Hillary Clinton, who served an administration that ran thousands of guns to Mexican drug lords under Operation Fast and Furious, is now fast and furiously trying to resurrect a failing campaign by taking aim at so-called gun rights “extremists”.

In the wake of the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, Mrs. Clinton advocated in New Hampshire for a new gun group for “responsible gun owners” apart from the National Rifle Association, which she considers extremist, even though no NRA member has ever been involved in a mass shooting:

While discussing the NRA Clinton said, “I mean ideally what I would love to see is gun owners, responsible gun owners, hunters form a different organization and take back the Second Amendment from these extremists.”

At last report, the shooter at Umpqua was not an NRA member. Neither were the shooters at Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings. Interestingly, there has never been a mass shooting at gun shows, which Hillary Clinton considers to be a loophole to be closed by universal background checks Chicago gang bangers, for example will never submit to.

Perhaps she could name just one mass shooting that would have been prevented by any of the gun “loopholes” she would close, and. as for her pledge to take executive action as president, she seems to forget a couple of Supreme Court decisions that have certified that the right to keep and bear arms is both a national and individual right that shall not be infringed:

In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s draconian gun law. Similar to Chicago's law, D.C.'s law barred private ownership of handguns, but the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to bear arms was indeed an individual constitutional right.

On the heels of Heller, however, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., on the grounds that Heller applied only to the District of Columbia and not to the states and their municipalities.

That nonsense was straightened out when Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old Army veteran who lived in a high-crime area of Chicago, asserted that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he fought to protect gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife, just as he once protected his country.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him, saying the right to keep and bear arms was not only an individual right, but also a national one.

How Hillary believes that she can get around these Supreme Court decisions is unknown. But, if liberals insist gay marriage has been made the “law of the land” by the Supreme Court, why don’t they accept that gun rights and the Second Amendment are also are also the “law of the land”: according tp the very same Supreme Court?

Note the reference to hunters in her remarks. But the famous ride by Paul Revere was not to alert hunters that deer season was now open. It was to notify free men that it was time for gun owners and free men to grab their muskets and finally free themselves to fight tyranny. As Investor’s Business Daily has noted:

Which brings us to why we have a Second Amendment. No, it is not to protect the right of states to have their own militias. George Mason, called the father of the Bill of Rights, said, "What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

James Madison, called the father of the Constitution, said of tyrants, "(They were) afraid to trust the people with arms," and lauded "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

The "historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer," observes Judge Andrew Napolitano, a constitutional scholar and Fox News contributor. "It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us."

The Second Amendment, it has been said, was written to protect the other nine in the Bill of Rights, and was an acknowledging of the threat from tyrants and other domestic enemies such as the criminals and the crazies that would otherwise roam unchallenged among us. As Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to James Madison, dated December 20, 1787:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

In addition to the threat posed by tyrannical governments, Thomas Jefferson was among the first to embrace the concept that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

The Second Amendment, Hillary, was written, not to protect hunters, but to protect citizens from tyrannical governments and crazies like the shooter at Umpqua. The extremists are those who would delete the Second Amendment as if it were one of Hillary’s emails. You can have the Second Amendment, Hillary, when you pry it from our cold, dead hands.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.