In a column that ran Sunday, Chicago Tribune reporter and editorial board member Steve Chapman made clear that the Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendments, ought not be entrusted to Hillary Clinton.

Chapman observed that “it’s not exactly safe to entrust your copy of the Constitution to Hillary Clinton,” and that choosing to do so might mean we get that Constitution back with “some parts missing or mutilated — like the First Amendment and the Second.”

According to Chapman, Clinton’s policies are more anti-gun than those we have seen under President Obama. For example, Obama’s gun control push has been coupled with an admission that “the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” Whether Obama’s belief in an individual right is heartfelt is another question altogether, but at least he said he believes in a constitutionally protected individual right. On June 5, Clinton twice refused to affirm whether a constitutionally protected individual right exists. Therefore, Chapman observes, “When it comes to gun rights, Clinton has taken a position appreciably to the left of Barack Obama’s.”

But the problem is not simply her June 5 refusal to admit the constitutionality of the right to keep and bear arms; it is also the clear contradiction that emerged during the last presidential debate, wherein she maintained her opposition to the District of Columbia v Heller (2008) ruling while simultaneously attempting to espouse her new conviction that “there’s an individual right to bear arms.”