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

[HenryBHough]

Under The Clinton Doctrine the president represents all the people. So individuals need no rights. Simply arrogating ALL rights to the president eliminates any reason you might think allows you any at all.

 

[Contumacious]

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."

I just read the 2d Amendment and I don't see any of your first three comments mentioned. Where did you find those comments? Thanx.

Hazlnut has a system to find fascist concepts

 

[jknowgood]

'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.

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?

You have your fantasies don't you.

Try to stay on topic rather than bring in your nightly dreams.

Nothing like the whine of a liberal when someone mention a man shouldn't use the women's locker room or bathroom.

Red Herring as you have no argument. If the topic is beyond you then your posts are meaningless. Try the Flame Zone, more your in your ken.

 

[Contumacious]

'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.

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?

You have your fantasies don't you.

Try to stay on topic rather than bring in your nightly dreams.

Nothing like the whine of a liberal when someone mention a man shouldn't use the women's locker room or bathroom.

Red Herring as you have no argument. If the topic is beyond you then your posts are meaningless. Try the Flame Zone, more your in your ken.

View attachment 77242

Which makes no sense whatsoever because in certain parts of the country men that wear skirts ought to carry firearms. LOL

.

 

[HappyJoy]

This goes under adult diaper commercial...

If only it were true.

 

[bendog]

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."

I just read the 2d Amendment and I don't see any of your first three comments mentioned. Where did you find those comments? Thanx.

Hazlnut has a system to find fascist concepts

you guys think the infringe means no regulation, but it doesn't

 

[Contumacious]

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."

I just read the 2d Amendment and I don't see any of your first three comments mentioned. Where did you find those comments? Thanx.

Hazlnut has a system to find fascist concepts

you guys think the infringe means no regulation, but it doesn't

Fascists think the word infringe can be erased or crossed out. They can't.

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

It meant they had trained in military drills and were considered proficient in how to fight as a unit. They were the first line of defense and could be deployed if necessary while the government raised an army. The militias were made of of Citizens at the time. That meant mostly white male property owners. They used their own weapons and kept them in their homes.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"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.

I want one of those.

View attachment 77241

I know a gun store outside of New Orleans that sells them if you can afford the $10,000 cost (scope not included) and your a resident of the state of Louisiana.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Exactly so, that's why you will, for instance, see the exact same moron who is screaming about his gun righrts oppose gay marriage and vice versa. Because they are morons who don't recognize that BOTH are rights and the government shouldn't have any say in either one.

Could you please show where does constitution mention marriage? Oh...

Awesome, so gays can call their unions marriage and State cannot deny them the same benefits as other married couples. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Categorical rejection is rational?

So believing in my rights and not willing to compromise on them is irrational ? We would still be a colony of The British Empire if everyone believed as you do.

 

[there4eyeM]

Emotion is a poor replacement for reading comprehension. The question was, and is, whether categorical rejection of discussion is rational behavior. It has nothing to do with 'belief', mine or anyone else's, so what I may believe certainly had no bearing on the American War for Independence.

 

[Auld Phart]

From another message board:

""If"... A Constitutional Right ??? ??? ???

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

KEEP:
To hold or retain in one's possession
To hold in custody or under guard
To maintain in one's service

BEAR:
To exhibit.
To possess.
To bring forth.
To hold or carry.
To have and be entitled to.

BEAR ARMS:
To carry weapons

INFRINGE:
To encroach or trespass.
To commit a breach or infraction of;
violate or transgress.

Note:
Arms is a broad plural statement.

Basically whatever weapons a Citizen
can afford to protect himself from the
government; or anyone else.

Pitchfork, tomahawk, sling shot, knife,
side arm, sword, rifle, cross bow,
stick, rock, spear, etc…

Exactly what part of INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTY & FREEDOM
Do you NOT understand???

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

Read
Supreme Court
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right
to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"

 

[there4eyeM]

"Basically", there is no inherent guarantee that any and all arms forever be considered the same.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Emotion is a poor replacement for reading comprehension. The question was, and is, whether categorical rejection of discussion is rational behavior. It has nothing to do with 'belief', mine or anyone else's, so what I may believe certainly had no bearing on the American War for Independence.

You are stating that I am being irrational because I do not want to have my rights regulated away. There is no discussion to be had on the subject, the Constitution is clear the government can not infringe on my right to bear arms.

 

[there4eyeM]

What arms?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.​

She's right. You're wrong. Every right can be reasonably regulated, in fact the courts have applied a sliding scale of scrutiny as a guideline for how much restriction can be put on a right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Emotion is a poor replacement for reading comprehension. The question was, and is, whether categorical rejection of discussion is rational behavior. It has nothing to do with 'belief', mine or anyone else's, so what I may believe certainly had no bearing on the American War for Independence.

You are stating that I am being irrational because I do not want to have my rights regulated away. There is no discussion to be had on the subject, the Constitution is clear the government can not infringe on my right to bear arms.

The Constitution is clear that the judicial branch has the power of judicial review. That gives the Court latitude in determining to what extent a right can be regulated.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Emotion is a poor replacement for reading comprehension. The question was, and is, whether categorical rejection of discussion is rational behavior. It has nothing to do with 'belief', mine or anyone else's, so what I may believe certainly had no bearing on the American War for Independence.

You are stating that I am being irrational because I do not want to have my rights regulated away. There is no discussion to be had on the subject, the Constitution is clear the government can not infringe on my right to bear arms.

The Constitution is clear that the judicial branch has the power of judicial review. That gives the Court latitude in determining to what extent a right can be regulated.

The problem is that the courts are not reviewing the laws passed in cities and states that have severely restricted gun ownership.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Emotion is a poor replacement for reading comprehension. The question was, and is, whether categorical rejection of discussion is rational behavior. It has nothing to do with 'belief', mine or anyone else's, so what I may believe certainly had no bearing on the American War for Independence.

You are stating that I am being irrational because I do not want to have my rights regulated away. There is no discussion to be had on the subject, the Constitution is clear the government can not infringe on my right to bear arms.

The Constitution is clear that the judicial branch has the power of judicial review. That gives the Court latitude in determining to what extent a right can be regulated.

The problem is that the courts are not reviewing the laws passed in cities and states that have severely restricted gun ownership.

You're uninformed. The Court struck down the Chicago gun ban.