But Trump’s charge exaggerates the controls she wants to put in place and ignores what she has said on the record.
In response to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia in August 2015, she said, "We are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ...
Dave Kopel, a pro-gun rights attorney and research director of the conservative Independence Institute in Denver, equates her musing about Australia’s program as "wanting to abolish the Second Amendment." (The NRA shares this view.) The full context of Clinton’s response, however, suggests she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program, as she also evoked voluntary buybacks as potential models for a U.S.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down Washington’s handgun ban and recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the individual’s right to bear arms.
"If, however, she thought there should be no protection for gun rights, then Trump's claim comes closer to the truth." This suggests Clinton disagrees with the court declaring the district’s ban on handguns unconstitutional, not necessarily the individual right itself — a position that’s more or less in line with the George W.