Here is the key paragraph from this morning's editorial:

Clinton has been accused of wanting to scrap the Second Amendment entirely.

Accused by whom? The NRA? How about just one source as evidence? And couldn't we see just one Clinton quotation that indicates that she wants to "scrap the Second Amendment"? (You know, something like her "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" quote that's used in every coal editorial.) Simply put, the editorial has no evidence because there isn't any. The paragraph continues:

She understands that is not possible — but with Obama and his executive orders as her model, she certainly would do as much as she could to keep guns out of even law-abiding Americans’ hands.

Notice what the editorial just did: it switched from the passive voice ("has been accused") in the previous sentence to the active voice ("she certainly would do") in this sentence to become her accuser. Again, there is no evidence.

It seems to me that there are two likely explanations for this editorial. The first is that the writer truly believes that Clinton wants to take away everyone's guns. Okay, a person can believe that but this isn't any person -- this is an editorial writer who, as a journalist, has an ethical obligation to provide the reader with some proof for the accusation. A second possibility is that the writer knows that Clinton is not about to "scrap the Second Amendment" but says so anyway because the end result (the reader disliking Clinton) justifies lying about her beliefs. Given the Intelligencer's previous editorial dishonesty when dealing with Clinton, Obama, and Democrats (see here and here for starters), I side with the latter -- the Intelligencer cannot say enough terrible things about Hillary Clinton even if they have to lie to do so.