Hillary compares dealing with NRA to negotiating with Iran
It's just a ploy to pick up the pro-gun vote, with a promise that she'd support repeal of GCA 68 and enactment of 50-State constitutional carry, plus a $10,000 gift to each gun owner, so long as we self-verify that we have no plans to commit a crime.
UPDATE: the debate between natural rights and legal positivism can never be settled!
Natural rights: rights are natural, established by God or nature. [The "nature" part involves reasoning along the lines of: "man has a strong will to keep on living, and a need to converse with other men. Ergo, his nature is proof that he has a right to self-defense and to freedom of expression."] The Framers were of this school -- why else the Ninth Amendment, recognizing that there are rights not set out in the Bill of Rights? Under this approach, a bill of rights "guarantees" a right, but does not "create" it.
Legal positivism: rights are human constructs, created by human agreements. The right to free expression exists because the First Congress proposed it, and 3/4 of the States ratified it, and we are bound by their decision. This approach really originates in the early 20th century, and is now so near-universal that most attorneys and judges don't even think of the alternative.
Of course, both sides do fudge things a little when they have to. Positivists see no problem espousing Roe v. Wade and other non-enumerated rights, on which the one certainty is that 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States never agreed to matters. And those who take the natural rights approach can cite legislative history, which is of limited relevance. (I say limited because I can see an argument that "the right exists independent of the guarantee, but the guarantee establishes an indisputable minimum definition of a right.")