Barack Obama notoriously described “small towns in Pennsylvania” and “small towns in the Midwest” where “bitter” Americans “cling to guns or religion.” Since that famously unintended moment of candor, the Supreme Court’s liberal justices have shown their similarly elitist outlook on the Second Amendment itself.
We do not elect our federal judges, but we do elect the person who appoints them, and that determines the judicial philosophies of the judges we get.
On the left, we have an approach that routinely invents new rights found nowhere in the Constitution while unapologetically limiting the Second Amendment to protect only the right to have a gun in the army, as bizarre and dangerous as that would be.
On the right, we have an approach that takes seriously the people’s enumerated rights — the ones actually written in the Constitution — and respects the Second Amendment.
In a few short weeks, we face a stark choice between these two alternatives.
Gayle Trotter is general counsel of the Independent Women’s Forum. Her comments are made in her personal capacity and are not intended to represent IWF’s views.
