search
top

Hillary and the Second Amendment

Charles C.W. Cooke has a pretty good article challenging the left’s “You paranoid sensationalist gun nuts always thinking people want to take your guns! Of course Hillary doesn’t want to repeal the Second Amendment.”

As anybody with an elementary understanding of American law comprehends, one does not need to call an Article V convention in order to effectively remove a provision from the Constitution. If, for example, Donald Trump were to claim tomorrow that the First Amendment did not protect an individual right to speech, how do we imagine that the press corps would react? Do we think that the New York Times’s editorial board would nonchalantly say “well, that’s fine because he hasn’t called for Article V repeal”?

Even without overturning Heller, her nominees would still have the opportunity to narrow to meaninglessness. Sure, outright bans might never come back, but de-facto bans, like the one that exists in New York City, could be upheld. Even Washington D.C. responded to Heller by enacting restrictions that were still quite onerous, and would never be considered acceptable in the context of other Constitutional rights. Chicago fared a little better, but only because the 7th Circuit was unusually cooperative, and it bolstered the negotiating position of the rest of Illinois, which favors gun rights. Without a fourth and strong pro-2A Supreme Court ruling, the Second Amendment is already dead letter.

9 Responses to “Hillary and the Second Amendment”

  1. wizardpc says:

    I’ve said in meatspace that if the 2nd Amendment died with Scalia, it never meant anything in the first place.

  2. Whetherman says:

    ‘the left’s “You paranoid sensationalist gun nuts always thinking people want to take your guns! Of course Hillary doesn’t want to repeal the Second Amendment.” ‘

    Hey, you’re not a real paranoid until you believe (as I do) that even the right would ban guns, the first day they thought they didn’t need gun owners’ votes anymore!

    No one who covets authority can really tolerate the idea of people having a viable means of saying “no” to them.

    • wizardpc says:

      I think you’re confusing “the right” with “the GOP”

      • Whetherman says:

        I don’t want to stray into angels-on-heads-of-pins territory, but I will say that obviously “left” and “right” have been very inadequate and subjective terms, bordering on being meaningless. What they usually define, is some current laundry-list of issues you must embrace if you are to be aligned with either; and if you fail to embrace any one of them, everyone on that end of the spectrum will condemn you as belonging on the other end of the spectrum.

        What I have been leaning toward instead (given that the two-dimensional “Nolan Chart” has never gained any traction) is simply “Authoritarian” or “Anti-Authoritarian.” Those simply describing, those who seek to impose their worldview by any means whatsoever (“Authoritarians”), and those who resist those efforts (“Anti-Authoritarian”). The principle difference between the current “left” and “right” are, which issues they seek to impose on everyone else. But, both would eventually apply the same tactics to imposing their authority.

        A very rough approximation was, the German Nazis and Soviet Communists being mirror images of each other, tactically speaking. (And I don’t intend to enter into a debate around the claim that the Nazis were actually “leftists.”)

  3. Brad says:

    The contrast between how the Ruling Class News Media treats abortion-rights and how they treat gun-rights is particularly stark in this case about Hillary.

    Does anyone believe the Media would treat similar Supreme Court concerns about abortion-rights with such casual disdain?

    • Miles says:

      Abortion ‘rights’ simply aid in the elimination of the population of “those people”, and the heirs of the stupid “right people”, which amounts to the same thing as they’re stupidly self-selecting for the fitness to survive.

      You hear about Chelsea having abortions? No, she’s having children to inherit the family fortune and business.
      You hear about Michelle, Justice Ginsberg or any other of the elite cognoscenti having abortions? No, they’re doing the same.
      It’s eugenics writ large across the nation and the proponents of it managing it to wipe out exponentially more “untermenchen” compared to an earlier eugenics program.

  4. JBS says:

    Clinton has latched onto the divisive issue on gun control and the bigots associated with it. This is first and foremost a civil rights issue. The kind of harassment and discrimination advocated by these people is just like that which provoked sitins at Woolworth lunch counters in the 1960s. At that time no one suggested that the segregationists wanted to reestablish slavery, just put blacks in their place. Subjecting gun owners to silly restrictions is a way for a self-declared elite to lord over those they regard as their inferiors.

  5. Chas says:

    Hillary always lies. Always, even when she doesn’t have to lie. Deviousness is in her DNA. She is lying about merely wanting to impose more gun control. She wants to eliminate the Second Amendment entirely. Hillary wants door-to-door confiscation, of all guns, even muzzleloaders, like they’re calling for in Europe, as mentioned on the Pedersoli blog. Hillary supports absolutely nothing with regard to gun rights. Zero. Zip. Nada. You get nothing.

  6. TS says:

    Some of the most shameless “fact checking” I have seen was in regards to Trump’s ” Hillary wants to effectively abolish the second amendment” claim. They called it highest degree of a lie (“pants on fire”, or whatever). Why? Because Hillary said she doesn’t want to abolish the right. You see, Trump is lying because Hillary is telling the truth. Or…it could be the exact opposite. The thing is, Hillary has never actually done something that supports gun rights. Never. All she does is say “I support the 2A”, and even then it’s always qualified with a “but…” Immediately following. How about some statements speaking out against some of the worst gun rights violations we see in this country? How about a statement saying what England and Australia did was wrong? Instead we hear praise. I mean come on, if an anti-gay bigot always preceeded their statements with “I support gay right, but..”, we wouldn’t consider their bigotry to be any less.

    “…a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman”
    “… I don’t want my children to have to see that in public.”
    “…we need some common sense morality laws.”
    “…homosexual sodomy should be a federal felony.”

    Not bigoted at all, right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top