Trouble: Hillary Just Refused To Say Right To Bear Arms Is A Constitutional Right

[bripat9643]

No, that isn't what a right is. That's like saying you have the right to free speech as long as you don't upset somebody. Rights are not dependent on your comfort level. We have reasonable laws now so she does want to restrict our 2nd A rights.

No that is NOT what she said. She is saying honest people have a right to expect that guns will not be sold to criminals and terrorists, only to responsible Americans. The gun lobby wants to sell guns to as many criminals and terrorists as possible in order to force everybody else to buy guns to protect themselves from the well armed criminals and terrorists. The gun lobby wants to sell guns to both sides of all conflicts.

I used the quote you provided. We have background checks now. It isn't possible to know if someone who hasn't got a criminal record is ever going to commit a crime.

No, the gun lobby (is there such a thing? Doubt it) doesn't want to arm terrorists and criminals. Quit being so stupid. They are law abiding people an you do a disservice to your cause to misrepresent them as such.

Yet someone on the no fly list, as a known terrorist, can legally buy weapons...

That's because they haven't been convicted of anything, nimrod. Have you ever heard of "due process?" The terrorist watch list doesn't constitute due process.

yet, since no precautions can be put in place, you'll be the first to bitch that the govt. is not protecting US citizens..

So you think the government should have the authority to ignore the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah and fucking morons such as yourself will wet yourselves. You're a pathetic little worm, Shitting Bull...you'd be much happier in some place like North Korea, do us and America a favor....move

Funny. My people were perfectly happy before whitey invaded.

Yeah well keep in mind who kicked your ass.

So called God fearing, Jesus loving christians....

Ahhh shaddup ya little runt

I bet you say that to all your Gods....

I don't know why you even bother responding to me, you're not clever, not funny and I consider you something I stepped in and have to wipe off my shoe. That's how it is, runt. Now go bug someone who cares

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd Amendment is totally fucked up. It sounds like it was written by retards.

Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

OK, one more time for little Lakota. (This is what, the fourth time this has been explained to him?)

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved

 

[Moonglow]

No that is NOT what she said. She is saying honest people have a right to expect that guns will not be sold to criminals and terrorists, only to responsible Americans. The gun lobby wants to sell guns to as many criminals and terrorists as possible in order to force everybody else to buy guns to protect themselves from the well armed criminals and terrorists. The gun lobby wants to sell guns to both sides of all conflicts.

I used the quote you provided. We have background checks now. It isn't possible to know if someone who hasn't got a criminal record is ever going to commit a crime.

No, the gun lobby (is there such a thing? Doubt it) doesn't want to arm terrorists and criminals. Quit being so stupid. They are law abiding people an you do a disservice to your cause to misrepresent them as such.

Yet someone on the no fly list, as a known terrorist, can legally buy weapons...

That's because they haven't been convicted of anything, nimrod. Have you ever heard of "due process?" The terrorist watch list doesn't constitute due process.

yet, since no precautions can be put in place, you'll be the first to bitch that the govt. is not protecting US citizens..

So you think the government should have the authority to ignore the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?

Surely not, but don't state how the govt. doesn't protect you from terrorist..

 

[Moonglow]

Funny. My people were perfectly happy before whitey invaded.

Yeah well keep in mind who kicked your ass.

So called God fearing, Jesus loving christians....

Ahhh shaddup ya little runt

I bet you say that to all your Gods....

I don't know why you even bother responding to me, you're not clever, not funny and I consider you something I stepped in and have to wipe off my shoe. That's how it is, runt. Now go bug someone who cares

...I bet you wish you were someone..

 

[bripat9643]

Clinton was just interviewed by Stephanopoulos. She is dishonest and the questions are dishonest. But it is clear Clinton supports government confiscation of guns from private citizens.


Watch: Hillary Refuses Say Right to Bear Arms Is a 'Constitutional Right' - Breitbart

BWHAHAHAHAHA! She just lost the election. There goes Pennsylvania.

Just like BHO in 2008 and 2012? I hope the therapy programs for you at the half way house for young millennials like you are helping.

This time Hillary also pissed of all the coal miners, not to mention all the blacks who don't have jobs because of illegal aliens.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah well keep in mind who kicked your ass.

So called God fearing, Jesus loving christians....

Ahhh shaddup ya little runt

I bet you say that to all your Gods....

I don't know why you even bother responding to me, you're not clever, not funny and I consider you something I stepped in and have to wipe off my shoe. That's how it is, runt. Now go bug someone who cares

...I bet you wish you were someone..

Awwww you mad little tyke? Get lost...go play where you are qualified, the FZ.

 

[bripat9643]

I used the quote you provided. We have background checks now. It isn't possible to know if someone who hasn't got a criminal record is ever going to commit a crime.

No, the gun lobby (is there such a thing? Doubt it) doesn't want to arm terrorists and criminals. Quit being so stupid. They are law abiding people an you do a disservice to your cause to misrepresent them as such.

Yet someone on the no fly list, as a known terrorist, can legally buy weapons...

That's because they haven't been convicted of anything, nimrod. Have you ever heard of "due process?" The terrorist watch list doesn't constitute due process.

yet, since no precautions can be put in place, you'll be the first to bitch that the govt. is not protecting US citizens..

So you think the government should have the authority to ignore the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?

Surely not, but don't state how the govt. doesn't protect you from terrorist..

Why not? The government is actively trying to import terrorists into the country.

 

[defcon4]

Yes, all militia members have a right to a single-shot muzzleloader.

That was the contemporary weapon of the era therefore they couldn't use M4 platform since it was nonexistent at that time.
That placard was made by an uninformed imbecile:
Colonial era rifles/muskets had an estimated 1100 -1300 fps muzzle velocity hurling .40 - .69 cal 300 - 400 grain projectile toward you with the effective firing rate of 3 shots/minute, accurate to hit the target of a 6 feet tall person to 100 -200 yards if used by a trained shooter. Survivability always depends on the place of the shot even with modern firearms. You are an idiot to post that inaccurate placard unless you deliberately chose it to push your agenda. If it is the latter you are a dishonest scumbag.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, all militia members have a right to a single-shot muzzleloader.

I guess that means the following agencies are all unconstitutional

FAA - no aircraft
DOT - no trucks, cars, whatever
FCC - no radio or television
Dept Energy - no electricity
Air Force - no planes
Amtrak - no railroads
FDA - no drugs
NASA - no planes, rockets

Are they mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

They aren't mentioned, period, so the government must not have any authority to regulate them, right?

By your reasoning, then, the feds and the states and the courts do have a right to regulate.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

>>> waiting to hear what bears feel about this issue

They are all up in arms, about it...

be thankful Hilary doesnt have the right to bear her {whatever is in her pants} in public

 

[Moonglow]

>>> waiting to hear what bears feel about this issue

They are all up in arms, about it...

be thankful Hilary doesnt have the right to bear her {whatever is in her pants} in public

Same with Donald's small handed organs...

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, all militia members have a right to a single-shot muzzleloader.

Take a note, moron:

It says "the right to keep and bear arms." It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear muzzle loading muskets."

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, all militia members have a right to a single-shot muzzleloader.

I guess that means the following agencies are all unconstitutional

FAA - no aircraft
DOT - no trucks, cars, whatever
FCC - no radio or television
Dept Energy - no electricity
Air Force - no planes
Amtrak - no railroads
FDA - no drugs
NASA - no planes, rockets

Are they mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

They aren't mentioned, period, so the government must not have any authority to regulate them, right?

By your reasoning, then, the feds and the states and the courts do have a right to regulate.

Nope.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, all militia members have a right to a single-shot muzzleloader.

I guess that means the following agencies are all unconstitutional

FAA - no aircraft
DOT - no trucks, cars, whatever
FCC - no radio or television
Dept Energy - no electricity
Air Force - no planes
Amtrak - no railroads
FDA - no drugs
NASA - no planes, rockets

Are they mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

They aren't mentioned, period, so the government must not have any authority to regulate them, right?

By your reasoning, then, the feds and the states and the courts do have a right to regulate.

Nope.

Yup. That is the back side of your suggestion. If X, then Y.

 

[Norman]

Clinton was just interviewed by Stephanopoulos. She is dishonest and the questions are dishonest. But it is clear Clinton supports government confiscation of guns from private citizens.


Watch: Hillary Refuses Say Right to Bear Arms Is a 'Constitutional Right' - Breitbart

She can not answer any question without saying "Fuck Trump". What shill...

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, all militia members have a right to a single-shot muzzleloader.

Take a note, moron:

It says "the right to keep and bear arms." It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear muzzle loading muskets."

Sort of like the Bible - the writers didn't know jack shit about the future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Clinton was just interviewed by Stephanopoulos. She is dishonest and the questions are dishonest. But it is clear Clinton supports government confiscation of guns from private citizens.


Watch: Hillary Refuses Say Right to Bear Arms Is a 'Constitutional Right' - Breitbart

She can not answer any question without saying "Fuck Trump". What shill...

Crooked Hil said "fuck Trump?" I doubt that.

 

[HUGGY]

Clinton was just interviewed by Stephanopoulos. She is dishonest and the questions are dishonest. But it is clear Clinton supports government confiscation of guns from private citizens.


Watch: Hillary Refuses Say Right to Bear Arms Is a 'Constitutional Right' - Breitbart

I don't need that C*nt's permission. Piss on her.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary the lying POS claims 95% of the people and 75% of gun owners support her, LIE!

Hillary the lying POS claims up until a Scalia/SCOTUS decision the left was free to impose all the gun control restrictions they felt like, LIE!

Gun control restrictions have time and again been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Hillary and the lying filth left know this, but keep passing them anyway knowing it will take years in the courts to get them overturned.

These are not common sense gun control restrictions, she LIES. These gun control restrictions are intentionally designed to make gun ownership so expensive, render the gun useless, and make owning it so legally risky that the people just give up their 2nd amendment rights vs risking running afoul of the law.