Hillary confused again

[williepete]

Maybe she wasn't fully recovered from the night's bender.

Clinton Cites ‘Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ in Gun Control Argument

Hillary Clinton cited a “constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in an interview that aired Wednesday with Steve Harvey, apparently forgetting those words are in the Declaration of Independence.

No one will take your gun away if you’re a responsible gun owner, Clinton said.

And the person who can't tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence wants a seat at the totalitarian table deciding who is a "responsible gun owner". I can imagine the thousands who would fail their progressive litmus test.

 

[paperview]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

 

[williepete]

Like the sniper fire gaffe, she feels so elevated above the unwashed masses, she thinks she can just sling out anything and the peasants will lap it up. That or her brain is too addled by booze, strokes and a concussion to remember what she learned at Yale.

Wants to lead nation, clueless on founding documents

The mistake was quickly spotted and jumped upon by the Republican National Committee. RNC spokesman James Hewitt emailed a statement to reporters blasting Clinton as a Yale Law School graduate that doesn't know what she is talking about.

“Heckuva gaffe to have in the middle of an intensifying debate over the Supreme Court,” spokesman James Hewitt said in a statement emailed to reporters. “Yale Law School graduate Hillary Clinton who supports a judicial litmus test on abortion, just misquoted the constitution and in doing so, backed ‘a constitutional right to life.’ Nice job Hillary!”
Constitution or That Other Thing? Clinton Gaffes Big Time

 

[gipper]

Don't you dare talk about Hillary...stay on point, and attack The Donald.

 

[Moonglow]

Just another senior moment...

 

[easyt65]

Hillary's own staff has described her as 'often confused' and 'technology challenged'...and she keeps proving WHY.

 

[Moonglow]

Hot flashes..

 

[whitehall]

"No one will take your gun away"? Are we talking about confiscation? First they talk about registration and next thing you know some government drone (wearing a gun) decides if you are responsible enough to keep it. Democrats, Nazis and Marxists will never state their true intention until it's too late.

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking: President Hillary accidentally nukes China

Hillary: I thought that was the coffee maker button

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

When isn't the Hildabeast confused?

 

[bendog]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

Well, in a sense there is. The whole purpose of the BoR, and how the const was ratified, was to limit the federal govt's power to affect personal decisions we make. The rub always comes when "rights" are applied to society as we now know it. Do you and I have a right to obtain safe contraceptives even when our state govts are run by Christian fundys?

The OP's whatadoodle anyway with it's gun rights message. Basically she said there's personal right (I have no idea if she thought there was one before Heller) but she also said the right can be limited by regulating firearms be used responsibly, and that is a correct statement.

 

[paperview]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

Well, in a sense there is. The whole purpose of the BoR, and how the const was ratified, was to limit the federal govt's power to affect personal decisions we make. The rub always comes when "rights" are applied to society as we now know it. Do you and I have a right to obtain safe contraceptives even when our state govts are run by Christian fundys?

The OP's whatadoodle anyway with it's gun rights message. Basically she said there's personal right (I have no idea if she thought there was one before Heller) but she also said the right can be limited by regulating firearms be used responsibly, and that is a correct statement.

I was merely speaking to her statement “constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which has the con-o-sphere atwitter, saying these are not constitutional rights. 5th A. addresses the first two, life and liberty -- and the pursuit of happiness (which had a different meaning than it does now)is inherent in the document and, like the first two, an inalienable right.

 

[bendog]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

Well, in a sense there is. The whole purpose of the BoR, and how the const was ratified, was to limit the federal govt's power to affect personal decisions we make. The rub always comes when "rights" are applied to society as we now know it. Do you and I have a right to obtain safe contraceptives even when our state govts are run by Christian fundys?

The OP's whatadoodle anyway with it's gun rights message. Basically she said there's personal right (I have no idea if she thought there was one before Heller) but she also said the right can be limited by regulating firearms be used responsibly, and that is a correct statement.

I was merely speaking to her statement “constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which has the con-o-sphere atwitter, saying these are not constitutional rights. 5th A. addresses the first two, life and liberty -- and the pursuit of happiness (which had a different meaning than it does now)is inherent in the document and, like the first two, an inalienable right.

Yeah I know. There's no specific right, but the op and "breacon" story are silly. Essentially the breacon's trying to troll her because having any limits on the right to gun ownership is an anathema to their quest for no govt regulation at all, but even the most expansive reading of the history of the 2nd doesn't support that.

And, what's really crazy is we're fixing to have the nastiest presidential elections since the progressive era, and there's not much difference between Trump and Hillary on gun rights or abortion. Trump probably is ok with govt being involved in people having access to healthcare.

 

[HenryBHough]

Take "again" out of the title and insert "yet" and we'd have a less rose-coloured-glasses vision of the situation.

 

[whitehall]

When you get them off script for a couple of minutes a lot of times the radical left will unintentionally tip their hand as to their true agenda and you gotta be ready for it because their is no media organization like Media Matters on the other side of the political spectrum. You could tell what was on Hillary's mind regardless of how confused she was when she stated simply "no one will take your gun away...if".

 

[bripat9643]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

Well, in a sense there is. The whole purpose of the BoR, and how the const was ratified, was to limit the federal govt's power to affect personal decisions we make. The rub always comes when "rights" are applied to society as we now know it. Do you and I have a right to obtain safe contraceptives even when our state govts are run by Christian fundys?

The OP's whatadoodle anyway with it's gun rights message. Basically she said there's personal right (I have no idea if she thought there was one before Heller) but she also said the right can be limited by regulating firearms be used responsibly, and that is a correct statement.

That's utter bullshit. In the first place, if you have a right, then government has no authority to regulate it. The two things are contradictory. In the second, the BoR gives the government no authority to regulate guns, period. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you gun grabbers understand?

 

[bendog]

When you get them off script for a couple of minutes a lot of times the radical left will unintentionally tip their hand as to their true agenda and you gotta be ready for it because their is no media organization like Media Matters on the other side of the political spectrum. You could tell what was on Hillary's mind regardless of how confused she was when she stated simply "no one will take your gun away...if".

What's her agenda? Serious question, cause I don't know. Obviously if the left had it's way there'd be no "high capacity" magazines, more background checks (though I don't see anyway to identify crazy people with a background check), and various hindrances ... but the chances of actually enacting that even if the Senate has 55 dems is absolutely zero. In short, it seems to me she was more or less pandering to the audience who favor more regulation to be general and offer no real specifics.

 

[bendog]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

Well, in a sense there is. The whole purpose of the BoR, and how the const was ratified, was to limit the federal govt's power to affect personal decisions we make. The rub always comes when "rights" are applied to society as we now know it. Do you and I have a right to obtain safe contraceptives even when our state govts are run by Christian fundys?

The OP's whatadoodle anyway with it's gun rights message. Basically she said there's personal right (I have no idea if she thought there was one before Heller) but she also said the right can be limited by regulating firearms be used responsibly, and that is a correct statement.

That's utter bullshit. In the first place, if you have a right, then government has no authority to regulate it. The two things are contradictory. In the second, the BoR gives the government no authority to regulate guns, period. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you gun grabbers understand?

Thank you for making my point, obscene child.

 

[bripat9643]

There is a constitutional right to life and liberty -- but nope no "constitutional right" to the per-suit O'happiness.

I guess.

Well, in a sense there is. The whole purpose of the BoR, and how the const was ratified, was to limit the federal govt's power to affect personal decisions we make. The rub always comes when "rights" are applied to society as we now know it. Do you and I have a right to obtain safe contraceptives even when our state govts are run by Christian fundys?

The OP's whatadoodle anyway with it's gun rights message. Basically she said there's personal right (I have no idea if she thought there was one before Heller) but she also said the right can be limited by regulating firearms be used responsibly, and that is a correct statement.

That's utter bullshit. In the first place, if you have a right, then government has no authority to regulate it. The two things are contradictory. In the second, the BoR gives the government no authority to regulate guns, period. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you gun grabbers understand?

Thank you for making my point, obscene child.

I made exactly the opposite of your point.