Hillary Clinton: Government Has ‘A Right’ To Regulate 2nd Amendment

[bendog]

hiLIARy proves once again that she is Stupid as well as Corrupt. The Government doesn't have rights; the Government has POWER. Individuals have rights.

Yeah, but she has an unfortunate elitist tendency to talk down. People can differentiate rights from power if it's properly laid out

 

[bendog]

Spare us your fantasy that the Constitution means whatever the SC says it means. What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?

Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .

You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .

The "well regulated" part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implication.

It meant they had trained in military drills and were considered proficient in how to fight as a unit. They were the first line of defense and could be deployed if necessary while the government raised an army. The militias were made of of Citizens at the time. That meant mostly white male property owners. They used their own weapons and kept them in their homes.

It meant that the right to own firearms could not be defeated or frustrated or unlawfully encroached upon.
Definition of INFRINGE

The devil's in the details as to what is unlawfully encroached upon. In legal jargon, that means: gun ownership is a fundamental right, and a fundamental right may only be encroached upon if there's a compelling state interest (which would be sandy hook or Chicago) and the means the gummit uses to further that interest are as narrow as is practically possible in not affecting the right to own a gun.

Arms meant more than guns. Knives, swords, Crossbows, artillery. A literal interpretation of the 2nd means I should be able to own a personal nuclear weapon, or at least a tank, or RPG, or SAM's or............But there are reasonable limitation on the type of arms we can possess. Where do we draw the line?

I'm encouraged because 2 guy and Marty get that, and even the usually dishonest M-14 at one time admitted it.

 

[pwjohn]

The Feds can and should regulate firearms at the national level to the extent believed necessary and approximate through legislation from congress and than signed into law by the president

 

[paulitician]

The Feds can and should regulate firearms at the national level to the extent believed necessary and approximate through legislation from congress and than signed into law by the president

I have the right to bear arms. And i will. You don't like that, move to another country. No one's stopping you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: Government Has 'A Right' To Regulate 2nd Amendment - Breitbart​

Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”

Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”

Clinton responded:

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.

While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.​

And this is why, as bad as Trump is, and he IS bad, Hillary cannot be let into a position of power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

So Heller was a major victory for you of the Anti-Liberty left, C_Coward?

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a lie.

She said and advocates no such thing.

Uh, direct quotes, ya fucking retard.

Your hatred of civil rights drives you. but it does not alter reality, C-Coward.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in article I, section 8. There is no power to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Quite true.

But there were two loopholes.

1.) State and local govts could still restrict guns and other weapons.

2.) The Fed govt could still restrict items that were in interstate commerce, including guns.

But these remained true only until the Bill of Rights was ratified. It contained the 2nd amendment, which closed both loopholes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Another rightwing liar – which comes as no surprise.

Perhaps either of you lying cowards could cite were Clinton stated she plans on ‘abolishing the Second Amendment.’

You are a leftist dedicated to ending civil rights.

Ergo, you are a filthy liar without a shred of integrity. No one said Clinton directly stated that she would abolish the second. You are simply fabricating this. You are building a straw man fallacy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Feds can and should regulate firearms at the national level to the extent believed necessary and approximate through legislation from congress and than signed into law by the president

The only thing stopping them and you, is the constitution.

And 300 million guns willing to support the constitution against you totalitarian thugs.

 

[Centinel]

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in article I, section 8. There is no power to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Quite true.

But there were two loopholes.

1.) State and local govts could still restrict guns and other weapons.

2.) The Fed govt could still restrict items that were in interstate commerce, including guns.

But these remained true only until the Bill of Rights was ratified. It contained the 2nd amendment, which closed both loopholes.

"2.) The Fed govt could still restrict items that were in interstate commerce, including guns."

Many people think that this is what the constitution says, but it doesn't.

It says to "regulate commerce among the several states". A gun is not commerce among the several states. Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but it lacks the power to restrict the acquisition and possession of guns.

 

[Uncensored2008]

hiLIARy proves once again that she is Stupid as well as Corrupt. The Government doesn't have rights; the Government has POWER. Individuals have rights.

I don't agree;

She was playing to her audience. People like C_Coward_Jones want civil rights ended, and ended now. When speaking to the left, Clinton adopts open hostility to the Constitution and to civil rights, so that she solidifies support in the Anti-liberty Left.

 

[Contumacious]

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in article I, section 8. There is no power to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Quite true.

But there were two loopholes.

1.) State and local govts could still restrict guns and other weapons.

2.) The Fed govt could still restrict items that were in interstate commerce, including guns.

But these remained true only until the Bill of Rights was ratified. It contained the 2nd amendment, which closed both loopholes.

"2.) The Fed govt could still restrict items that were in interstate commerce, including guns."

Many people think that this is what the constitution says, but it doesn't.

It says to "regulate commerce among the several states". A gun is not commerce among the several states. Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but it lacks the power to restrict the acquisition and possession of guns.

The power to regulate commerce merely means that the feds must ensure that the flow is UNrestricted. It has NOTHING to do with the merchandise.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of "commerce" such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.

But SCOTUS "justices'" have concluded that Americans are ignorant and/or narcotized and will not question the validity of their judgments.


.

 

[Centinel]

The power to regulate commerce merely means that the feds must ensure that the flow is UNrestricted. It has NOTHING to do with the merchandise.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of "commerce" such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.

But SCOTUS "justices'" have concluded that Americans are ignorant and/or narcotized and will not question the validity of their judgments.

I agree entirely.

It's important to remember that in 1780s, the term regulate had a different meaning. To regulate meant to make something function properly. One could regulate a clock so that it was "well-regulated" or properly functioning.

So, in todays language, the commerce clause would read something like, "To keep commerce properly functioning among the several states."

The founders wanted to prevent the states from erecting protectionist trade restrictions, so that is why they granted congress the power to keep commerce among the states functioning properly.

Another thing to remember is that the enumerated powers in art I, sec 8 spell out areas where congress has legislative authority, but it is the last clause that actually gives congress the power to make laws. But this power is also restricted, in that congress may only make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying the other powers into execution.

Both necessary AND proper. It is not necessary to restrict the people's ability to acquire and possess arms in order to keep commerce properly functioning among the several state. Therefore, such a law could not be made because it's not necessary, and therefore fails the necessary and proper test.

 

[boedicca]

hiLIARy proves once again that she is Stupid as well as Corrupt. The Government doesn't have rights; the Government has POWER. Individuals have rights.

I don't agree;

She was playing to her audience. People like C_Coward_Jones want civil rights ended, and ended now. When speaking to the left, Clinton adopts open hostility to the Constitution and to civil rights, so that she solidifies support in the Anti-liberty Left.

I agree with that, but it doesn't prove that she's not Stupid and Corrupt.