During last night’s final presidential debate, the issue of the Second Amendment came up. Hillary Clinton tried her best to say she would protect the right to bear arms, but wants “sensible regulation”…  whatever that’s supposed to mean.

I want people who shouldn’t have guns not to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family.

Oh, Hillary. Don’t you know by now that criminals don’t follow the law? If they did, they wouldn’t be criminals. What you’re wanting to do is punish law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals. 

When I think about what we need to do, we have 33,000 people a year who die from guns. I think we need comprehensive background checks, we need to close the online loophole, close the gun show loophole.

Yes, roughly 33,000 people die each year from firearms. Two-thirds of those are suicides. Many are justifiable homicides (self-defense by citizens and police officers). Some are accidents. Just over 9,600 were criminal homicides.

When you say we need comprehensive background checks, are you saying that we need to expand our current system so they’re universal? If so, you might want to think about the 38 states that only provide 80 percent of their convictions to the FBI.

It would make far more sense to fix the gaping holes current system before we try casting a wider net.

When anti-gunners talk about the “gun show loophole,” they fail to take into account one small, important tidbit: the vast majority of firearms sales at these gun shows are conducted by federally licensed dealers, meaning they buyers do undergo a background check.

There are other matters that I think are sensible that are the kind of reforms that would make a difference that are not in any way conflicting with the Second Amendment.

You mentioned the [District of Columbia V.] Heller decision, and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case.

What other reforms, Hillary? So far, you’ve said the Heller decision was wrong, that the Supreme Court – the law of the land – was wrong in protecting our Constitutional right to bear arms.

What the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. So they wanted people with guns to safely store them and the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation. But they’ve accepted many others, so I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Um…what? Nowhere in the case are toddlers mentioned. She must be confusing an actual SCOTUS case with the Brady Campaign’s “Toddler’s Kill” ad.

In fact, the Heller decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of citizens to be able to own a functioning gun to protect their children in their own homes.

I’m sure the Clinton Campaign is having a major facepalm right now. You know it’s bad when the Associated Press – the nation’s most respected journalistic publication – calls you out for being wrong.

#APFactCheck: Clinton misstates Supreme Court's finding on District of Columbia's gun law. https://t.co/fLrTPf1Hrm pic.twitter.com/46XUMlSkYv

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) October 20, 2016

Maybe that’s why her Twitter account talks about every other issue from the debate…except our Second Amendment rights.