“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control. Sometimes the court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the court struck them down. So if you listen to Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the major efforts pushing for smart, sensible and enforceable gun control across our country — in disclosure, have endorsed my mom — they say they believe the next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling. So it matters to me that my mom’s the only person running for President who not only makes that connection but also has a strong record on gun control and standing up to the NRA. This is one of those issues I didn’t know I could care more about until I became a mother. And I think every day about the Sandy Hook families whose children every day, don’t come home from school. And I can’t even imagine that living horror and tragedy.”
—-Chelsea Clinton, semi-incoherently campaigning for Mom this week.
Law professor Ann Althouse was really irritated by this speech, and posted twice about it. She points out that the Supreme Court in fact does not have an “inconsistent record” on gun control, so this statement is either ignorant or untrue—a tough call, since it’s Chelsea, and there is no reason to believe that she knows what she’s talking about, and she’s also a Clinton, which means that lying is in her DNA.
Althouse notes that the assertion about the Court sometimes upholding local and state gun control measures as Second Amendment compliant and sometimes striking them down is “flat-out false.” Incompetent, irresponsible, or dishonest? Only Chelsea knows for sure, but “unethical” covers all three. Writes Althouse:
“She’s saying the cases are in disarray and the time is ripe for clearing up the confusion, getting to something “definitive,” but that’s not true. She’s really promoting changing the law that got settled in 2 very high profile, extensively briefed and argued cases that produced carefully thought out opinions. The Second Amendment does require application in particular cases (such as the case from last month, Caetano v. Massachusetts, which said the right included stun guns). So there are details to work out, but things have not been left in a state of confusion or in need of “a definitive ruling.”
Ah, but the whole idea is to mislead and misinform vulnerable, ignorant, gullible voters, correct? This is a call to effectively overturn the Second Amendment, which is obviously what Clinton (and Obama) would love to do. Any lingering doubtd should be washed away by Chelsea’s grand finish about Sandy Hook, a shameless appeal to emotion by referring to a massacre that existing and proposed gun regulations and laws couldn’t have prevented, and that nothing short of gun-banning and confiscation, or pre-crime detection, could have prevented.
There are too many policy issues debated at an infantile level to count, but none are more unethically and cynically presented to the public than guns.
Meanwhile, I hope some time when Hillary is talking about income inequality and privilege, someone asks how it is that an individual who expresses herself as badly as Chelsea and who has no apparent outstanding abilities clears about a million dollars a year between her Clinton Foundation salary and speaking fees.