Public or Private View?: Hillary’s Second Amendment Answer During 3rd Debate

Hillary Clinton was asked about her supreme court picks especially considering the second amendment – were her answers her public or private stance?

In a speech to the very bankers she disparages and promises to bring to account, Hillary told them that she has to be able to say one thing in private and another in public:

If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.

So as Hillary put forward a wishy-washy answer on her position on the second amendment – which position did we get?

Her public position (unedited):

Or Hillary’s private position on guns – George Stephanopoulos asks:

George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”: “But that’s not what I asked.  I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”  Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.

Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun.  Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence.  Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.

On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes.  As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.”  Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.

After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns.  That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn’t be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.

In public Hillary is all for gun ownership and “protecting the second amendment”, but in private she’s only ok with letting criminals, like those in Chicago, own them.