Hillary Clinton rejects the landmark Heller Decision, which protects the Second Amendment right to bear arms for individuals. She would be in position to replace the author of that decision. Removing this protection would allow debilitating regulations which would nullify the protections of the Second Amendment. Secretary Clinton does not care if the Amendment exists, she just does not want it enforceable and meaningful. The radical interpretations peddled by some would turn the Second Amendment on its head. The Amendment meant to protect the individual to have weapons and be able to organize themselves against forces of oppression, whether foreign or domestic, would be interpreted to protect the right of the government to organize military force. That logic is completely against the context of the bill of rights. The government already had that right in Article 1, Section 8.
This alone would be enough to oppose her, but it is just the legal framework for other objectives. She intends to place excise taxes on Ammunition and weapons to offset the costs of “gun violence”. She wants to have expanded background checks that prevent people with undefined mental illness from obtaining weapons. Anyone with common sense wants to prevent people currently suffering from mental illness which would make them a danger from obtaining weapons, but some of the bills pushed have no time limits, have broad definitions which would disenfranchise people who have a right to protection from having weapons. An extreme example, would be if someone with treated OCD or ADD were excluded, it would not make anyone safer. It would just deprive people of their rights. We would create tens of millions of second class citizens and make others unwilling to get treatment. She also wants to use domestic violence which is fine as long as it is both adjudicated and real. If someone slaps someone and does not injure them, that is offensive touching. That should not take away their right of self defense for life. We could have a situation where a woman or man slaps someone to make them back off, gets reported, it is included in a PFA filing, never prosecuted or even pursued in an arrest because there is no evidence or injury, but it is used to keep a person 10 years later from bearing arms. She could then become a crime victim because she could not protect herself (himself) from a known threat.
Even more scary is the terror watch list proposal. Everyone thinks the terror watch list will be those people. The attitude is “Those people are not like me, therefore why do I care if they get due process of law?” Who are those people? They are evil people, terrorists, probably foreigners, most people imagine. They are scary people who want to hurt us, we theorize. The truth is that there is not one watch list. The idea that Americans should be deprived of fundamental rights without even enough evidence to arrest them, let alone indict or convict them of a crime is insane. Anyone proposing such a thing has no respect for civil liberties. Should anyone on the list be flagged when they try to purchase and have to wait 3 days while the FBI is alerted? Yes. That would give them a chance to either make that arrest if they have evidence or watch them closer. We could place bugs or tracking devices in the weapons. If you turn them down, they will know that they are being watched if they are a bad person and obtain weapons underground where we cannot track them. If they are someone who just had a name like someone else, they can get their weapons. The no fly list is notorious for false positives. I question whether it should exist. Applying it to fundamental rights would allow ethnic profiling of fundamental rights. It would be a great first step to rounding people up. Hillary Clinton thinks half of Trump supporters, give or take, are deplorable, irredeemable, and not American. Why not find some radical White Arian Resistance guy and claim that he is a Trump supporter then declare a rise of domestic terrorism. Then place millions of people on a domestic terrorism watch list. You could deprive millions of their rights by executive decree. If she will not do it, someone may if the power exists. History shows that someone will abuse unchecked power if it is allowed to exist.
Hillary Clinton wants to ban some of the most popular modern weapons by redefining assault weapons. We are not talking about obscure, military style weapons as in 1994, but weapons owned by millions. If she can ban one class, why not another? What is the logical limit? She has said that the Australian buyback program is positive and worth considering on the national level. See her for yourself below.
Hillary Clinton may tell you that she is fine with the Second Amendment, but everything she says afterwards shows that is a lie. She refuses to be tied down to details. Why? Could it be because she knows it would be a death knell to her campaign?