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

[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?

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

It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.

 

[BluesLegend]

Look, if the Constitution or existing laws get in the way of ANY liberal agenda they are going to attempt and end run around that its not just the 2nd amendment. Look at our immigration laws which they blatantly just ignore, with Obama just making up his own freaking laws without congress.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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

It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.

Really? Examples?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

There is no restriction on your freedom of speech, there is a restriction on your causing panic and harming people.

That's an acrobatic word salad, if I can mix a couple metaphors.

The 1st Amendment does not make that exception; that is an exception coming solely from the right of the Court to interpret the 1st Amendment well beyond the simple, literal meaning of the statement that freedom of speech can't be abridged.

 

[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?

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

It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.

Really? Examples?

Are you serious? Every gun regulation that has passed constitutional muster is an example.

 

[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.

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

Nah, it's the reality. The corrupt slag and her rapist husband represent the NWO Globalist Elite. They are pushing to disarm Citizens and create docile subservient populations.

They wanna get rid of that pesky U.S. Constitution. It's one of the few remaining obstacles for them. So yes, they are coming for the guns. That's not just a loony 'Conspiracy Theory.' It's Conspiracy Fact.

 

[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".

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?

Numerous times, and judges have all deferred, because in NY all judges are progressive asshats.

And you haven't answered the question. Why is the above reasonable?

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, it's not the words that are illegal, it's the intent to cause panic which could cause harm. You could say the same words in a different way, like as a joking aside to a bud and it's perfectly fine. You could indicate in non-verbal form there is a fire, like as a message on the screen, with the intent to cause panic and it's not. It's the causing panic that's the crime, not the medium. Just like just because guns are legal doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people with them

 

[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".

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

Answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes, it's not the words that are illegal, it's the intent to cause panic which could cause harm. You could say the same words in a different way, like as a joking aside to a bud and it's perfectly fine. You could indicate in non-verbal form there is a fire, like as a message on the screen, with the intent to cause panic and it's not. It's the causing panic that's the crime, not the medium. Just like just because guns are legal doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people with them

Don't go and try to explain prior restraint to these people, the concept is above them.

 

[2aguy]

"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!

Could you explain how background checks keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Why is it that with 4 million AR-15s in private hands.....and only 1 or 2 a year being used for any type of crime that it is necessary to ban them for the owners of the 4 million who do not use them to commit crime or mass shootings?

Why should the police and military have weapons that civilians cannot have? Has that worked out for civilians in Germany in the 1930s, Mexico today, Rwanda in the 90s?

Do you realize that experts in fire arms and self defense say the AR-15 is an exellent weapon for civilian self defense....? Do you know why?

 

[easyt65]

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

Despite the oath of office they take, Liberals do not believe in upholding, protecting, enforcing, or even recognizing any law or the Constitution if it gets in the way of their own agenda or personal beliefs.

Barry proved this within days of being elected, declaring because HE did not agree with the LAW - the Defense of Marriage Act - he was ordering his DOJ NOT to defend it.

Barry has refused to enforce immigration laws, has protected human traffickers, has engaged in human trafficking, has violated court orders to continue to engage in human trafficking / facilitating illegal immigration, and refuses to enforce the law against federal law-violating Sanctuary Cities.

Barry has VIOLATED BOTH Constitution and Rule of law to push his own agenda. Now...it's Hillary's turn.

How f*ed up in the head are Liberals....how unethical... how immoral...how ILLEGAL are they? Hillary actually declarers that the Federal Government has a RIGHT to legislate Constitutional Rights:

"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."

WHY does she believe this? Because it HER agenda to strip Americans of the Constitutional RIGHT to Bear Arms, to DIS-ARM American citizens...and whatever a Liberal wants is 'legal', right?!

She couldn't give a damn that it says that Right "Shall Not Be Infringed"! To her, that phrase isn't a DECLARATION. To Hillary, it's a 'CHALLENGE'!

For all the Left's attempts to demonize Conservatives and try to compare them to 'Nazi's....it should be duly, historically noted that it was the Nazis who disarmed their people, who stripped their people of their right to bear arms....the same thing Hillary has openly professed she wants to do.

'Heil Hillary!"

 

[2aguy]

"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

Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....

You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....


The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....

Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......

 

[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.

Answer the question.

I did, asshole. I said it was debatable.

 

[2aguy]

"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?

You guys don't get the reasonable regulation....you nuts think an outright ban is not unreasonable........and anything up to that is fine too.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes, it's not the words that are illegal, it's the intent to cause panic which could cause harm. You could say the same words in a different way, like as a joking aside to a bud and it's perfectly fine. You could indicate in non-verbal form there is a fire, like as a message on the screen, with the intent to cause panic and it's not. It's the causing panic that's the crime, not the medium. Just like just because guns are legal doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people with them

Don't go and try to explain prior restraint to these people, the concept is above them.

Prior restraint is a gun nut as applied to gun rights.

 

[paulitician]

"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

It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.

Sure, then why not just scrap the U.S. Constitution all-together? I mean, rights are only granted and bestowed by Government. What Big Brother giveth, can also taketh away. It all gets back to so many believing that Civil Rights are only granted and bestowed by Government.

But obviously they're sadly mistaken. Civil Rights are human rights bestowed upon us at birth. We don't have to kneel and grovel at the feet of Big Brother to ensure them. We're born with them.

 

[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?

You guys don't get the reasonable regulation....you nuts think an outright ban is not unreasonable........and anything up to that is fine too.....

I probably own more guns than you do. Where did you get the idea I support an outright ban? Just another example of your abysmal reading skills?

 

[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?

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

It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.

Sure, then why not just scrap the U.S. Constitution? I mean, rights are only granted and bestowed by Government. What Big Brother giveth, can also taketh away. It all gets back to so many believing that Civil Rights are only granted and bestowed by Government.

But obviously they're sadly mistaken. Civil Rights are human rights bestowed upon us at birth. We don't have to kneel and grovel at the feet of Big Brother to ensure them. We're born with them.

Do you have the right to publish and distribute child pornography under the protection of the 1st Amendment?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them