Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared war on the Second Amendment on Tuesday, May 6, during an appearance at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference at the plush “National Harbor” convention center in Oxon Hill, Maryland.
Hillary Clinton compared modern U.S. society with third world nations that have no functioning government, saying “That’s what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control and that is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention.”
Clinton told the conference: “we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” Clinton said. “And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”
Of course, one cannot say that and still support the right of the people to own guns. Hillary Clinton’s remarks were a complete rejection of the Second Amendment, Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, mandates that:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thus it is indeed a Constitutional “article of faith” that “anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.” That is what it means that the right of the people to not only keep but to also bear arms shall not be infringed.
The idea that the first clause limits the right cannot be reconciled. If people are serving as part of the militia, then they are — most likely — in the service of the government. So how could the government restrict the government’s right to keep and bear arms? If people are serving as part of the government by being part of the militia, then the government is not going to restrict their possession and use of weapons while supporting the government. Therefore, the initial phrase has to be explanatory, not restrictive. Viewing it as a restriction on the right would be “strained, forced, and contrary to reason” as the courts say when trying to interpret legal terms.
Hillary Clinton is widely discussed as a potential candidate for President in 2016 for the Democrat Party. In fact, her husband Bill Clinton kicked off Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C, on April 30, 2014.
Bill Clinton gave a lecture — the first in a lecture series — focused almost entirely on revisionist history comparing Republican Presidents with the Clinton Presidency on job growth, economic growth, and reduction of poverty. The lecture was exclusively focused on promoting the economic policies that Hillary Clinton would run on in 2016 and Hillary’s association with Clinton’s Presidency in the 1990’s, by showing that the Clintons’ policies grew more jobs and reduced poverty far more than policies under Republican policies. (Of course Clinton explicitly stated that the benefits did not being until 1995 — after the Republicans took control of Congress under Newt Gingrich in the 1994 election and started forcing Bill Clinton to adopt Republican, conservative economic, tax, welfare, and social policies.)
Therefore, by this author’s lights, Bill Clinton started Hillary’s Presidential campaign on April 30, 2014, with a purely political campaign speech designed to defend Hillary’s candidacy against critics.