Hillary to Gun Owners: Take Back The Second Amendment From NRA Extremists

[Stephanie]

Hillary is such a witch. No wonder Bill ran around on her. You people vote for that shows you have no morals or shame

 

[martybegan]

Justice Berger can go to hell. The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't get simpler than that.

as part of a well-regulated militia....

sorry, marty. justice berger was right... so was every other justice for the almost 200 years before him. scalia is an aberration and just because you like what he says, doesn't make him correct. it makes heller law.... but not good law.

The STATES have the right to form militas, the PEOPLE keep the right to retain arms.

People in the past would consider banning a law abiding citizen from owning a firearm as ludicrous, its a modern invention.

The Constitution doesn't have any clauses where private citizens have the right to own a gun for self defense.

2nd Amendment.

That..is a modern invention.

Nonsense.

it was never intended to protect a private right of gun ownership.

justices laughed at the idea until scalia put in his two cents for the NRA gun dealers organization.

it was never a question until recently. People saw guns as tools, and law abiding people could own them.

 

[blackhawk]

While discussing the NRA Clinton said, “I mean ideally what I would love to see is gun owners, responsible gun owners, hunters form a different organization and take back the Second Amendment from these extremists.”

Hillary to Gun Owners: Take Back The Second Amendment From NRA Extremists - Breitbart

Virtually all of these people understand that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Virtually all of these people understand that the right to keep and bear arms is among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty

Why would any of them listen to Hillary?

They won't they will see it for what it is political grandstanding.

 

[KGB]

however it is the right of the (people) to keep and bear arms

Who are required to be part of a militia and at the ready to defend the state and under the jurisdiction of Congress and the Commander in Chief.

Incorrect as the Supreme Court already stated a few years back. You are denying reality.

That was done by "literalist" Anton Scalia, who seems to fashion his own interpretation of the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

He's made a lot of unique and contradictory decisions over his career.

It doesn't matter, it is the law of the land. That is how our system works. The Constitution says the right to keep & bear arms is an individual right because the Supreme Court affirmed it. If you want it changed, get an amendment change. This question is now settled.

No it most definitely is not.

Slavery and prohibition were over turned.

And as the body count sadly rises, Scalia's bloodthirsty decision will suffer the same fate.

Laws aren't meant to be national suicide.

Much like the holocaust of abortion, this is the law of the land. If you want it changed, go through the Constitutional Amendment process. Both historical examples you cited required amendments.

 

[Sallow]

Who are required to be part of a militia and at the ready to defend the state and under the jurisdiction of Congress and the Commander in Chief.

Incorrect as the Supreme Court already stated a few years back. You are denying reality.

That was done by "literalist" Anton Scalia, who seems to fashion his own interpretation of the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

He's made a lot of unique and contradictory decisions over his career.

It doesn't matter, it is the law of the land. That is how our system works. The Constitution says the right to keep & bear arms is an individual right because the Supreme Court affirmed it. If you want it changed, get an amendment change. This question is now settled.

No it most definitely is not.

Slavery and prohibition were over turned.

And as the body count sadly rises, Scalia's bloodthirsty decision will suffer the same fate.

Laws aren't meant to be national suicide.

Much like the holocaust of abortion, this is the law of the land. If you want it changed, go through the Constitutional Amendment process. Both historical examples you cited required amendments.

There is absolutely no need to change the Constitution for gun control.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership for self defense.

Scalia was the one, through case law, that linked them and unmoored the militia and defense of the state requirements.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is absolutely no need to change the Constitution for gun control.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership for self defense.

This is a lie.

 

[KGB]

There is absolutely no need to change the Constitution for gun control.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership for self defense.

This is a lie.

it's a denial of reality M14. No where in the Constitution will you find anything remotely related to abortion, but the truth is, Roe vs Wade made it part of the Constitution. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to end that holocaust. When the Court affirmed during DC vs Heller that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it ended discussion on that subject right there.

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The Supreme Court's Blockbuster Second Amendment Ruling: What the Court Resolved and What it Left Open

That's what lefties like Sallow don't get. The Court interpreted what the Second Amendment meant with that opinion. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish it, not a law, not a court ruling, but a Constitutional Amendment.

As far as future courts are concerned, I have serious reservations a future Supreme Court would reverse themselves on this either. I have not heard of any right reversed in such a manner & frankly if it were to occur, would open a much bigger can of worms about the other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Afterall, if one right is reversible, it follows the others are as well. Even a liberal packed court would not want to go there....

 

[EverCurious]

I find this discussion about the "intent" of the second amendment disturbing and severely lacking of basis given the facts.

First I would pose a question, can you imagine, the newly formed US government telling homesteaders who oft lived many miles from anyone else, hunted for their own food, and were responsible for defending their home and family from robbers and Indians alike, that they could not own a gun? The idea is ludicrous.

Second I would point out that in the beginning, there was no army for the US, in fact, militias and "hired armies" were expected to protect their townships from invasion (by enemies of the country and Indians alike) While we had a Continental army lead by Washington in 1775, a standing army that was DISBANDED in 1783 after the war ended because of a distrust of standing armies. (Though a small residual force remained at West Point and some frontier outposts until Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1784.)

In 1777 the second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which had a provision for raising a confederal militia. To wit: "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

The main reason the US Army was founded in 1784 is because there was a lot of trouble with the training and availability of state militias, who felt their only duty was to defend their homes. To wit: "The militia are turning out with great alacrity both in Maryland and Pennsylvania. They are distressed for want of arms. Many have none, we shall rake and scrape enough to do Howe's business, by favor of the Heaven." ~ John Adams August 26, 1777 and "To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter." ~ George Washington - See also "bounty jumping"

As per the first Militia Act of 1792 passed may 2, 1792 allowed the president to call out the state militias "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." and the second Militia Act of 1792 passed may 8, 1792 conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

However, under these laws, the question of state versus federal control of the militia was unresolved. As a result, the federal government could not rely on the militia for national defense. As an example, during the War of 1812, members of the New York Militia refused to take part in operations against the British in Canada, arguing that their only responsibility was to defend their home state. In another instance, the governor of Vermont unsuccessfully attempted to recall his state's militia from the defense of Plattsburgh, claiming it was illegal for them to operate outside Vermont's borders.

The Militia Act of 1903 was passed to help alleviate the issue of Federal vs State control of called upon militia's. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.


So you can see, from the very beginning it was in fact /expected/ that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 would be part of the militia to defend their homes and state. To argue that they were not thusly given the "right" to own guns is absolutely devoid of reason and logic.

 

[jillian]

1) Nothing in the Constitution grants any rights--certain rights are recognized by their enumeration.
2) 2nd Amendment is what you're looking for.

There are plenty of rights granted by the Constitution.

And the 2nd Amendment sets up a structure for a militia.

however it is the right of the (people) to keep and bear arms

Who are required to be part of a militia and at the ready to defend the state and under the jurisdiction of Congress and the Commander in Chief.

Incorrect as the Supreme Court already stated a few years back. You are denying reality.

That was done by "literalist" Anton Scalia, who seems to fashion his own interpretation of the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

He's made a lot of unique and contradictory decisions over his career.

and it's, unfortunately, the law until the court changes and another case comes up for consideration.

that's life.

unlike the rightwingnut loons who pick and choose when they think they have to listen to the court, we know that is (at least temporarily) the law.

 

[jillian]

There is absolutely no need to change the Constitution for gun control.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership for self defense.

This is a lie.

it is not a lie. it's the correct interpretation pre-scalia and his activist group of winger judges.

 

[LOki]

The STATES have the right to form militas, the PEOPLE keep the right to retain arms.

People in the past would consider banning a law abiding citizen from owning a firearm as ludicrous, its a modern invention.

The Constitution doesn't have any clauses where private citizens have the right to own a gun for self defense.

2nd Amendment.

That..is a modern invention.

Nonsense.

Feel free.

Cite the clause in the Constitution that specifically grants citizens the right to a gun for personal protection.

1) Nothing in the Constitution grants any rights--certain rights are recognized by their enumeration.
2) 2nd Amendment is what you're looking for.

There are plenty of rights granted by the Constitution.

Nope. Not a single one.

And the 2nd Amendment sets up a structure for a militia.

Nope. Not in the least bit.

Sorry about your luck, Pumpkin.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hillary is telling NRA members to take back the Second Amendment from the NRA?

This is who democrats want for president?

 

[PredFan]

Gun Owners to Hillary: "Fuck off bitch!"

 

[whitehall]

Eight presidents were members of the NRA. Just about everyone who has ever hunted has been a member of the NRA. What happened since Marxists like Hillary were in college? Did the NRA or the 2nd Amendment change or did democrats turn logic and common sense upside down?

 

[LOki]

I find this discussion about the "intent" of the second amendment disturbing and severely lacking of basis given the facts.

First I would pose a question, can you imagine, the newly formed US government telling homesteaders who oft lived many miles from anyone else, hunted for their own food, and were responsible for defending their home and family from robbers and Indians alike, that they could not own a gun? The idea is ludicrous.

Second I would point out that in the beginning, there was no army for the US, in fact, militias and "hired armies" were expected to protect their townships from invasion (by enemies of the country and Indians alike) While we had a Continental army lead by Washington in 1775, a standing army that was DISBANDED in 1783 after the war ended because of a distrust of standing armies. (Though a small residual force remained at West Point and some frontier outposts until Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1784.)

In 1777 the second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which had a provision for raising a confederal militia. To wit: "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

The main reason the US Army was founded in 1784 is because there was a lot of trouble with the training and availability of state militias, who felt their only duty was to defend their homes. To wit: "The militia are turning out with great alacrity both in Maryland and Pennsylvania. They are distressed for want of arms. Many have none, we shall rake and scrape enough to do Howe's business, by favor of the Heaven." ~ John Adams August 26, 1777 and "To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter." ~ George Washington - See also "bounty jumping"

As per the first Militia Act of 1792 passed may 2, 1792 allowed the president to call out the state militias "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." and the second Militia Act of 1792 passed may 8, 1792 conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

However, under these laws, the question of state versus federal control of the militia was unresolved. As a result, the federal government could not rely on the militia for national defense. As an example, during the War of 1812, members of the New York Militia refused to take part in operations against the British in Canada, arguing that their only responsibility was to defend their home state. In another instance, the governor of Vermont unsuccessfully attempted to recall his state's militia from the defense of Plattsburgh, claiming it was illegal for them to operate outside Vermont's borders.

The Militia Act of 1903 was passed to help alleviate the issue of Federal vs State control of called upon militia's. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.


So you can see, from the very beginning it was in fact /expected/ that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 would be part of the militia to defend their homes and state. To argue that they were not thusly given the "right" to own guns is absolutely devoid of reason and logic.

They were not given the right. The pre-existing right was recognized by its enumeration.

The Congress' recognition of said right is validated by the necessity of a well regulated militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is absolutely no need to change the Constitution for gun control.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership for self defense.

This is a lie.

it is not a lie. it's the correct interpretation pre-scalia and his activist group of winger judges.

You and I both know you cannot support this claim in any way.
That is, your statement is also a lie.

 

[martybegan]

I find this discussion about the "intent" of the second amendment disturbing and severely lacking of basis given the facts.

First I would pose a question, can you imagine, the newly formed US government telling homesteaders who oft lived many miles from anyone else, hunted for their own food, and were responsible for defending their home and family from robbers and Indians alike, that they could not own a gun? The idea is ludicrous.

Second I would point out that in the beginning, there was no army for the US, in fact, militias and "hired armies" were expected to protect their townships from invasion (by enemies of the country and Indians alike) While we had a Continental army lead by Washington in 1775, a standing army that was DISBANDED in 1783 after the war ended because of a distrust of standing armies. (Though a small residual force remained at West Point and some frontier outposts until Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1784.)

In 1777 the second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which had a provision for raising a confederal militia. To wit: "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

The main reason the US Army was founded in 1784 is because there was a lot of trouble with the training and availability of state militias, who felt their only duty was to defend their homes. To wit: "The militia are turning out with great alacrity both in Maryland and Pennsylvania. They are distressed for want of arms. Many have none, we shall rake and scrape enough to do Howe's business, by favor of the Heaven." ~ John Adams August 26, 1777 and "To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter." ~ George Washington - See also "bounty jumping"

As per the first Militia Act of 1792 passed may 2, 1792 allowed the president to call out the state militias "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." and the second Militia Act of 1792 passed may 8, 1792 conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

However, under these laws, the question of state versus federal control of the militia was unresolved. As a result, the federal government could not rely on the militia for national defense. As an example, during the War of 1812, members of the New York Militia refused to take part in operations against the British in Canada, arguing that their only responsibility was to defend their home state. In another instance, the governor of Vermont unsuccessfully attempted to recall his state's militia from the defense of Plattsburgh, claiming it was illegal for them to operate outside Vermont's borders.

The Militia Act of 1903 was passed to help alleviate the issue of Federal vs State control of called upon militia's. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.


So you can see, from the very beginning it was in fact /expected/ that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 would be part of the militia to defend their homes and state. To argue that they were not thusly given the "right" to own guns is absolutely devoid of reason and logic.

They were not given the right. The pre-existing right was recognized by its enumeration.

The Congress' recognition of said right is validated by the necessity of a well regulated militia.

The 2nd amendment has to be looked at as two separate concepts, the first being that the States retain the right to create their own armed forces regardless of the federal government forming a national army, and the right of the people to be able to participate in said state forces by keeping and bearing their own arms. Even if the States didn't want to keep their own armed services, that doesn't allow them to remove the right to arms from the people.

 

[thanatos144]

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Kondor3]

While discussing the NRA Clinton said, “I mean ideally what I would love to see is gun owners, responsible gun owners, hunters form a different organization and take back the Second Amendment from these extremists.”

Hillary to Gun Owners: Take Back The Second Amendment From NRA Extremists - Breitbart

Virtually all of these people understand that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Virtually all of these people understand that the right to keep and bear arms is among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty

Why would any of them listen to Hillary?

More pandering to The Left... vote-whoring at its finest.

 

[Political Junky]

A woman with the protestors in Roseburg said people who were insane should have the right to buy a gun.