Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"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?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
"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
There is a big big difference to what Scalia thought was reasonable and what the typical Libtard Moon Bat thinks is reasonable.
You can't ever trust the stupid Moon Bats with a definition of reasonable because they are dumbass unreasonable dickheads.
I can give several recent examples of their unreasonableness if you are confused about this point.
exactly...that was the biggest mistake he made.......now they think they can do whatever they want......say "Reasonable" at every step and it is okay......
Libtards have no idea what the word reasonable means. That is why we can't trust the assholes with our Constitutional rights.
"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?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
Wrong.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!maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part."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...'
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?
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
"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
There is a big big difference to what Scalia thought was reasonable and what the typical Libtard Moon Bat thinks is reasonable.
You can't ever trust the stupid Moon Bats with a definition of reasonable because they are dumbass unreasonable dickheads.
I can give several recent examples of their unreasonableness if you are confused about this point.
exactly...that was the biggest mistake he made.......now they think they can do whatever they want......say "Reasonable" at every step and it is okay......
Libtards have no idea what the word reasonable means. That is why we can't trust the assholes with our Constitutional rights.
You want a ten year old to have the right to go to school armed with a handgun?
"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?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
And from your standpoint WE THE PEOPLE should let 9 federal bureaucrats -- politicians in black robes -- amend the Constitution - until their hearts are content. The ONLY thing we can do is grin and bear it, right?
Wrong.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!maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part."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...'
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?
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
In Heller Scalia reaffirmed the settled and accepted fact of law that government is authorized to place limits on the Second Amendment, as is the case with all other rights.
To maintain otherwise is as ignorant as it is stupid.
The militia wasn't defined by government.
...and NEITHER was the term "arms" defined......So, to follow the 2nd amendment strictly as it was written.....you morons could walk around with muskets.
Reasonable in ensuring criminals and nut jobs are not sold guns and those who get a permit meet the standards established by the community$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
It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.
Reasonable in ensuring criminals and nut jobs are not sold guns and those who get a permit meet the standards established by the community$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
It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.
Oh, brother."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?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
And from your standpoint WE THE PEOPLE should let 9 federal bureaucrats -- politicians in black robes -- amend the Constitution - until their hearts are content. The ONLY thing we can do is grin and bear it, right?
"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?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
And from your standpoint WE THE PEOPLE should let 9 federal bureaucrats -- politicians in black robes -- amend the Constitution - until their hearts are content. The ONLY thing we can do is grin and bear it, right?
They want 9, politically appointed lawyers.......to tell 320,000,000 people what they can and can't do under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....
Reasonable in ensuring criminals and nut jobs are not sold guns and those who get a permit meet the standards established by the communityNice 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
It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.
it takes 3-6 months and $1000 to accomplish that? Really?
And again, since it is a right, the "community" doesn't have a say in it, or do you want to imply that a location can ban abortion and gay marriage if they feel like it. Or, forget the ban, just add a $1000 fee and a 3 month waiting period to each one.
You are a New Yorker...push for them to hire more people to process gun applications
Prove that $1000 is excessive for the service provided
Yes, the community does have a say in it. They can also put restrictions on abortion clinics (see Texas) or gay marriage
Oh, brother."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?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
And from your standpoint WE THE PEOPLE should let 9 federal bureaucrats -- politicians in black robes -- amend the Constitution - until their hearts are content. The ONLY thing we can do is grin and bear it, right?
This tedious, wrongheaded "argument" is as ignorant as it is wrong and ridiculous.
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.
Paranoia strikes deep, into the black hole between your ears it has seeped
Only lunatics believe gun control = gun confiscation and only liars continue to claim this conspiracy is factual. I don't know if you are the former, the latter or both, what I do know is you are wrong.
"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...'
[Q
You want a ten year old to have the right to go to school armed with a handgun?
What part of "the Second Amendment is not unlimited" do you not understand."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 "the Second Amendment is not unlimited" do you not understand."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...'
Please indicate where that phrase appears within the amendment.
