Chris Wallace did a heck of a job last night, asking excellent questions to challenge each candidate and allowing them to expose themselves as the hacks they both are.
I recall yelling at the TV screen last night that Clinton was avoiding Wallace's question, which was, fundamentally, whether she agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. She finally said so, but only after her dissembling argument that Heller was wrongly decided because D.C. was only trying to protect toddlers. D.C. was trying to ban all handguns - the primary means by which the law-abiding may protect their hearth and home.
Heller, it appears, hangs by the proverbial thread, and it is incumbent upon all Republicans (and those few Constitutionally-minded Democrats) in the Senate to impose a litmus test on any Clinton SCOTUS nominee - that they agree that the gun right is an individual and not a collective right. Is it subject to reasonable regulation? Sure, if it's efficacious and narrowly tailored to respect a citizen's fundamental right of self-defense. But that's the standard that's applied to any Constitutional right. The Second Amendment right of self-defense must be defended as guaranteeing an individual right to the free citizen in the same way as our rights to speech, assembly, religion, privacy and self-determination.
