Guardian.UK: Why gun rights advocates don't trust Clinton on the second amendment.

The point that's missing here, is that there were gun rights before Heller. That ruling just clarified the hazy half-hearted interpretations of previous Courts. Noone really wanted to touch it, because it was a dumpster fire. The Supremes had many chances to over the past 200 plus years, and always ducked it. Scalia & Co. were shortsighted, foolishly led to put a line in the sand. Now there's no choice but to place limits. Previously, courts were happy to deal with the Second Amendment as generous grey area.

Ultimately, it's pretty clear the right is related to the militia, being able to come to the defense of the country. The Shays and Whiskey Rebellions scared the hell out of the Founding Fathers. The great Armories were set up to store military-grade weapons - not to manufacture them for citizens. That's a pretty clear standard, if you ask me. You can debate the placement of the comma in the statement all you want to (and many do). That being said, there are many reasons to own a gun as a tool in America today, and that needs to be accommodated. Fetish ownership, no.

The question is, what is sensible. The Republicans keep pulling the Chicken Little routine every time a Democratic Presidential candidate is in the news cycle. Did Obama do anything? Nope. But the fear sold a whole lot of guns and ammo. What will Hillary do? More than Obama. But she won't take rights away - she can't. The most she can do is impose limitations - anything more than that will be poison for the midterm elections.