If the consequences weren’t so devastating, the Washington Post editorial board’s defense of Hillary Clinton’s plans for the Second Amendment would almost be funny, even if macabre. “… Mrs. Clinton does not appear to be interested in pressing a radical re-interpretation of the Second Amendment,” the Post claimed, and immediately directs the reader to a fact sheet that outlines her plan to do precisely that.
Once again: The founders codified the Second Amendment to protect private arms possession and as a check against standing armies, period. Even in the wake of the Revolutionary War, they still feared over-reaching government more than invasion. The Second Amendment was intended to keep the governing and the governed talking, not the former dictating—with radically superior arms—to the latter.
When Clinton talks of winding the clock back with “assault weapon” bans and winding it forward with registration (as “universal” background checks) and SCOTUS appointments that would prime—and then permit—wholesale confiscation, you can bet she means it.
You can also bet the Washington Post knows and approves of the same.