What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Does She Not Understand?

[rightwinger]

Stock up on your guns & ammo now. The corrupt witch is gunning for the 2nd Amendment. I hate to say it, but Trump's pretty much done. The corrupt witch and her rapist husband will likely be occupying the White House again. And they do represent the NWO Globalist Elite.

The goal is to disarm Citizens and create a docile subservient population. They've already accomplished that goal in much of the world. America is probably their final obstacle. Americans still have that pesky ole Constitution thing. The Globalist Elites need to scrap it. So get prepared, your 2nd Amendment rights are about to be attacked like no other time in history.

Good advice

Those of you who stocked up on guns and ammo because Obama was going to take your guns need to double up when Hillary takes over

 

[rightwinger]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

So me paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months just to own a revolver in NYC is "reasonable"?

Works for me...the people have spoken

The whole idea of a constitutional right is that it limits the "people" unless you get supermajorities to overturn the right in the first place.

People in Mississippi want to ban Gay Marriage and Abortion, is that a case of the "people speaking" as well?

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

The Court agreed on Dred Scott as well. That agreement was later negated.

You think Heller will be negated?

We shall see

No. I think it's a dead issue. Packing the court with Leftists would make no difference, as there would be no compliance with a reversal.

 

[martybegan]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

So me paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months just to own a revolver in NYC is "reasonable"?

Works for me...the people have spoken

The whole idea of a constitutional right is that it limits the "people" unless you get supermajorities to overturn the right in the first place.

People in Mississippi want to ban Gay Marriage and Abortion, is that a case of the "people speaking" as well?

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?

Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!

Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.

So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it

And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.

There is no limit to the 1A. You may yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater to your heart's content, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.

It's not a constitutional matter, but a criminal one.

 

[rightwinger]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

So me paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months just to own a revolver in NYC is "reasonable"?

Works for me...the people have spoken

The whole idea of a constitutional right is that it limits the "people" unless you get supermajorities to overturn the right in the first place.

People in Mississippi want to ban Gay Marriage and Abortion, is that a case of the "people speaking" as well?

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

 

[rightwinger]

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?

Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!

Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.

So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it

And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.

There is no limit to the 1A. You may yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater to your heart's content, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.

It's not a constitutional matter, but a criminal one.

There are many limits on the First Amendment limiting speech, the press and religion

 

[Wry Catcher]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

She's correct, you're not (no surprise there). Read Scalia's decision in Heller, see the 1968 Gun Control Act and consider reality if you can.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

To the left there are no Rights....there are only things the left needs to push their demands forward onto the society.....anything else will be ignored or destroyed...

You have the right to exercise your opinion and prove yourself a fool, you do so everyday. So, the next time you board an airliner, tell the flight crew you have the right to carry a gun and it is you constitutional right to do so, and that cannot be infringed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

 

[martybegan]

So me paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months just to own a revolver in NYC is "reasonable"?

Works for me...the people have spoken

The whole idea of a constitutional right is that it limits the "people" unless you get supermajorities to overturn the right in the first place.

People in Mississippi want to ban Gay Marriage and Abortion, is that a case of the "people speaking" as well?

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

Nice non-answer.

 

[martybegan]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Explain to me why having to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in NYC to simply get a revolver for home use is "reasonable".

 

[paulitician]

Stock up on your guns & ammo now. The corrupt witch is gunning for the 2nd Amendment. I hate to say it, but Trump's pretty much done. The corrupt witch and her rapist husband will likely be occupying the White House again. And they do represent the NWO Globalist Elite.

The goal is to disarm Citizens and create a docile subservient population. They've already accomplished that goal in much of the world. America is probably their final obstacle. Americans still have that pesky ole Constitution thing. The Globalist Elites need to scrap it. So get prepared, your 2nd Amendment rights are about to be attacked like no other time in history.

Good advice

Those of you who stocked up on guns and ammo because Obama was going to take your guns need to double up when Hillary takes over

Yes, they're both working very hard on scrapping the American Constitution. They're NWO Globalist Elite scum. Disarming Citizens and creating docile subservient populations is a vital part of the agenda. It is what it is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stock up on your guns & ammo now. The corrupt witch is gunning for the 2nd Amendment. I hate to say it, but Trump's pretty much done. The corrupt witch and her rapist husband will likely be occupying the White House again. And they do represent the NWO Globalist Elite.

The goal is to disarm Citizens and create a docile subservient population. They've already accomplished that goal in much of the world. America is probably their final obstacle. Americans still have that pesky ole Constitution thing. The Globalist Elites need to scrap it. So get prepared, your 2nd Amendment rights are about to be attacked like no other time in history.

Good advice

Those of you who stocked up on guns and ammo because Obama was going to take your guns need to double up when Hillary takes over

Yes, they're both working very hard on scrapping the American Constitution. They're NWO Globalist Elite scum. Disarming Citizens and creating docile subservient populations is a vital part of the agenda. It is what it is.

It isn't what it is, except in the addled mind of a conspiracy nut.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Explain to me why having to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in NYC to simply get a revolver for home use is "reasonable".

That's debatable which is why we have a court system to interpret the law. When was NYC's pistol permitting law challenged in court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Explain to me why having to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in NYC to simply get a revolver for home use is "reasonable".

Your point doesn't support the OP's assertion.

 

[bendog]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

Billy starts this same thread from time to time with no understanding of the meaning of infringed

 

[rightwinger]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Isn't a "well regulated militia" a form of regulation

 

[kaz]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?

Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!

Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.

So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it

And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.

There is no restriction on your freedom of speech, there is a restriction on your causing panic and harming people. You can't use a gun to shoot someone either, it isn't your right to bear arms that is restricted when you get arrested for murder, it's that you murdered someone.

The fifth says the limit on the second and all other amendments. You cannot have your right life, liberty or property restricted without due process of law, which is a judicial process. The legislature cannot create a law that restricts your rights. Again, why bother putting it in the bill of rights anyway if it means government decides what your rights are? Government could have done that already since it according to you was never really a right. Yet not only did it make the top 10, it came in at #2

 

[NYcarbineer]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

That lie only reached fruition in the 1930s, and has since been dispatched to the roundfile.

Constitutionally, the federal government may not create laws of limitation upon the right. Any regulation is a matter for the States.

Where in the Constitution is that?