steps that will respect the Second Amendment while working to protect our families and communities from gun violence."

4. In a transcript of remarks that Clinton made at an April 21 forum on gun violence, she says her proposals are "consistent with the Second Amendment."

5. In another speech the next day, Clinton says "we can't ignore the Second Amendment."

6. In yet another speech the day after that, Clinton says, "There is no doubt in my mind that we can do this consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution."

7. A quote from a Las Vegas Sun editorial agrees that "none of these regulatory measures would violate the Second Amendment."

Conspicuously missing: a statement by Clinton or one of her surrogates affirming that the Second Amendment has anything to do with individual rights. Giffords says so, and Márquez-Greene implies it. But not Clinton or anyone speaking on her behalf.

If you don't think the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, of course, it is obvious that any gun control proposal will be consistent with the Second Amendment. That includes not just the measures Clinton is now touting (which are themselves arguably unconstitutional) but more ambitious policies, such as the national system of handgun licensing and registration Clinton used to advocate and the Australian-style mass confiscation she openly admires. Contrary to what Clinton claims, an understanding of the Second Amendment that lets politicians impose whatever gun restrictions strike their fancy, including outright bans, is anything but "a nuanced reading."

Clinton's deliberately evasive approach to this issue contrasts with the positions taken by the Democratic Party's platform in the last three presidential elections. In 2012 and 2008, Democrats said, "We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms." In 2004, they promised to "protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms." 

That language is notably stronger than the corresponding plank in 2000, when many Democrats blamed Al Gore's defeat on his gun control advocacy. The 2000 platform affirmed "the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners" but did not tie them to the Constitution or the Second Amendment. In 1996, when Clinton's husband ran for re-election, the Democrats bragged about his gun control accomplishments. while adding that "we oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban." In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected to his first term, the Democrats likewise said "we do not support efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes."

In addition to omitting any reference to the Constitution, the 1992, 1996, and 2000 platforms ignored self-defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as "the core lawful purpose" of the Second Amendment. Clinton essentially has reverted to that earlier Democratic position, promising not to interfere with hunting, target shooting, or gun collecting while avoiding the subject of self-defense and the language of rights. (Notice how, in her interview with Stephanopoulos, she began to say that "responsible gun owners have a right…" but was apparently incapable of finishing the sentence.) Clinton's twist is that she is willing to utter the phrase "the Second Amendment," but without any explanation of what it means to her, assuming it means anything at all.

[via Jonathan Adler]

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: You Finished with That?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Come on Team Blue, one more push. Just one more time, and you’ll take that hill this time.

    1. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 8000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail…
      Go This Website.________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. Shrillary doesn’t believe that the peasantry has any rights. She believes that THEY believe they have rights, and is willing to prentend she agrees with them, up to a point. But at base she has no respect for any limitations on government power save where such limitations are convenient for her agenda.

    1. I find this ‘so and so doesn’t believe such and such has rights to’ line to be useless. It’s (or should be) irrelevant or inconsequential what a politician thinks about which rights they select to be legitimate. What matters is what is enumerated in the Constitution. Politicians come and go; with it their whims and whimsical ideas of what society ought to be. But the Constitution stays exactly where it is, comfortable in its message.

      Or should be.

      1. But the Constitution stays exactly where it is, comfortable in its message.

        And completely unenforceable against the government and ignored by the politicians.

        1. ^this^

        2. ^this^

    2. That’s just silly. She just believes that our rights are subject to Reasonable Regulations, even though the Constitution mentions no such thing. It’s Reasonable, so it must be good. Just like how if you label anything as “common sense”, it instantly proves it’s a good idea.

    3. Shrillary doesn’t believe that the peasantry has any rights.

      Hillary believes that the GOVERNMENT has “rights” (what it has is powers) — that is, the only people who have rights are those who control government – as she stated in the interview:

      “Stephanopoulos: 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: 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 …”

  3. ” government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.”

    Government can’t quarter soldiers in your home, but probably can in your garage or tool shed. Don’t be so unreasonable, peasants.

    1. Yes, of course, “shall not be infringed” and “shall make no law” means the government can do just the opposite, so long as they consider it “reasonable”. Because the government apparently has rights now, as opposed to limited powers granted by the constitution.

      She just rolls ignorant, dishonest, and evil all into one giant shit sandwich, doesn’t she?

      1. Why is it that only weirdos on the internet are able to read plain English. I get that a plain reading of the constitution makes exercising government power difficult, but really people, these bill of rights amendments don’t have any exceptions for “reasonable regulation”.

        In fact they are quite explicitly the opposite. “Shall make no law” doesn’t say “unless you think it is really important” like the obscenity standard seems to believe. And of course now we are facing a real threat from the hate speech folks throughout the west, despite the “there is no such thing as a slippery slope” objections. If we had never tried to shoehorn our icky distaste for porn into free speech, maybe people would actually be ashamed of making arguments like “hate speech is not free speech” in support of putting people in jail for saying misogynistic things like “the poetry of Maya Angelou is vastly overrated”.

        1. ” If we had never tried to shoehorn our icky distaste for porn into free speech, maybe people would actually be ashamed of making arguments like “hate speech is not free speech”

          Shame and decency are not in the SJW dictionary. This “maybe” has about the same statistical probability as a unicorn flying out of my butt.

      2. Don’t forget incompetent and corrupt.

    2. Governments do not have “rights”, they have “authority” or more commonly “power”.

      1. Authority and power are different. Authority to exercise a power can only be given by the legitimate owner of the power/ object to be acted upon.

  4. If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you

  5. Fuck. I can’t wait to listen to this hag for 8 fucking years. Fuck the moron piece of shit Republicans for guaranteeing her absolute power. Idiots.

    1. Being against the Second Amendment is not a winner.

      1. No, but having an opponent that’s even more loathed than she is, is.

        1. I know right?

          She was to trample the first and second amendments, blatantly takes bribes from domestic and foreign parties and never saw a country that she didn’t want to invade.

          But Trump says mean things – so he’s totes worse.

        2. The Trumpies actually think he is popular and will win in an landslide.

    2. Eight years? Did the presidential term change and I missed it? At a certain point, the public always gets tired of the current policy bent and votes in the slightly different one. That’s why (along with the Korean War), Truman was a one-term pres. (Well, one and half actually).

      So far, she is the worst candidate in my lifetime. Worse than Trump. She actually makes me almost like Obama by comparison…and that’s no small achievement.

      1. If she wins in November, in spite of all the horrible shit that is known about her, she will likely win a second term as well due to the Democrat electoral college advantage as well as the advantages of incumbency.

        1. Her shitty health is our only hope.

          1. Great, then Vice President Lieawatha steps in.

    3. And also fuck the idiot Democrats for nominating a known liar, incompetent, corrupt, stupid, criminal.

      1. Well, yes. “Fuck the Democrats” is implicit in whatever I say.

        1. I figured that, I just wanted to vent. I still can’t believe we’re actually going to have either Hillary or Trump in the White House. It’s fucking surreal.

          1. Come on SMOD or Cthulu. Any day now.

            1. …you say that like you think Hillary would be the lesser evil in that contest.

      2. It’s Herself’s turn. Vag Vote 2016, The Year of Plumbing Politics.

        As much as I dislike that little neocon Canuckistani eunuch personification of herpes that periodically flares up, he’s right that Skullduggery Rotten, will walk into the WH again.

        Also, could Sullum have found a worse picture? Geez those lifeless eyes…. Reminds of Mary Shelley’s description of The Creature from, “Frankenstein, or a Modern Prometheus.”

        “watery eyes, that seemed almost the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his hershrivelled complexion and straight black lips.”

        1. That basically sums up her entire campaign: “Vote for Hillary, because VAGINA!”

        2. Morning, Doc. Serious question, based on your “lifeless eyes” observation: What psychoactive drugs could she be taking? It seems she’s pretty spaced out on occasion and prone to mindless head-bobbing. Heavy anti-anxiety drugs?

          1. Afternoon, Rich.

            Actually Rich, you magnificent bastard, you have highlighted my personal biggest question I have about Ole Skullduggery Clinton….

            Her health HX. I would really, really like to know what that lady is taking to to keep her mobile. We pretty much know for sure that she either fell, hit her head, and developed a subdural hematoma; or, she had a stroke or anyeurism. I’m not positive about the actual condition, but I am pretty damn sure what ever cerebral accident she had, it’s still affecting her, and her RX list would prove *VERY* illuminating.

            Yeah, getting high doses of say, benzos, like Xanax bars, Klonapin, Ativan, even Valium, since they treat such wide array of maladies, would be my first bet, in addition to blood thinners (anti-coags, clot busters, stroke prevention).

            Not to mention the constant fomaldehyde pump strapped to her leg (another reason for pantsuits).

            1. This is another point Trump can bring up in the debates.

              1. That would have to be done tactfully… *VERY* tactfully, and Troomp is not known for tact.

                A medical HX, particularly Herself’s Vag Vote 2016, The Year of Plumbing Politics, line of attack runs periously close to attacking her on her appearance, which he may actually be able to pull off. Given his results with iCarly Bot and the, “That face….,” comments (which blew up in his), he may want to avoid that, given it may do the impossible and present her in a sympathetic light.

                1. Oh, I agree. It would have to be done “sympathetically”. Something like “Your difficulties with coughing fits throughout the campaign are well-documented. How can you assure the American People you do not have serious health issues that could negatively impact your performance?”

                  1. That’s way too eloquent for Troomp….

                    Needs more sentence fragments, dangling participles, and some split infinitives. Oh, and a particular adjective relentlessly repeated…

                  2. He’d do well to get someone else to write that statement for him. You might have a job opportunity in El Trumpo’s campaign.

                2. Blew up how? Caused warty to have a hissy fit and shit himself again?

                  She sunk to irrelevance shortly after Trumps remarks and he went on to win.

                  1. Blew up how? Caused warty to have a hissy fit and shit himself again?

                    She sunk to irrelevance shortly after Trumps remarks and he went on to win.

                    That’s true, she didn’t capitalise on it, but she did confront him at one of the debates after he said it, and he sheepishly (and disingenuously) retracted the remark. He also didn’t repeat it again. It’s possible to insult women and get away with it, but one area *NO MAN* should go is after a woman’s appearance. Even a majority of committed TEAM RED female enemies of hers *DO NOT* like mocking feminine appearances.

                    That’s why you get another woman to do it for you. *grins*

                    That’s when her number shot up, but she couldn’t maintain her numbers outside of excellent debate performances.

                  2. What the fuck are you talking about, you low-functioning mongoloid? Are you upset that I don’t like your TEAM or something?

                    1. Fucking threading. Zaytsev is the mongolid, not Groovus.

                    2. Dance monkey, dance!

                3. Uhh…we’re talking about the guy who has literally already attacked women for being ugly right? You think he’s going to stop doing that for some reason?

      3. Feature, not bug.

    4. Fuck the moron piece of shit Republicans for guaranteeing her absolute power.

      WHYCOME AINT THARE NO VIABAL OPPOSITION PARTEY
      AY BLAME YOKELS AN THER JESUS N’ TRUCKS WHAT DONE IT

  6. Ken Shultz had an interesting argument in the last Hillary thread that he could understand Bernie Bros, since they don’t quite get the evils of socialism. Hell, I’m old enough to remember doing duck and cover drills, but I was young enough to be clueless why some wall being demolished in Berlin was a big deal. It took a bit of extra-curricula research to find out about the horrors of Communism. So I can kind of forgive kids for being ignorant. (And ignorant isn’t the same as stupid.)

    My experience dealing with a few hardcore Hillary supporters is somewhat like dealing with conspiracy theorists or flat earthers. As far as they’re concerned, all the Hillary scandals really are a result of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

    1. As far as they’re concerned, all the Hillary scandals really are a result of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

      Yup. Even when you point out that the State Department I.G. and the FBI are not exactly Republican operatives, it still doesn’t register.

  7. Blast from the past from the late lamented Hitch.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..inton.html

    1. Like Calvin & Hobbes, Hitch remains relevant.

    2. Can you imagine what he would have to say about her as a candidate today? The foundation? The email server? Bengazi? It would have been awesome.

  8. She’s fighting for the rights of the government, which is us, so she’s fighting for our rights!

    – ‘Tard

    1. All the Hillbots accusing Trump of being a Fascist seem quite blind to the Fascism they are supporting.

    2. Of course, it’s perfectly alright to impose legislation on the majority law abiding gun owners on the false premise of a minority of people who commit violent crime.

    3. Wow, that’s a pretty telling quote. I’m sure she only means it in the context of viewpoints that she disagrees with. Because otherwise constitutional protections are not just “pretty meaningless”, they are absolutely meaningless. Majority rule, FTW!

      Of course, this is where they are headed. Over in New York the Attorney General is suing Exxon/Mobile over the notion that they must advocate for climate change regulation, because science! The convoluted logical hoops that the left is jumping through to justify their support of these actions is mind-boggling.

      When I was young I used to believe that the Nazis were scary and different, and there is no way that the rest of us normal folk could ever tolerate such an ideology. Now I realize that people everywhere are scarily totalitarian when given a chance. We always had a notion that the religious right would exercise government power to force you to live according to their ideology, but in this day and age it is obvious that the progressive left is far more dangerous on this front.

      And then there’s Hillary, who combines the worst of the progressive groupthink tactics with the hawkish big-government crony capitalism of the right.

      And she’s the better alternative? Holy crap, what happened to my country? It is like the goofball guys from your high school who nominated their buddy Jake for homecoming queen on a goof are running the country.

      1. When I was in college (circa 1987), to be a member of the Student Government I had to first be a part of the Residence Hall Federation (RHF – say the word “dorm” at the risk of your own life). The RHF was made of up mostly females and gays (nttawwt), didn’t have the brain power to add two single digit numbers, and were all about teh feelz. They were “nice” people (so long as you didn’t challenge them our burst their bubbles), just not too bright.

        They were largely elementary ed majors, and anyone submerged in that lot will know what I am talking about. I was confident that these little sheltered snowflakes would get a rude awakening when they became part of the “real world”.

        The joke was on me.

        They are now running the country. And they’re challenged. So they’re not nice but nasty little fascists that they always were underneath. The problem is, these dimwits have bred an even more toxic next generation with skins so thin that the lack of rapturous adoration over their bowel movements is “aggression”. This next generation are now already hitting the lower ranks of the Federal Bureaucracy – DOJ, IRS, SEC, OSHA etc etc.

        The country at large is feeling the results. I suspect that is why Trump is where he is. Unfortunately, the establishment right and libertarians (i.e. Reason) don’t seem to understand just how shitty things have become for ordinary America. They see Trump as the disease when he’s just a symptom, and the disease will go on largely unchecked.

        1. You’re not even that old, and you’re still blaming the generation that isn’t even old enough to be a senator?

          Impressive.

          But it must be those low level flunkies at OSHA and the IRS and the EPA that are causing all this damage, not those who invented and actually control those agencies. Yes, that’s it! Why didn’t I see it sooner!

  9. Implicit in her argument is that she does not believe in rights, at all. The “reasonable regulation” caveat is a big enough loophole to drive a fleet of trucks through.

  10. Here’s the money shot:

    …like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.

    Just no.

    1. What, you mean “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean the government actually can infringe, as long as the government claims their infringements are ‘reasonable’?! The Hell you say!

    2. I did not know we could box out the 16th with Federal Income Tax Free Zones. Thanks Hilldog!

      1. It depends on how much of the savings you pass along to the Clinton Foundation.

  11. I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading…

    “Nuanced”, of course, meaning “exactly the opposite of the dictionary meaning” in DemSpeak.

    1. When ANY politician starts saying “nuanced”, mentally substitute “indefensible”.

      When they say “tax”, substitute “theft”.

      When they say “government”, substitute “mafia with better PR”.

      It leads to some bracingly forthright statements, once translated.

    2. Nuance is a French word meaning “bullshit”.

  12. To me, and it could be an erroneous bit of logic I confess, gun control is very much like the anti-tobacco crusade.

    They assured us back when it hit its stride in the 1980s it was never going to apply to the private sphere. Yet, slowly, bit by bit, they hammered away and we find ourselves at war with smokers in their homes and cars.

    They knew all along chisel away slowly is the best way to achieve their ultimate goal of complete ban (without ever moving to make it illegal because the government is too addicted (excuse the pun) to the tax revenues).

    There are no winners here. Just nannies, tyrants and hypocrites.

    It’s the same with gun control. ‘Stop being paranoid. No one is coming for your guns.’

    In liar bureaucrat, progressive speak, this means this is EXACTLY what they want.

    1. This could be said about nearly every government program/law/regulation. The income tax will never hit 10%. Social security cards will never be used as a form of ID on and on…

      By the time the critics are proven right, the entire debate has been memory holed.

    2. Self-grammar: it means this is exactly what they want.

    3. The difference is that they may have meant it, at the time, wet tobacco regulation. But they are flat out lying about not wanting to take away everyone’s right to own a gun.

    4. That’s how propaganda works. It is systemic and persistent.
      It also depends on a uneducated populous who is too busy or stupid to read about all aspects of the deception.

      kind of like global cooling – global warming – climate change – sustainability – …next re-vamped PR scheme to find a common enemy in for profit business. Even if ACW were real, it could never be proven and thus, the predictions have to come to fruition decades down the road in order to keep the believers on the hook.

      people tend to immediately get up in arms in comparisons to the national socialists. The reality is the, forgetting the genocide, they were masters at propaganda and shaming and politicians ever since have been enamored and jealous of their successes.

  13. Which of course is a lie, anyway. For at least 150 years there really were few infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The unconstitutional, er, I mean “nuanced” restrictions are relatively recent.

    1. This was reply to GamerFromJump|6.8.16 @ 8:00AM|#

      Fucking squirrels.

    2. More specifically, restrictions on *citizens in general* are relatively recent.

      When they limited or abolished the right of black people to bear arms in the 19th century, it was justified because black people weren’t citizens, or were only quasi-citizens.

  14. If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation

    This altitude makes my blood boil. Fuck off slaver is a good response in this case.

    1. If it’s a right, how can it be regulated?

    2. Yes – several of have noticed. Huge mask slip there.

    3. It’s typical self-serving prog contradictory thinking. Does anyone believe she thinks there should be “reasonable regulations” on abortion? Is the right to not be forced to house soldiers under our roof not apply if a “reasonable regulation” says we have to put them up in our backyard? Does the 5th Amendment not apply if we’re accused of planning to blow up the White House?

      Funny how these “reasonable regulations” only apply towards constitutional rights that progs don’t like.

    4. Fuck off slaver is a good response in this case.

      A sledgehammer to the head is an even better one.

      1. *Phreet jumps out and kidnaps GamerFromJump*

  15. what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.

    So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.

    What the laws of our lands say versus what people actually believe.

    Laws are nothing but empty promises in fading ink. They have no power to help unless everyone else believes in them too.

    1. Law and legislation are not the same thing. Law is what society follows and believes, while legislation is government’s attempt to codify society’s law, or to create laws for society. For example no legislation exists that says if you leave your books on a chair at the college cafeteria, that that seat belongs to you. Yet people follow it because it is the law. You would rightly feel wronged if someone moved your books and took the seat, and if you spoke up that person would be rightly shames. Similarly if you get a ticket for going five miles over the speed limit, you will feel wronged because doing so, while being a violation of government legislation, is not a violation of society’s law. Though in this case the cop will not be shamed, since LEOs is incapable of shame, compassion, or basic human decency.

    2. if those numbers (90%, 75%) were accurate, the restrictions she’s requesting would already be law (as a constitutional amendment if the statute were to be overturned). There is NO chance that something the elites desperately want would fail to be passed immediately if it had 90% approval.

      By a very small inductive link, Granmaw Felony is full of shit (again) and is lying through her teeth (again), and is trying to steal our liberties (AGAIN!).

  16. It also occurs to me that we’ll never get a piece of Hillary’s paid troll army until the writers here start pointing out Her Nibs’ faults.

  17. Every time you think the American people have hit rock bottom, they love to turn around and prove you wrong.

    1. “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” ?attributed to Winston Churchill

  18. Fuck Hillary for making me think that Trump is the reasonable candidate. Yes, he’s threatened to sue his critics, but there wasn’t a supreme court case about his butthurt.

    But Hillary is also on record in favor of stripping away the first and second amendments. So you know, fuck that bitch.

    1. As long as that is still legal.

  19. Why is Stephanopoulos interviewing Clinton? He worked for the Clintons. That is almost the entire reason he is famous. This is like Sarah Palin interviewing Trump.

  20. These charlatan hikers wrap their fingers in its parchment and scuttle reams of shit from the wrinkled rays of their political starfish. Haughtiness toward constitutional liberty is an infectious disease of bureaucratic will. Let’s just fucking dream that this infection hasn’t burnt the feathers off the wing or plummet will be the next shatter for the future of humanity.

    1. Amen Icarus.

  21. Jesus Christ… Are we going to have Donald Trump as our president?

    1. No. Because Trump is such a thin-skinned buffoon even a mediocre political talent like Hillary can’t blow this. As suicidal as gun control is for Democrats Trump just shot himself in the foot repeatedly by publicly harping on an insanely bigoted grudge against a Hispanic judge that’s trying him for allegedly defrauding poor people.

      1. GMSM-

        Serious question… Why is this an “issue”? Of “insane bigotry”? Every black murderer ever files an appeal that includes the argument that the all-white jury had a bias against them. Are only white people subject to this condition?

        The judge is a member of a group that has “La Raza” in it’s name that gave a scholarship to an “undocumented immigrant”. Is it possible that he might be biased against someone who has called for a border wall and deportations?

        1. His complaint was misguided, in so much as it made him use “political capital” on an unimportant issue. Other than that, I mean, it doesn’t really seem “bigoted” to me, either. Judge has a tenuous link to “La Raza”, an organization whose entire purpose is counter to one of the pillars of Trump’s candidacy – stopping illegal immigration. Of course, the judge was assigned the case before Trump ever started his campaign, but… “Donald Trump” is the only explanation for that logical inconsistency :D.

    2. Don’t be ridiculous, Fist of Dessication….

      He’ll be entertaning as hell, but Skullduggery Rotten is a lock. The password is, “Electoral Votes.”

  22. Hillary is more than likely going to be president because Team Stupid nominated the only person in American public life more loathed than her in the context of the presidential race. It’s 100% on Republican primary voters if she guts the Second Amendment.

    The only silver lining is that there will be widespread disobedience of any law or regulation imposed by the Feds.

    1. There will be widespread disobedience but there’ll also be a lot of new felons who were busted for something they shouldn’t have been busted for. I could picture her idea of reasonable regulations as being a somewhat more strict version of California’s laws.

      1. Ultimately I imagine numerous states and localities refusing to assist the Feds in implementing these laws. Which at least makes federalism more popular.

        1. “Those are some nice federal funds you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to them.”

      2. Never fear if Hillary is elected the gun manufacturers will simply give the Clinton Foundation a few million then she will sign an E.O. reguiring every American to own 10 assault rifles for home defense.

      3. I could picture her idea of reasonable regulations as being a somewhat more strict version of California’s laws.

        Her idea of reasonable is appointing several SCOTUS judges, overturning Heller, and letting state and city governments do whatever the hell they want re guns.

  23. She’s being deceptive and obfuscating because she literally cannot answer a question directly. That is years of training how to speak like a politician: give an answer that is impossible to pin down, but could plausibly mean whatever you want it to mean.

  24. To a leftist, a “responsible gun owner” is a person who talks about guns but doesn’t actually have any.

    1. To a leftist, a “responsible gun owner” is someone trained and employed by the government.

      1. You’ve got to that professional to shoot yourself, via negligent discharge, in front of a room full of children.

    2. That is unfair.

      Clearly the left believes a “reasonable gun owner” is someone who is comfortable with the idea that the weapons he owns (maximum 2, but neither having any one of 35 different banned features) should remain disassembled in a locker buried a minimum of 4ft under his driveway and not to be exhumed without the supervision of a licensed underground-firearms-storage-removal technician whose paperwork has been signed and stamped by at least 3 federal agencies within the last 6 months, and then only in the context of an ongoing threat-event meeting criteria defined in the “approved defensive situations” framework as described in the No Child Ever Harmed Again Act of 2005, and which requires presentation of the tax-stamped permission-slip from the BATFE and the associated receipt for the $25,000 processing fee. I mean, Christ, its not the freaking Wild West here.

      1. Huh. Sounds like the firearm regulations where I live. :-/

      2. … technician whose paperwork has been signed and stamped by at least 3 federal agencies…

        …requires presentation of the tax-stamped permission-slip from the BATFE and the associated receipt for the $25,000 processing fee…

        ———
        And that $25,000 fee would have BEEN $27,000 and it would have been FOUR stamps from Federal Agences if it weren’t for us stalwart Republicans holding back those Democrats! No applause, just throw money.

  25. Yeah, I get it. The highest law in the land should be taken with moderation and reasonable regulation, especially at the local and state level.

    You know, like:
    1. Abortion
    2. Anti-discrimination
    3. Public accommodation
    4. Inter-state commerce
    etc.

    For example, if the feds wan’t a minimum wage of $15, and your state wants a minimum wage of $8, shouldn’t your state decide for itself? That’s reasonable.

    Oh, what a nuanced federalist Hillary Clinton is.

  26. “gibberish gibberish nuanced gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish I blame SCOTUS gibberish gibberish feelgood sound gibberish gibberish constitutional something gibberish gibberish reasonable common sense gibberish gibberish

    ….So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.”

    And the career news-guy *nods sagely* and makes ‘serious-person face’ as though some very logical, sound bit of legal analysis had just transpired between them.

    This is just a little slice of what slowly drives me insane. Not that people are stupid and can’t actually see through the bullshit they’re being handed… but that there’s a very large class of intelligent, professional people who willingly play this game. why not? they can.

    What drives me crazy is that a sane, reasonably-intelligent adult’s reaction to her statement there should have been = “LOL should i repeat the question?”.

    1. Yeah, a good follow up question would have been nice.

      1. This is a big ask though. Reporters generally don’t think about big, abstract constitutional issues. They want to know if you are for, or against Heller. They want to know if you are for, or against Citizens United. For the most part they are not going to be able to connect the dots that, as reporters, they are engaged in political speech on behalf of a corporation. That’s like 11 steps beyond what they are thinking about. So any nuanced discussion of the implications of Citizens United is beyond them.

        If it can be distilled down to “team red is for it, team blue is against it” then they’ll ask a bunch of followup questions. But only to get a “yes or no” response to a question designed to benefit their team. Otherwise, nah.

      2. Well, to be fair he sort of did.

        And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions. But that’s what I asked. I said do you believe…their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

        Jacob notes that she sort of waffles around it, saying, “If….” as though its a hypothetical which hasn’t really ever been considered by the courts before.

  27. This cannot be brought up enough.

  28. So in Hillary’s world if I broke into a home and stole a bunch of legal prescription meds then used them to to get high and died my kin folk could sue big pharma because their legal product cause my death. Spoken like a true lawyer.

    1. So in Hillary’s world if I broke into a home and stole a bunch of legal prescription meds then used them to to get high and died my kin folk could sue big pharma because their legal product cause my death.

      Not necessarily.

      They’ve given up on even the pretense that the laws are applied consistently. If it is announced that This Is Different then, by garsh, this will be different and that will not apply to medication.

      1. They’ll be able to sue the owners of the house you broke into for not keeping their meds locked up in a fingerprint only smart safe and away from any poor uneducated person who might take them, not realizing just how dangerous they can be.

        The “right” pharma folks are on the side of the government. Just look at how they supported Obamacare. And Obama. And Clinton. And any other politician they could buy. The “wrong” ones just need to lose any of their licensing privileges and be ineligible for any new FDA approvals.

  29. “If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. 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.”

    I have posted this before:

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/La…..ntrol.html

    I don’t think people like this bitch understand this or know how many people in this country still feel this way. Everybody doesnt live on the eastern seaboard or California.

    1. Thank you for posting that. I often feel that I’m the only one who understands the second ammendment is about defending ourselves against tyranny, not burglars. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or target shooting. And I’m a California girl!

    2. What? Isn’t that all just called ‘flyover country’ and it’s where all the yucky inbreeders live?

      Who cares about those people? They don’t count. It’s insane there’s a bigoted crazy person party that’s allowed to still speak, let alone carry devices that are made solely to rape and murder innocent people!

      /proglodyte

  30. Matt Drudge is a national treasure. A photo of HRC in a radical chic Chairman Mao vest. How much did that wardrobe cost?

  31. What is the crossover between gun grabbers and people who have don’t believe in the concept of inherent rights? What is the crossover between people who voted Obama and people who are going to vote Hillary?

    Let me point out again that Hillary Clinton was fully on board with Obama’s “we have to rethink freedom of speech” effort after Hillary got our ambassador in Libya murdered.

    Hillary Clinton is the worst possible choice for president. She would make a great despot of some third world shithole, but here, not so much.

    All of you dumbshits writing Hillary shill pieces at Reason, kiss your fucking freedom of speech goodbye if she gets elected.

  32. “”closing the so-called Charleston loophole””

    I don’t even think I want to know…

    Anyone?

      1. It was the gun grabbers who got the damned 3 day waiting period instituted in the first place. They screamed and stomped their feet and engaged in the most unbelievable histrionics to get that. Now they want more. No one could have seen that coming.

      2. What I find interesting is that the story lists so many different clerical errors, committed by different federal agencies, and yet they’re trying to say that more federal Clerks checking more sales will make us safe. Errors obviously happen, but it’s interesting just how many ‘errors’ were involved in this story.

  33. What is the crossover between gun grabbers and people who have don’t believe in the concept of inherent rights?

    I don’t own a registered working gun yet. I may or may not have purchased one from a wise guy in a Nevada parking lot.

    1. What state do you live in?

      I live in Louisiana. We don’t register guns. I walk into a gunstore, choose my purchase, undergo a background check and then pay my bill. I walk out and I am shooting in my back yard an hour later.

      1. California, which was purchased under duress, not stolen.

        1. Purchased under duress, effectively, from the people who stole it.

  34. ” reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers.”

    This is where you know that the anti-gun crowd that is “reasonable” is batshit crazy. Holding gun manufacturers liable is a leftist ploy to run them out of business due to litigation. Before you tell me I’m the crazy take one look at how California does business. They are slowly legislating the life out of legal gun owners. Look at the process for new guns to be approved, the requirements for cameras running during gun sales, and their proposals to make ammo purchase require a background check.

  35. Trying to check Hillary on the Second Amendment is the only legitimate reason I can think of to vote for Donald Trump.

    I don’t expect Trump to actively fight for our Second Amendment rights, but I expect Hillary Clinton to actively fight against our Second Amendment rights.

    She’ll fight against our Second Amendment rights by executive order. She’ll do it through international “agreements” that somehow aren’t treaties and don’t need Senate approval. She’ll campaign against guns to win reelection.

    Donald Trump simply won’t stick his neck out to fight against an “assault weapons” ban, and while that isn’t impressive, it’s sure as hell better than what we’ll get from Hillary. Damn, I hate that we have to depend on Donald fucking Trump for anything. As the Australians often say, “Poor fella my country”.

  36. Johnson > Piece of Shit > Trump > Hillary

  37. localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.

    So it’s not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights that she thinks can be sensibly regulated (although we all knew that already). And what are “sensible regulations”? Anything she wants, natch.

    1. For example, you can be limited to 3 Internet comments per day. That sort of reasonable regulation.

  38. If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.

    I will never understand under any circumstances how a sane voter could ever cast a ballot for this person.

    1. She has a “D” next to her name.

  39. The question being asked of Clinton – does she believe the right to keep and bear arms to be a constitutional right – is the wrong question. Remember, the Constitution creates NO rights. People hold inherent and natural rights as a condition of being human beings. A very few of those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but the Ninth Amendment makes clear that the Constitution is not the source of the rights.

    Having said that, it’s quite obvious that Clinton doesn’t consider the right to arms to be a “real” right, constitutionally enumerated or not. Clinton, as a dyed-in-the-wool statist, is a menace to ALL rights.

  40. Why are pundits looking for logical consistency in anything a “D” says during election season? Are they that ignorant of history?

  41. I don’t have the “right” to own a gun, and if I don’t have that right, neither do you. What you have is permission.

    1. “Why” not?

  42. Flintlocks, the 2d protects our right to own flintlocks.

    1. What’s funny is that the leftists often use the “2A is for muskets” argument, but if you think about it, that could actually be a pro-gun argument.

      You could say, “sure, the 2A protects the right to own a musket. And at the time it was written, muskets were the standard issue weapon for militaries all over the world. So, the 2A actually means that the citizenry should have access to the same arms as the military, which means that we should be allowed to buy full-auto M4 carbines and M249s!”

  43. Where does the author see “Hillary wants to take your guns away”, when he clearly quotes her saying “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and in fact what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.” You’ll notice that the 2nd Amendment actually says ‘arms’, not guns, yet everyone seems very comfortable with not being able to buy a Howitzer or hand grenades. Even if you believe (in error) that the 2nd Amendment is all about self protection, or protection against a despotic government (it isn’t), then do you really want mentally incapacitated, terrorists, wife abusers, gang bangers, ex-cons, 3 year olds, etc to just be able to buy a gun? Really? What exactly is wrong with a real background check before the purchase of any gun? Even the NRA proposed it years ago, and as Hillary noted, so do most of the public and even most gun owners.

    1. What makes you think you can’t buy a howitzer or hand grenades?

      One of the most popular channels on youtube is a guy who (among other things) takes real, honest to goodness tanks out for a drive to the McDonalds drive thru before heading off to shoot the Ma Deuce and whatever main gun the tank he’s in has at junk cars.

    2. I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment

      Hillary’s grasp of history is as robust as her ability to follow infosec regulations.

    3. Actually, all of those people listed still have the inherent right to defend their own lives. Rights are not what someone in government thinks you should be allowed to do, assuming you jump through the “right” hoops, they’re what governments are instituted to protect and what you have inherently as a human being. The only time the government can restrict your natural rights is if you have been proven incapable or unwilling to respect the equal rights of others.

    4. Actually, all of those people listed still have the inherent right to defend their own lives. Rights are not what someone in government thinks you should be allowed to do, assuming you jump through the “right” hoops, they’re what governments are instituted to protect and what you have inherently as a human being. The only time the government can restrict your natural rights is if you have been proven incapable or unwilling to respect the equal rights of others.

      1. even the squirrelz agree…

        Besides, there are background checks on a significant majority of firearm purchases. Unless ol’ Johnny boy wants to stick his nose into people’s lives so deeply that he knows when Cletus sells his old .22 to Bubba because Cletus needs a new manifold for his truck.

        Actually, the lefties probably DO want to stick their noses into everything that deeply.

    5. Even if you believe (in error) that the 2nd Amendment is all about self protection, or protection against a despotic government (it isn’t)….

      I can’t wait constitutional scholar John B. Egan to flesh these notions out for us…..please go on.

    6. You are speaking from ignorance.
      There are already broad background checks in place. The so-called gun-show loophole is a talking point only and for vast majority of gun purchase a background check is conducted. It does vary state by state, but the percentage of guns legally purchased without a background check and then used in a crime is almost negligible. The vast majority of guns used in the commission of crimes where stolen or illegally obtained through a straw-purchase.
      The 2nd amendment was entirely about ‘arms’, and the ability of the common man to possess the weapons of war necessary to defend against tyranny. Cannon were the primary concern when the 2nd was written, as they were major capital investments and critical for any army or navy.
      People can buy howitzers and hand grenades. It is heavily regulated and taxed, but not illegal.

    7. “Even if you believe (in error) that the 2nd Amendment is all about… protection against a despotic government (it isn’t)”

      It most certainly is about protection against the government. Whether or not citizens could mount an effective military campaign against the US Armed Forces is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment was put in to protect citizens right to bear arms because the people who wrote the Constitution had just fought a revolution against a government who tried to remove their arms to subjugate them.

      The logical inconsistency that all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to individuals *except* for the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. Stop trying to play mental gymnastics – if you don’t like guns, then just say it, and fight to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Of course, you know that’s a losing battle, as does Hillary. Thus, we get interpreting “up” to mean “down”, “mandate” to mean “tax”, and “rights” to mean “privileges”.

  44. Even if you believe (in error) that the 2nd Amendment is all about self protection, or protection against a despotic government (it isn’t), then do you really want mentally incapacitated, terrorists, wife abusers, gang bangers, ex-cons, 3 year olds, etc to just be able to buy a gun? Really?

    What’s a prog without his strawmen?

  45. Once she gets through with guns Freedom of Speech will be next, a/k/a so called “micro-agressions, “trigger words”, etc.

  46. i could be wrong about this, but don’t you need a compelling government interest to restrict a constitutional right according to the courts?

    on what planet is “reasonable” a synonym for “compelling”?

  47. Don’t worry about this stuff. Americans, especially the don’t tread on me crowd, will cower and line up to hand in their guns when the day comes. Threat of death and destruction/theft of livelihood/property will not be enough to get americans up in arms. We have been whipped.
    This cunt won’t even get it done but it will happen. The commenters on this article are correct. It will happen because people just listen to propaganda and don’t have the balls to object to it on a larger scale.

    I know I don’t want to get shot by a drone in my backyard for speaking up.

  48. She looks kind of like the guy from boogie nights who kept catching his wife with an ass in her cock in the driveway.

  49. She’s a tyrant. Plain and simple.

    1. She is Kim Jung Un. Replete with the Dr. No shiny future suits and parade atmosphere.

  50. “self-defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as “the core lawful purpose” of the Second Amendment”. meanwhile today the 9th circus just ruled that self defense was not an excuse for conceal carry. Note that England and Australia claimed that self defense was not a right when taking people guns.

    vote for hillary and this is what you will get. trump may be an ass but he claims he will protect the 2nd and fight the climate change BS

  51. Hillary speak = nuanced reading = What I say
    Common sense = communist sense
    Only the government grants rights.
    That’s why the DEA has to arrest you for smoking reefer. Cause you don’t have a right to control your own body.

  52. I agree that Heller was wrongly decided, but it’s up to the Supreme Court to say what the Constitution means – not me. Lots of people think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

  53. RE: It’s Pretty Clear Clinton Does Not Think Americans Have a Constitutional Right to Guns

    Gee, I wonder if Heil Hitlery’s bodyguards have guns?
    Nah.
    That would be hypocritical.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.