If it were not for citizens with guns we would not have a country, and creative rhetoric will never change that fact. When the framers wrote the Constitution, they did so as people who despised being controlled by the government. They did so as self-reliant people. They looked at government with considerable skepticism. Now perhaps we should view our present and future leadership with similar skepticism.
In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Hillary Clinton summed up her outlook on the right to bear arms. In the interview, Stephanopoulos first asked for Clinton's reaction to Trump's charge that she wanted to "abolish the Second Amendment," and whether she believed "that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in a militia?"
Her initial answer was, "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."
Justice Scalia wrote the court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller on June 26, 2008. That decision severed the connection that liberals forged between a well-armed militia and the individual's right to bear arms. Hillary believes that the right to bear arms, and in fact all the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are subject to regulation by the government.
Hillary's statement that our rights are subject to government regulation is dangerous to hear from anyone who is seeking a position of public leadership. All the regulations required for the Bill of Rights are contained in the Bill of Rights. According to Mrs. Clinton, our speech, expressing ourselves, and our religious practices are all subject to government regulation. This is a nonsensical notion that sounds like it came from the pages of "1984."
The Second Amendment is the only amendment in the Constitution that even comes with instructions from the founders describing how to follow it "...the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The intent of the Second Amendment is so that the people can protect themselves from a corrupt government that possesses a "well-armed militia." The idea that that government could limit that right is paradoxical.
When pressed, Clinton said this: "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." America has never had to defend itself from an organized invading force. One reason for that is that we have a robust right to keep and bear arms.
The idea that "everyone else" needs protection from gun owners is accommodated by Second Amendment. Responsible gun owners that carry a gun regularly are protection for "everyone else." They are former cops, military veterans, and well trained and practiced civilians; these are people that should have guns to keep all Americans safe.
Ask any Vietnam or Iraq War vet; not knowing who your enemy is, is a disadvantage you don't want to have to overcome. The vast majority of recent mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones. Perpetrators of these crimes knew a fact that evidently escapes Liberal Progressives: that armed civilians can protect themselves, and others.
Between Obama lecturing us about gun control after each mass shooting and Hillary promising to be Obama 2.0., it's clear what direction Hillary wants to take our country. After the UCC shooting last year, Obama alluded to their real intent when he referenced countries like Great Britain and Australia. The notion is that progressives don't want our guns is not truthful. Much like children after being told they can't have candy, progressives are really whining that they didn't want them anyway.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member