Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
But, no where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "except for"., it states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
I want one of those."Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Who said anything about doing that? Of course there are limitations, but we shouldn't those limitations as a vehicle to create more limitations. And we most certainly aren't demanding that we have the right to buy an M61 Vulcan Cannon for the purpose of self-defense. That's overkill, and not necessary. You are so dishonest, Clayton. Slither back to your hole.
Another rightwing liar – which comes as no surprise.Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Spare us your fantasy that the Constitution means whatever the SC says it means. What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?
All of it.
Perhaps either of you lying cowards could cite were Clinton stated she plans on ‘abolishing the Second Amendment.’
Typical Liberal rationalism all those who don't believe the way I do are irrational.There seems to be no rational discussion possible when it comes to this issue. Obviously, the emotional involvement and fascination with large, high capacity weapons is an obstacle that interferes with objectivity.
The right to possess some arms is not the right to possess all and any arms, by definition of the words, and no one who understands English denies that. Everyone agrees that there are degrees and limits of 'arms', as has been gone over repeatedly (tanks, missiles, nuclear).
The fantasy that a small group of untrained, unorganized individuals could win against a real army today is phony. The Vietnamese and Afghans were not untrained and not unorganized, plus they were ready and willing to sacrifice themselves and any number of innocents for their goals. An honest look around reveals today's Americans could not do that on any scale that could approach a potential for 'victory'.
You believe anything she says?? Even under sniper fire...This is a lie.The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:
I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.
While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
She said and advocates no such thing.
So called "gun violence" is an nonissue... 2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America'Well regulated' is right in the 2nd amendment.
This never ending bullshit that you people like to conjure up regarding the 2nd amendment has grown old. It says well regulated and that is what it means. And if you think it means 'militia' then you can only own guns if you are part of a well regulated militia. YOU don't get to make the shit up as you go.
You aren't great defenders of anything, you are whiny little children who want everything your way all the time or you are going to cry and stomp your feet. Good, get to it and cry for us. The crap you believe in is not in the US Constitution and never was. Don't like US law? Go find a place that has the laws more in line with your whiny string of non-existent garbage. Syria would be a good place to start. Sorry but the normals are tired of listening to you whine and lie about every little thing that OFFENDS you or that your addle fantasy mind tries to inject into the Constitution.
Stop bitching, get your shit together with your buddies and overthrow whatever it is you want to overthrow, you know all the stupid shit you say you are constantly threatening people with. "We came unarmed...this time". Blow me, get armed. You won't now and you won't ever because you are cowardly angries who are scared to actually do ANYTHING. The fact that the Republican convention is a 'gun free zone' and you gleefully will bow to the government and not bring any guns outs you as frauds.
Cry for us.
“Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” Ibid
And as we see again, Clinton is correct, her statement is accurate and consistent with settled, accepted Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Like other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:
I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.
While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
Kinda like your kind went from gay marriage to transvestites using women's locker rooms overnight? What's next bestiality or pedophilia you will want to make acceptable?'Well regulated' is right in the 2nd amendment.
This never ending bullshit that you people like to conjure up regarding the 2nd amendment has grown old. It says well regulated and that is what it means. And if you think it means 'militia' then you can only own guns if you are part of a well regulated militia. YOU don't get to make the shit up as you go.
You aren't great defenders of anything, you are whiny little children who want everything your way all the time or you are going to cry and stomp your feet. Good, get to it and cry for us. The crap you believe in is not in the US Constitution and never was. Don't like US law? Go find a place that has the laws more in line with your whiny string of non-existent garbage. Syria would be a good place to start. Sorry but the normals are tired of listening to you whine and lie about every little thing that OFFENDS you or that your addle fantasy mind tries to inject into the Constitution.
Stop bitching, get your shit together with your buddies and overthrow whatever it is you want to overthrow, you know all the stupid shit you say you are constantly threatening people with. "We came unarmed...this time". Blow me, get armed. You won't now and you won't ever because you are cowardly angries who are scared to actually do ANYTHING. The fact that the Republican convention is a 'gun free zone' and you gleefully will bow to the government and not bring any guns outs you as frauds.
Cry for us.
A Government has the right and duty to regulate behavior that threatens public safety. PERIOD.
Selling a gun to a stranger without a background check puts the public at risk.
Selling a gun to a criminal / wife beater / drunk / dishonorable discharge puts public safety at risk.
Scalia said this:
District of Columbia vs Heller -
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Spare us your fantasy that the Constitution means whatever the SC says it means. What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?
But, no where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "except for"., it states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
