Hillary Demonstrates She Has No Idea What 'Shall NOT Be Infringed Upon' Means

[easyt65]

HILLARY / LIBERAL IDEOLOGY FRIGTHENINGLY EXPOSED:


Hillary Clinton: "I Don’t Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It"

Hillary Clinton: "NO RIGHT IS FREE FROM GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION."

Hillary Clinton: I Don't Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It - Breitbart

According to Hillary, you HAVE NO 'REAL' RIGHTS, no freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, because the Government can limit them and even eliminate them as it sees fit....

HOLY CR@P this bi@tch can't be allowed to win the WH!

 

[Compost]

Yep. Infringe? What infringing? We're just regulating.

 

[candycorn]

HILLARY / LIBERAL IDEOLOGY FRIGTHENINGLY EXPOSED:


Hillary Clinton: "I Don’t Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It"

Hillary Clinton: "NO RIGHT IS FREE FROM GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION."

Hillary Clinton: I Don't Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It - Breitbart

According to Hillary, you HAVE NO 'REAL' RIGHTS, no freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, because the Government can limit them and even eliminate them as it sees fit....

HOLY CR@P this bi@tch can't be allowed to win the WH!

Echoing the words of the late great Justice Scalia:

[QUOTE](CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."[/QUOTE]

Don’t worry, she’ll be happy to appoint justices who will determine it. LOL.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

HILLARY / LIBERAL IDEOLOGY FRIGTHENINGLY EXPOSED:


Hillary Clinton: "I Don’t Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It"

Hillary Clinton: "NO RIGHT IS FREE FROM GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION."

Hillary Clinton: I Don't Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It - Breitbart

According to Hillary, you HAVE NO 'REAL' RIGHTS, no freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, because the Government can limit them and even eliminate them as it sees fit....

HOLY CR@P this bi@tch can't be allowed to win the WH!

Echoing the words of the late great Justice Scalia:

[QUOTE](CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Don’t worry, she’ll be happy to appoint justices who will determine it. LOL.[/QUOTE]

Thankfully, we don't have to follow unjust laws

 

[mudwhistle]

It is dangerous to put in a position of power a person who has no checks, no safeguards to prevent them from abusing their authority.

Putting a liar in the Oval Office that has completely co-opt ed the media is a threat to our security and our freedoms.

 

[easyt65]

Echoing the words of the late great Justice Scalia:

[QUOTE](CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."

1. Learn to use Quotes.

2. Just because a USSC Judge advocates for US Law being created through the Courts rather than through the correct process of amending the Constitution does not make it okay for the courts to do so.

 

[candycorn]

[
Thankfully, we don’t have to follow unjust laws

Thankfully, we do not have to listen to fools like you who try to tell us what laws are unjust.

 

[candycorn]

Echoing the words of the late great Justice Scalia:

[QUOTE](CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."

1. Learn to use Quotes.

2. Just because a USSC Judge advocates for US Law being created through the Courts rather than through the correct process of amending the Constitution does not make it okay for the courts to do so.

She agrees with Scalia. Scalia forgot more about the constitution than you’ll ever know.

Shove that up your ass

 

[candycorn]

Hey, look…I figured it out!!!!

 

[easyt65]

Thankfully, we do not have to listen to fools like you who try to tell us what laws are unjust.

Yet you advocate fools who want to force upon us their decision of what rights we have and do not have because they say so, instead of going through the process established within the Constitution of amending the Constitution.... remarkable.

 

[candycorn]

Thankfully, we do not have to listen to fools like you who try to tell us what laws are unjust.

Yet you advocate fools who want to force upon us their decision of what rights we have and do not have because they say so, instead of going through the process established within the Constitution of amending the Constitution.... remarkable.

Justice Scalia says there can be restrictions….are you disagreeing with Justice Scalia?

 

[Obiwan]

Yep. Infringe? What infringing? We're just regulating.

Good...

Then Voter ID "regulates" your rights, Jackass...

Or are our rights what your Jackass Party says they are???

Now you see the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment...

Defense against traitors and tyranny!!!