The Heller Decision…What Did Hillary Mean?


Already today, I have read an onslaught from the extreme political right, about Hillary Clinton’s assertion that the Heller Decision had nothing to do with toddlers….that toddlers are not mentioned anywhere in it.  While this is correct, their assumptions that Ms. Clinton was lying are wrong.

What did Hillary Clinton mean when she said she was angry about the Heller Decision?  Did it mean she wanted to do away with the right to bear arms, as the political right claims? No, it did not.  In fact, Ms. Clinton has made it clear that this has never been her intent. She is in FAVOR of the right to bear arms.  Still, when there is a tiny thread with which to knit a conspiracy theory sweater, the right will take it and run with it, creating the stupidest looking turtleneck known to humankind.

What Ms. Clinton was talking about, was the ambiguity associated with the decision.  She was trying to make the world safer for children in whose hands firearms unavoidably fall, and to make a difference in the lives of those toddlers (defined as preschoolers)  who end up dead or injured or who shoot someone else because of the  lack of restrictions in the decision.  Last year, more toddlers were involved in shooting incidents than were terrorists on US soil.


While the  Heller Decision provided examples of laws the Court considered “presumptively lawful,” it does not offer guidance about how lower courts should evaluate challenges to firearms laws that are not among the specific examples given in the decision.  As a result, subsequent courts have struggled with precisely how to scrutinize firearms laws, and legislators who wish to enact gun violence prevention measures that are consistent with the Second Amendment lack clear guidance on precisely how to do so.   THAT was what Ms.Clinton was trying to do.  She was trying to get legislators to clarify the definitions beyond the few examples given in the law,and to extend restrictions to protect these innocent children.  Period.

Hillary Clinton was not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them.  I remember this same rhetoric when Barack Obama was running for President.  Barack Obama, who believes in the right to bear arms and to use guns for protection and recreation, was unfairly rumored to want to take away everyone’s guns.  The right falsely claimed that he wanted to so away with the Second Amendment. However, I ask you.  Can you name even one non-criminal person whose guns were taken away as a result of any legislation proposed by Barack Obama?  No, you can’t because the whole thing was a big fat lie cooked up by the political right, just as this one about Ms.Clinton is.

Give it a rest, rednecks.  No one wants to take away your stupid guns.  In fact, I encourage you to keep them.  You’re picking one another off slowly, leaving more clean air for the sane people in the world who only want to protect the innocent from your stupidity.


Perhaps if certain individuals took the time to educate themselves formally, and spent their money on THAT rather than guns, they might learn a thing or two about the US Constitution and what it REALLY means.  Arbitrary gun ownership to protect oneself from the government is NOT what most right wingers claim that it is.

No one wants your guns, bubba.







2 responses »

  1. Actually they are trying to take people’s guns. In Colorado they are trying to turn people into criminals who inherited guns from deceased family members. The overreaching authorit

Please tell me what you think! Go on! Leave a comment! It's ok! :-)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s