Hillary Clinton: Government Has ‘A Right’ To Regulate 2nd Amendment

[Ame®icano]

If insane clowns can't own machine guns and mow down a pre-school full of children, are any of us truly free?

Lefties will never be free. They're prisoners of their own mind.

 

[martybegan]

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

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: Government Has 'A Right' To Regulate 2nd Amendment - Breitbart​

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.​

Hillary Clinton: Government Has ‘A Right’ To Regulate 2nd Amendment

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Moron.

 

[there4eyeM]

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

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

This categorization leaves out 'Others' who expect "reasonable regulation" of anything in society that has an impact on so many; i.e.; normal social life.

 

[there4eyeM]

If insane clowns can't own machine guns and mow down a pre-school full of children, are any of us truly free?

Lefties will never be free. They're prisoners of their own mind.

This, being true of all "..ies" of whatever hue, is something of a tautology..

 

[Grizz]

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 any written document, like a contract, is subject to interpretation. So, how about the Constitution? How should it be interpreted? Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes provides a modern answer to that question."
"In a 1907 speech Hughes stated “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”


Hughes' Hubris: Is the Constitution "What the Judges Say it is"?

Unfortunately over the years we have allowed what was one Centralized Government with 3 separate but equal branches to morph into one where the Courts and the President not rule by fiat.

 

[whitehall]

The government does have the right to place reasonable restrictions on freedom but watch out when liberals dismiss the Bill of Rights as a "nuanced reading" .

 

[paulitician]

Unfortunately, this is the dark path Big Government Authoritarians are leading us down. They truly believe Civil Rights are mere 'favors', only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.

Those folks don't care about the Constitution. We are all born with inalienable rights. They're not mere 'favors' from Government. We all possess them regardless of Government.

 

[martybegan]

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

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

This categorization leaves out 'Others' who expect "reasonable regulation" of anything in society that has an impact on so many; i.e.; normal social life.

Those "others", if they want to apply the regulation I listed above, would need to repeal the 2nd amendment if they truly want to follow the constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

The government does have the right to place reasonable restrictions on freedom but watch out when liberals dismiss the Bill of Rights as a "nuanced reading" .

Who decides how government revenue is spent?

 

[Dragonlady]

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: Government Has 'A Right' To Regulate 2nd Amendment - Breitbart​

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.​

This language clearly shows the difference between liberal and conservative approaches to govt

1. by conservative and Constitutionalist beliefs in limited govt
PEOPLE have rights by NATURE, and we agree what RESPONSIBILITIES to give to govt by the Constitution
Not the other way!

2. liberals keep teaching that govt has all the power to establish rights and will of the people
and then dictate it from the top down. All you have to do is 'get elected' and you can mandate at will by executive order.
All you have to do is get enough people to vote by 'majority rule' and you get to overrule the equal protection of other people's interests, consent or beliefs.
If you don't agree with a law or vote, all you have to do is get a judge to rule in your favor and 'that creates law from the bench by precedent'

You might as well have two different creeds or denominations fighting to establish their religious beliefs as precedent through govt.
Where is the separation of church and state, and protection from discrimination by creed, when it comes to Political Beliefs?

You have it backwards. If a law is passed which violates the Constitution, it is the obligation of the Courts to overturn it.

For example, laws which refuse gays the right to marry. Such laws violate the rights of consenting adults. It's not a question of overturning laws we don't like.

As an aside, I find it quite amusing that gun lovers are so quick to scream about THEIR Constitutional rights being violated, every time any gun control measures are proposed, however practical or sensible. Yet these self-same people want all sorts of regulations and restrictions put on women who try to obtain a legal abortion.

Maybe you should force those wanting to buy guns to look at pictures of children who have been shot in school shootings, or those who've been accidentally shot, before they can buy a gun. They should be forced to look at all of the gun death figures for the US and wait three days to properly consider the consequence of their actions. Just like women wanting an abortion.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .

You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .

The "well regulated" part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implication.

 

[bripat9643]

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: Government Has 'A Right' To Regulate 2nd Amendment - Breitbart​

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.​

Hillary Clinton: Government Has ‘A Right’ To Regulate 2nd Amendment

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Moron.

ROFL! You find the truth to be stupid? Regulating the 2nd amendment is the same as abolishing it.

 

[there4eyeM]

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?

Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .

You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .

The "well regulated" part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implication.

...just moral ones.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .

You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .

"the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" translation, the left can eat shit!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: Government Has 'A Right' To Regulate 2nd Amendment - Breitbart​

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.​

This language clearly shows the difference between liberal and conservative approaches to govt

1. by conservative and Constitutionalist beliefs in limited govt
PEOPLE have rights by NATURE, and we agree what RESPONSIBILITIES to give to govt by the Constitution
Not the other way!

2. liberals keep teaching that govt has all the power to establish rights and will of the people
and then dictate it from the top down. All you have to do is 'get elected' and you can mandate at will by executive order.
All you have to do is get enough people to vote by 'majority rule' and you get to overrule the equal protection of other people's interests, consent or beliefs.
If you don't agree with a law or vote, all you have to do is get a judge to rule in your favor and 'that creates law from the bench by precedent'

You might as well have two different creeds or denominations fighting to establish their religious beliefs as precedent through govt.
Where is the separation of church and state, and protection from discrimination by creed, when it comes to Political Beliefs?

You have it backwards. If a law is passed which violates the Constitution, it is the obligation of the Courts to overturn it.

For example, laws which refuse gays the right to marry. Such laws violate the rights of consenting adults. It's not a question of overturning laws we don't like.

As an aside, I find it quite amusing that gun lovers are so quick to scream about THEIR Constitutional rights being violated, every time any gun control measures are proposed, however practical or sensible. Yet these self-same people want all sorts of regulations and restrictions put on women who try to obtain a legal abortion.

Maybe you should force those wanting to buy guns to look at pictures of children who have been shot in school shootings, or those who've been accidentally shot, before they can buy a gun. They should be forced to look at all of the gun death figures for the US and wait three days to properly consider the consequence of their actions. Just like women wanting an abortion.

I find it amusing when liberals are too stupid to realize the difference between an enumerated right wish the COTUS SPECIFICALLY says can not be infringed with abortion which is only a right because no law has been passed declaring a fetus to be a human being.

You see how that works you moron? Congress could pass a law tomorrow declaring that a 2 month old fetus is a human being and boom that makes any abortion performed after such point murder. And that law would be constitutional, however NO law infringing on gun rights in constitutional.

You are free to seek to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good luck.

 

[Timmy]

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?

Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .

You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .

"the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" translation, the left can eat shit!

Do you think we should have gun vending machines .

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Unfortunately, this is the dark path Big Government Authoritarians are leading us down. They truly believe Civil Rights are mere 'favors', only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.

Those folks don't care about the Constitution. We are all born with inalienable rights. They're not mere 'favors' from Government. We all possess them regardless of Government.

Yep, and those authoritarians exist on the left and the right.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .

You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .

"the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" translation, the left can eat shit!

Do you think we should have gun vending machines .

Are you a moron?

 

[paulitician]

Unfortunately, this is the dark path Big Government Authoritarians are leading us down. They truly believe Civil Rights are mere 'favors', only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.

Those folks don't care about the Constitution. We are all born with inalienable rights. They're not mere 'favors' from Government. We all possess them regardless of Government.

Yep, and those authoritarians exist on the left and the right.

Yup, Big Government Authoritarians run both major political parties. They really do feel civil rights only come from Government. Mere 'favors' we should all praise and thank Big Brother for 'allowing.'

They don't get the inalienable rights thing. For them, it's all about forcing their agendas on others. They don't care if it violates rights. It's about forcing others to go along with whatever they're pushing.