The third and final debate of this election was once again entertaining to say the least. It is hard for them not to be when two people dislike each other and disagree and absolutely everything the way the Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump do. Let us not forget that even though the debate seems more of a Saturday Night Live comedic spoof there are still very important issues being addressed by both candidates. During the debate both candidates were asked to address their views on the second amendment.
It was Senator Clinton’s response that “I support the second amendment” combined with her reiteration that District of Colombia v. Heller is incorrect that creates a vagueness in her stance on the subject. The District of Colombia v. Heller case ruled that citizens have a right to bear arms outside of the militia and maintain them with license in their homes for self-protection. If this ruling were to be incorrect as Clinton suggest, then citizens would not have the right to fire arms for self-defense. So what exactly does Clinton believe is wrong with the decision? The lack of a pronounced stand on what exactly she believes wrong with the decision that has many gun owners concerned.
Clinton would attempt to use her life narrative to support her claim to supporting the second amendment. The use of storytelling rhetoric within her response (in regards to her life in Arkansas) is unsuccessful as long as there is no clarity on to what extent she believe the decision in the Heller case.
Ruling of District of Colombia v. Heller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
I don’t really understand the jump from her lack of stand on the matter to her narrative response to justify it. I think that there are certainly some vague points that she may contribute in terms of her future decision about the case but her actual rhetorical strategy in the matter is probably worth looking at. I do agree that the narrative route could offer some support for her stance though without specifics, the suggestion means relatively nothing. I think more powerful that the narrative element, which I don’t see being used, is the idea that she could possibly be white washing the potential effects to those gun-supporters that fear they will lose all ability to hold their guns. Ultimately, I do see how this tactic could be used but don’t see how it is related.