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

[there4eyeM]

Categorical rejection is rational?

Yes, it is. When you are attempting to limit, that which is unlimitable, you are going to get that response.

With that attitude, any other view than your own will seem irrational to you. When you live in a society where many have another view, you seem irrational to them. As always in any human issue, there are and must be talking points. The fact alone that "any and all arms" cannot be the definition of the second amendment stands as an indictment of total intransigence.

 

[westwall]

Categorical rejection is rational?

Yes, it is. When you are attempting to limit, that which is unlimitable, you are going to get that response.

With that attitude, any other view than your own will seem irrational to you. When you live in a society where many have another view, you seem irrational to them. As always in any human issue, there are and must be talking points. The fact alone that "any and all arms" cannot be the definition of the second amendment stands as an indictment of total intransigence.

Anti gun activists frequently use pseudo intellectual, and pseudo psychological arguments. The fact remains that the 2nd is a very simple, very all encompassing Amendment. It says the Right to keep, and bear, shall not be infringed. That's about as cut and dried as you can get. That includes small arms, though it will probably shock you to know that it also included artillery during the early part of this countries history. As artillery is NOT specifically mentioned in the 2nd I feel that controls on ordnance are appropriate. I also feel that those who have committed felony crimes have also given up their Right to own firearms as they have shown that they don't respect the Rights of those they offended.

All other controls however are anathema to the 2nd Amendment. Just like the Founders intended.

 

[martybegan]

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.

What regulation, besides an outright ban and theoretical confiscation, would have stopped the Newtown Massacre?

 

[martybegan]

Those "others", if they want to apply the regulation I listed above, would need to repeal the 2nd amendment if they truly want to follow the constitution.

Or just get a SCOTUS who reads the Second Amendment the way its' been read for the 200 years before Heller.

Wrong. Heller was just the SC restoring the original intent of the amendment, which was being perverted since the 30's.

 

[BlindBoo]

The further Left any Nation slides the more totalitarian it becomes.

Except for people who live in the "Faux bubble" the Nazi's proved that theory wrong.

People who are intellectually challenged usually resort to the "Fox" bullshit. You think it makes you look all cool and shit, it just reveals that you cannot think for yourself.

It is easy to spot those who live in the "Bubble" too.

 

[BlindBoo]

When they first tried prohibition the gang wars killed many innocent Americans and that made front page news. In today's modern drug war many more innocent people are being kill across the globe. That doesn't make front page news anywhere in the US. I'm not saying using drugs is not dangerous. The war on drugs makes it even more so.

No, because when you make something legal, expect more people to participate.

Politicians predicted that if they legalized pot in places like Colorado, that would wipe out the illegal sales of pot. Wrong. It's stronger than ever. They thought the same thing when they pushed lotteries across the country; it would stop the mob activity in gambling. Wrong, now the mob uses the states numbers to make their gambling more legitimate. They offer higher payouts and of course, no taxation regardless how much you win.

I don't believe that legalizing something that's so destructive can make things better. I believe that it makes things worse if anything. This very discussion came up today with a coworker of mine. It came up because a school mate of his died from an OD late last week. He's in his later 20's, and claimed that was the sixth classmate that died from an OD since he left school.

I understand your position. Either we're free or we're not. OD's from illegal drugs is surpassed by OD's from prescription drugs, car accidents, falls, and gun related deaths. I don't know how many people across the globe have died, killed in the turf wars and all but I imagine it is pretty high. We don't get a lot of coverage on that front. I just don't agree with the interdiction and incarceration policy. It has not worked. I don't believe it ever will unless they resort to more police state tactics and draconian measures.

 

[Contumacious]

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.

WHAT did I do to those parents in Newtown to deserve "onerous federal firearm regulations?

 

[martybegan]

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.

WHAT did I do to those parents in Newtown to deserve "onerous federal firearm regulations?

Joe is a big fan of punishing people for the acts of others. It would be like confiscating the cars of 20 people because someone else got into a DWI accident.

 

[Contumacious]

The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.

Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.

I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.

WHAT did I do to those parents in Newtown to deserve "onerous federal firearm regulations?

Joe is a big fan of punishing people for the acts of others. It would be like confiscating the cars of 20 people because someone else got into a DWI accident.

He is a typical fascist - they all believe in collective punishment -

 

[paulitician]

Doing drugs should be left up to adults to decide for themselves. The Government shouldn't be involved with it. Decriminalize drugs and immediately abolish the DEA.

Then, reverse all non-violent drug related prosecutions. Release millions of Americans who don't belong in cages. Most convicted have a problem, they need treatment. They shouldn't be shoved in cages.

Well right now they are being shoved in holes at local cemeteries all around the country. I guess you feel we need to expand that much more, huh?

Adults can decide for themselves. The U.S. imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. Too many of em are non-violent drug offenders. The U.S. prison population is abnormally massive. The costs are immense. Decriminalize drugs and allow adults to make their own decisions on using them. Just as they do with alcohol.

 

[paulitician]

Doing drugs should be left up to adults to decide for themselves. The Government shouldn't be involved with it. Decriminalize drugs and immediately abolish the DEA.

Then, reverse all non-violent drug related prosecutions. Release millions of Americans who don't belong in cages. Most convicted have a problem, they need treatment. They shouldn't be shoved in cages.

Well right now they are being shoved in holes at local cemeteries all around the country. I guess you feel we need to expand that much more, huh?

When they first tried prohibition the gang wars killed many innocent Americans and that made front page news. In today's modern drug war many more innocent people are being kill across the globe. That doesn't make front page news anywhere in the US. I'm not saying using drugs is not dangerous. The war on drugs makes it even more so.

Spot On. We've learned nothing from history. The act of using drugs shouldn't be considered a criminal act, anymore than the act of consuming alcohol is. If someone decides to use drugs, it's their adult decision. It may not be a wise decision, but that's on them. The act of using the drug, isn't a crime. It isn't harming anyone but possibly the user. They've committed no crimes. They shouldn't be shoved into cages for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Adults can decide for themselves. The U.S. imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. Too many of em are non-violent drug offenders. The U.S. prison population is abnormally massive. The costs are immense. Decriminalize drugs and allow adults to make their own decisions on using them. Just as they do with alcohol.

And just how are we doing with alcohol these days?

Calling drug offenders non-violent is like calling pedophiliacs who only watch the movies non-violent. The violence may not take place in the act, but to get the product to the user is plenty violent.

This is not to mention the fact that only a small percentage of people are in prison for drug usage alone. In most cases, they got busted for drugs during another illegal act or they were dealing.

Making drugs legal will not stop the black market on drugs. Making drugs legal will not stop the theft and robbery needed to get money to buy drugs. Making drugs legal will only result in getting more people to try those drugs and getting hooked. Then taxpayers will have to support them for God knows how long if not the rest of their lives.

 

[HenryBHough]

When they first tried prohibition the gang wars killed many innocent Americans and that made front page news. In today's modern drug war many more innocent people are being kill across the globe. That doesn't make front page news anywhere in the US. I'm not saying using drugs is not dangerous. The war on drugs makes it even more so.

Ah, but without prohibition bootlegger Joe Kennedy would never had had the money to buy the presidency for hit little boy John. So one but wonders what the prohibition on drugs will fund for future generations.

I bet it won't be pretty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I understand your position. Either we're free or we're not. OD's from illegal drugs is surpassed by OD's from prescription drugs, car accidents, falls, and gun related deaths. I don't know how many people across the globe have died, killed in the turf wars and all but I imagine it is pretty high. We don't get a lot of coverage on that front. I just don't agree with the interdiction and incarceration policy. It has not worked. I don't believe it ever will unless they resort to more police state tactics and draconian measures.

OD's are an epidemic these days and growing. So it's not just the turf wars that are killing people. People are willingly killing themselves. My cousin lost her son last year because of an OD; fighting the addiction since he was a teenager. He died at 28. I seen her a few months ago at the grocery store. She and her husband will never be the same.

The problem has worsened the last several years under DumBama with his near open border policy. What we really need to do is put more money into stopping the drugs from getting here in the first place. Heroin today is like pot used to be when I was a kid: everybody had it and it was effortless to buy.

 

[Centinel]

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.​

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.

 

[bendog]

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

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.

 

[paulitician]

Adults can decide for themselves. The U.S. imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. Too many of em are non-violent drug offenders. The U.S. prison population is abnormally massive. The costs are immense. Decriminalize drugs and allow adults to make their own decisions on using them. Just as they do with alcohol.

And just how are we doing with alcohol these days?

Calling drug offenders non-violent is like calling pedophiliacs who only watch the movies non-violent. The violence may not take place in the act, but to get the product to the user is plenty violent.

This is not to mention the fact that only a small percentage of people are in prison for drug usage alone. In most cases, they got busted for drugs during another illegal act or they were dealing.

Making drugs legal will not stop the black market on drugs. Making drugs legal will not stop the theft and robbery needed to get money to buy drugs. Making drugs legal will only result in getting more people to try those drugs and getting hooked. Then taxpayers will have to support them for God knows how long if not the rest of their lives.

That's a pretty bizarre and weak argument. It's full of wild absurd apples & oranges comparisons. And you especially, being one of those 'Small Government' greedy white Republican dudes, should agree with me on this. The U.S. by far, has the largest prison population on earth. And so many of them are non-violent drug offenders. The cost of keeping these Citizens in cages is immense. Release them and save $Millions in Tax Dollars. Being a Prison State is extremely expensive.

The act of using drugs itself is not a criminal act. It's an adult personal decision. It doesn't harm anyone but possibly the user. And please spare me the 'Society' argument. Someone snorting cocaine isn't committing a crime against you. We have to move on past this 'Drug War' debacle. We don't need a Drug Gestapo storming Citizens' homes in the middle of the night because they might possess drugs. Time to evolve. Release all non-violent drug offenders immediately.

 

[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.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

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?

 

[paulitician]

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.

Sadly, most Americans do believe their rights are mere 'favors' only allowed and bestowed upon them by Government. They've been conditioned to believe that. They don't realize that their born with inalienable rights. No Government can take them away.

Hillary Clinton is a Communist Globalist. She represents the NWO Globalist Elite. She would like to scrap the U.S. Constitution. She's very dangerous. Let's hope & pray the American People choose to keep her out of the White House.