Second Amendment

The One Civil Liberty Trump Likes and Clinton Hates

The billionaire blabbermouth is right about his Democratic opponent's hostility to gun rights.

|

YouTube

Amid the furor caused by Donald Trump's offhand joke/threat/exhortation about what "Second Amendment people" might do if Hillary Clinton is elected president and gets to pick a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it was easy to miss the way he qualified his oft-repeated warning about his Democratic opponent's hostility to gun rights. Trump had previously accused Clinton of wanting to "abolish" the Second Amendment, leading some literal-minded observers to point out that 1) she has never said such a thing and 2) the president does not have the power to edit the Constitution in any case. In his speech on Tuesday, perhaps mindful of that criticism, Trump said, "Hillary wants to abolish—essentially abolish—the Second Amendment."

Trump's point, of course, is that the power to replace Scalia with a justice who takes a different view of the Second Amendment is the power to eliminate that guarantee as an obstacle to gun control, either by overturning District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 ruling in which the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to armed self-defense, or by reading the decision so narrowly that it has no practical effect. Trump is no one's idea of an expert on constitutional law, but the point he is making seems indisputable to me, although you would not guess that from reading The New York Times.

According to an editorial in Wednesday's paper, Trump "falsely charged, as he has before, that 'Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment.'" The next day, the Times reported that "Mr. Trump is accusing Mrs. Clinton, without evidence, of intending to abolish the Second Amendment—something that she denies and would be constitutionally unable to do as president." Another recent news story said Clinton has merely "spoken critically of judicial decisions that take a broad interpretation of the right to own guns."

The truth is that Clinton believes Heller was "wrongly decided," which means she does not think the Second Amendment guarantees a right to use guns for self-defense in the home, since the law overturned in that case made it impossible to exercise that right. In fact, as I pointed out in my column last week, it is pretty clear Clinton does not believe the Second Amendment guarantees any sort of individual right to arms. She repeatedly dodged that question in an ABC News interview last June, saying only that "if it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation." The decision to excise the Second Amendment from this year's Democratic platform—the platform on which Clinton is running—reinforced the impression that she not only does not value the constitutional right to armed self-defense but does not think it exists. So does the absence of any statement to the contrary from Clinton on her campaign website.

Trump and Clinton both have strong authoritarian instincts and are generally bad on civil liberties. This is one of the few areas where Trump clearly and consistently disagrees with Clinton and is right to do so. His newfound, politically convenient enthusiasm for the Second Amendment may or may not be sincere, and it's not clear what sort of justices he would actually nominate. But it seems certain that Clinton would appoint justices who agree with her that Heller was wrongly decided, which would indeed "essentially abolish" the Second Amendment, even if there would still be political obstacles to gun control. Whether that's enough reason to prefer Trump over Clinton is another question.

NEXT: New Jersey Bill Would Punish Eating, Drinking While Driving

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The truth is that Clinton believes Heller was “wrongly decided,” which means she does not think the Second Amendment guarantees a right to use guns for self-defense in the home

    I think we can just say she does not think any private citizen should be permitted to own a firearm.

    1. I think we can say, with some confidence, that Clinton does not believe in any limitations on Government authority, especially if she and her cronies hold power.

      1. It’s unfair to suggest that Trump was making a “joke” or a “threat.” Words mean exactly what they say, and no one should ever draw implications from them beyond their plain surface. He simply said a series of ordinary words that happened not to be entirely clear, and then clarified them later, with great eloquence. Saying he made a “joke” is like saying that a dangerous, trolling act of inappropriately deadpan Gmail mimicry is merely innocent “parody.” See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  2. I predict YOY gun purchases this December will double.

    1. Whilst shooting my Dad’s AR he suggested I get my own while it was possible to do so. I said that the day Hillary wins I will. I can’t be alone…

      1. You should probably act sooner. Prices are going to go up and you’ll be lucky to find one on the shelf.

    2. I’ve been putting off getting a shotgun. Probably ought to bite the bullet (hah!) and get that done while there’s still something on the shelves.

      1. Consider a Remington 870. Very affordable and reliable, and for an extra $100 or so, you can get the optional rifled barrel to swap in when you feel like flinging a Hornady slug downrange and obliterating the hell out of your target. Satisfying stuff there.

        1. Yep. You should be able to find a used 870 in good condition for $200 or less.

          1. You can get a brand new one for about $250 these days. I’m thinking about getting one for turkey season.

        2. I’m more of a semi-auto guy. This one is to be more in the combat/home defense line.

          I’ve got a Remington 1100 with a slug barrel already that is spooky accurate with the right loads.

          1. semi-auto: maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.

            pumps are more fool-proof.
            Double-barrel is almost idiot proof.

            Select according to your level of expected attention to detail and inherent OCD.

      2. This is what I have and it works well:

        http://www.mossberg.com/catego…..-tactical/

  3. #1 Artisanal Gossip

    How’s that TOP Comment system working out for you, Reason?

    1. Great New Wave band name btw

    2. I agree, it’s time to shitcan that shit-nothing but hysterics and stupidity.

      1. Don’t forget the spam bots.

    3. I was convinced it was an April Fools joke when they first added it.

      1. Me too, the jokes getting old, time to nuke it from space.

    4. I like it. More right-wing crazy higher up on my Ipad.

      1. No one needs an Ipad while children starve, amsoc.

        1. If he actually had one, he would know how to spell it correctly.

        2. No one needs deserves an Ipad while children starve who won’t pay his mortgage.

    5. I like the promoted comments, since that removes at least one possible nutjob post from the ones I would actually read.

      Skip past the ads, the promoted comments, and start reading when you get to the real comments.

      1. Chrome Stylish FTW. I see nothing but the post and the real comments.

        1. Can anyone recommend a good reason app for use on a Kindle Fire?

          Also, the fact that Kindle Fire won’t show alt-txt is very frustrating. I feel left out. 🙁

          1. I didn’t buy a fire because it wouldn’t run Chrome and therefore no Reasonable.

            I don’t know how some of you guys live without Reasonable and/or Greasonable?

          2. I only Reason on a real computer so can’t help you there.

      2. Ads? What are these ads, you speak of?

    6. If you want a lot of folks that are caricatures of themselves or self-insulting stereotypes, it’s like sugar for bees.

      Now, I’ve promoted a few of my own comments, but…

      1. Gays are sick and don’t have any rights. Just like retards and Muslims.
      2. Abortion is murder. Lock up the moms and kill the abortionists.
      3. The Real Christian God is on our side and against the Muslims. Period.
      4. Immigration is a necessary evil but only if they’re white Christians.

      is way overboard.

  4. Welcome to the party Reason

  5. During her confirmation Elena Kagen said in so many words that she did not think there was a constitutional right to gay marriage. Of course when the issue came before her on the court, she voted the exact opposite. It is not hard to see how this would play out. Whomever Hillary nominated would tell the Senate how much they respected precedent and how sure they had criticized Heller but precedent must be respected and now they have a more nuanced view of the 2nd Amendment. This would give Republicans in the Senate cover to confirm them. The person would then be confirmed 92 to 8 or some such. Then “unexpectedly” would vote to overturn Heller and Senate Republicans would be shocked and angry about it.

    Anyone who says Senate Republicans won’t roll over and give Hillary whomever she wants on the court or that Hillary won’t appoint someone for the specific purpose of overturning Heller and Citizens’ United is lying or delusional.

    1. Bingo. It is why I am more afraid of a D nominee then an R. R’s routinely buck their backers sometimes for good but mostly bad. Scalia 4th amendment good Roberts ACA bad. But D’s will rubber stamp the progressive agenda.

      1. Yes. The other thing is sometimes conservative justices move left once they are on the court. Liberal justices never move right. They are like pod people. If a Republican appoints a justice there is at least a 25% chance the guy will turn out to be liberal. If a Democrats appoints one, they are 100% guaranteed to be as bad or worse than their worst critics fear.

        1. Not that she’s great, but I think Sotomayor has been better than expected.

          1. She has been very good on he 4th amendment.

          2. The Wise Latina occasionally does not disappoint.

            And that’s about the highest praise I have for any Justice, now that I think about it.

          3. When confirmed Sotamayor said that the Heller decision was “settled law”. After confirmation she voted with the McDonald dissent to overrule Heller. She lied and cannot be trusted, and Obama and Clinton can be trusted to nominate judges who will nullify the Second Amendment.

            1. I don’t know if you can call it a lie, really. Judicial nominees tend to be extremely careful not to say anything that would bind them to a particular position. “Settled law” is about the current state of affairs, not the opinion of the speaker.

              But of course she can’t be trusted. None of them can be.

    2. the Republicans are rolling over daily to the Medias pressure on them to attack Trump and even get rid of him. Is that code from the left?
      So yea the Republicans are proving why Trump is there since they are just democrat lite or just Weasels

    3. During her confirmation Elena Kagen said in so many words that she did not think there was a constitutional right to gay marriage.

      And as far as I can tell, at least to go by Kennedy’s opinion, she didn’t lie. But she voted in favor of it anyway.

    4. Yeah. Trump is a complete unknown on what he’d actually do when it comes time to appoint SCOTUS judges, in terms of their stance on the Second Amendment. Hillary is known bad.

      1. That is true for ever single topic.
        Hillary will be horrible.
        Trump will possibly be horrible.

        I truly do not see how any rational, thinking being could vote for Hillary.

  6. The One Civil Liberty Natural Right Trump Likes and Clinton Hates

  7. may or may not be sincere

    LOL. Anyone who says “I could shoot someone walking down Fifth Avenue” is going to nominate “Guns for me not for thee” judges (or his limo driver or Corey Lewandowski). Anyone who says “Obama is the founder of ISIS” truly doesn’t care about your right to own a gun. Many people are saying, believe me.

    1. Yeah, that’s some fine logicaling, there, sport.

  8. How’s that TOP Comment system working out for you, Reason?

    Two bucks cents is two bucks cents.

    1. Bucks cents is what drives all the does crazy

  9. Tags is hsrd.

  10. IF YOU VOTE FOR TRUMP HE WILL EXECUTE OUR FAIR HILLARY WITH A GUNSHOT TO THE BACK OF HER HEAD

    /Suderman and Shikha

    1. No question – that is his appeal. FYI the guy should be locked up. And if he makes another offhand comment about killing Secret Service protectees he will be.

      1. I tried on some cute pantsuits but they made me look fat and dumpy.

        /AddictionMyth

      2. Listen all I’m saying is that the US has a lot of guns. It’s traditional. It’s part of our heritage. And Hillary’s very unpopular, especially with the 2nd amendment crowd.

        I just hope she stays safe and nothing unfortunate happens to her, you know?

        1. You’ve made your bed with these Republicans. Now you should just lie with them and stop fucking complaining about it. Geesch, you libertarians sure are whiny bitches.

          1. It’s all my fault.

            I should be ashamed of myself, shouldn’t I?

      3. “And if he makes another offhand comment about killing Secret Service protectees he will be” – when did he make the first offhand comment?

    2. You’re characterizing Suderman and Shikha as stumping for Trump?

  11. “Whether that’s enough reason to prefer Trump over Clinton is another question.”

    Nah… It’s pretty much enough. Since– one day– I’m going to be making 100,000,000,000,000,000 bitcoins a year I’m also going to be voting for who will propose the lowest tax rate on my future rate of earnings. Those two reasons are enough for me. What’s the RP position on gay rights, abortion, war, and immigration. Ancillary positions, to be sure, but I’d like to know anyway.

    1. Please don’t feed the troll.

      1. Lena Dunham has filmed enough nude scenes by now.

        1. One was more than enough.

      2. Pleeease? The stupidity below* soooooo deserves a smackdown.

        *No one was there to explain to me how I would benefit when we lowered taxes on rich people.

        1. I’m not saying you can’t, I’m just telling you it’s bad for you personally and for the community you are a part of.

          Follow your conscience.

          1. Oh I kid. I never feed them. I usually hide them but I’m feeling a little masochistic this morning.

            1. If you still feed the need to hurt yourself, google up some nude pictures of Tom Arnold.

              1. Still better than Dunham.

                1. Rhywun has an immunity.

              2. some nude pictures of Tom Arnold

                I am going to proceed through life as if this doesn’t exist.

    2. It must be hard, growing up on PlayStation, basketball, and rap music, and poor grades, while no adults around you explain the real world you’re growing up into, how it works, and how to get ahead in it.

      I feel sorry for you, and I do hope a politician throws you something for comfort. Lord knows your poor souls need it more.

      1. I know… it was my Commodore 64s fault. No one was there to explain to me how I would benefit when we lowered taxes on rich people. It was that toxic stew of floppy disks that led me to class consciousness and a failure to recognize the greatness of Ayn Rand. You see, I was stunted right away.

        1. This is why I don’t recommend Marx to simpletons: it puts them in a mood, and they can’t do anything about it.

          Well, anything productive.

          1. You mean jobs don’t just magically fall out of the sky? 🙁

            1. Leftists love jobs but hate employers. And this actually makes sense to them somehow.

              1. Leftists love jobs

                [cite needed]

                1. [cite needed]

                  Okay, they claim to love the idea of jobs.

                  1. Yeah, “good union jobs”. The kind with maximum laziness-to-bennies ratio.

                    Too bad they expend so much effort convincing huge numbers of people that work of any kind isn’t for them.

                  2. You cannot love the idea of jobs and love the idea of a guaranteed basic income. Unless its jobs for thee, income for me

              2. They don’t love jobs.

                They love the appearance of a dignified work ethic, to mitigate their endless obsession with who has what material things, and how should those material things be confiscated and distributed.

                Other than that, they just want an honest days work for an honest wage, really.

                1. They don’t love jobs either. They don’t love love dignified work or undignified work.

                  They love guaranteed basic income. And they love poetry.

            2. Maybe you can point me to a study that says higher taxes on rich people reduces economic growth? I’m a sucker for empiricism.

              1. Usually, when people embrace a desired policy, like higher taxes, they want empirical evidence that it will make the world a better place, in some respect.

                ” *insert policy here* won’t crash the economy” is kind of a low bar.

                However, if you’re just a class conscious Marxist simpleton, looking for some revenge, while hoping not to flush yourself down the toilet in the process, I assume that’s good enough.

              2. Define “rich people”. And then, compare all of the stuff you have today compared to what you had 20 years ago.

              3. Maybe you can point me to a study that government spending isn’t theft?

              4. It’s called Venezuela…

            3. Sure they do! Provided courtesy of the Animal Spirits and our glorious benevolent Top. Men!

        2. No one was there to explain to me how I would benefit when we lowered taxes on rich people.

          You got out of your mortgage, didn’t you?

  12. What sad times we live in that the best case scenario is that the next Supreme Court Justice will be selected by Donald fucking Trump.

    How did it come to this?

    1. What sad times we live in that the best case scenario is that the next Supreme Court Justice will be selected by Donald fucking Trump.

      How did it come to this?

      Squeaky wheel gets the grease x 10 to the nth power.

    2. Morons and the unpropertied were allowed to vote.

        1. TRUST DEMOCRACY

      1. And females.

        *ducks and runs*

        1. If their IQ is subnormal and they don’t own property or are a net-taxpayer they get kicked off the rolls too.

        2. Things did start seriously going in the anti-freedom, big-government direction after they got the vote.

        3. Sigh. I am a woman, and it pains me that when I look at exit polls broken down by demographics and gender, if women didn’t vote, my preferred candidate or policy would have won the day. Every Single Time.

        4. You’d better duck and run, buddy.

      2. and teenaged children

    3. I know right? And thanks for not reluctantly droning me today, Franky. You’re the best!

    4. Reality TV and it’s fake drama for ratings has been dominating our culture for years. And the presidency for roughly 8 years already…

      1. I knew it was a plot for world domination.

    5. Well, the “right” is basically composed of three warring factions:

      The Nationalists, who want “America First”, and who don’t really care about small government stuff, they just want the welfare bennies to go to THEM and not to the undeserving “others” – for them immigration is the #1 issue and an absolute dealbreaker.

      The Grassroots, who buy into the actual conservative philosophy, and who do agitate for social issue stuff and smaller government – they tend to be pragmatic on the issue of immigration.

      The Establishment, who don’t really care about the social issue crap or the smaller government crap, they just want low taxes and high rates of economic growth, for them immigration is ALSO a very important issue, but in the *opposite direction*, they want more immigration to feed the growth machine

      So in the primary, there were many candidates representing the Grassroots faction (Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, etc.), there were many candidates representing the Establishment faction (Jeb, Rubio, Christie, etc.), but there was only one candidate really who represented the Nationalist faction, Trump. The Nationalists got their candidate because the other two factions split the vote among their respective candidates and did not coalesce around anyone until it was too late.

      1. And that is how we got Trump.

        1. i’d quibble with a few details, but this is pretty much it, I think.

          Throw in years and years of simmering frustration with the DC Repubs (seriously, Ryan, did you have to give the Dems every single nickel they asked for?), and you have the fuel for the Trump engine.

          I’m still quite complacent about the prospect (which I still think is overblown) of Trump holing the SS GOP below the waterline. Whatevs, dudes. This is politics, red in tooth and claw. IF you can’t hack it, the ash heap of history is over thataway.

          1. Yeah I don’t think the “GOP is dead” or anything like that. There are still three factions and there will still be three factions after the elections. But what this election HAS revealed is that the Establishment faction has too much undeserved power, and the Grassroots faction is smaller than everyone thought it was.

    6. How did it come to this?

      Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

  13. “Mr. Trump is accusing Mrs. Clinton, without evidence, of intending to abolish the Second Amendment?something that she denies and would be constitutionally unable to do as president.”

    If she abrogates the Second Amendment, she will be violating the constitution. Therefore, she won’t do it! She promised not to!

    1. She will simply support “reasonable regulation.” The kind of regulation that creates so many hoops and restrictions that exercising the constitutional right becomes practically impossible, but not technically banned. Like totally reasonable and stuff, you know?

      1. [comment about you-know-what deleted]

    2. Mr. Trump is accusing Mrs. Clinton, without evidence, of intending to abolish the Second Amendment

      Oh, I dunno. Saying Heller was wrongly decided and there is no individual RKBA strikes me as damn close enough. Must we scramble quite so hard to bend the narrative?

      1. I would phrase it like this, which would be more accurate than “abolish” while still noting the seriousness of her illiberal tendencies:

        Hillary Clinton is campaigning against the plain text of the Bill of Rights.

      2. ^^cosigned

    3. She’s not going to abolish your right to a gun, son. But she is going to make you pay dearly for those bullets.

  14. It seems he’s less hostile to freedom of speech as well compared to Clinton but that’s a pretty low bar.

    1. So much this. Trump makes a remark about weakening the virtual immunity of the press to defamation suits by tweaking the evidentiary standard, and that somehow is a dire threat to the 1A, but Hillary’s adamant position that political speech can be tightly regulated and that corporations have zero (0) free speech rights is a big meh?

      Must we scramble quite so hard to bend the narrative?

  15. Not being a hysterical retard, I interpreted Trump’s “Second Amendment people” comment as his typical stream of consciousness blather, implying that the Senate Republicans might actually grow a spine and refuse to confirm Hillary’s nominee(s).

    I also think he’s wrong.

    1. I don’t. I still think gun-control will cost Hillary every swing-state – no matter how far in the bag the media is for her.

      1. It depends how hard she pushes it. Most people seem on board with universal background checks and the watchlist ban (which Trump also supports) so I don’t see that hurting her. People seem to be split (from polls) on the assault weapons ban. It could hurt her if she pushes too hard and the anti-group is much more enthused. And anything beyond that risks huge backlash. I don’t think Clinton is stupid enough to do that before the election, but you never know.

        Overall, I think Clinton is pretty likely to win the election. Not a certainty by any means, but at this point I’d be surprised if Trump won. He’s pissed off too many groups and people and made no serious, sustained effort to reverse that.

        1. She has already pushed it too hard. The NRA and the Trump campaign (if they ever run ads) have all the Hillary statements they need to make it a stark choice for gun owners.

      2. I still think gun-control will cost Hillary every swing-state

        Agreed. Lots of pro gun Democrats out there. It’s a huge loser in PA and OH.

        1. Odd that the polls are running the way they are.

          Its entirely possible that the pro-2A crowd will finally fall prey to distraction and allow a virulently anti-gun President into the White House in a prime position to do serious damage.

    2. Why would the Senate Republicans growing a spine be a “horrible day”?

  16. Fun with fractions!

    What fraction best represents the value of the combined troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan now versus the troop strength in an average year during the Bush administration. Is it?

    A. 3/4
    B. 1/2
    C. 1/4
    D. 1/10
    E. 1/20

    1. Ha! Trick question. It’s ZERO! Because Obama got us out of Iraq! He promised to end that disastrous war! And Obama would never lie to me!!!

    2. What about the ratio of American troops on the ground in Libya, now vs then? American arms in the hands of ISIS?

    3. I think the answer is the inverse of the number of people run over by trucks in Nice this year vs the yearly average during the Bush administration.

    4. As a bonus: Which politician voted to go to war in Iraq?

      A) Hillary Clinton

      B) Donald Trump

      1. Only because Bush lied and she’s a warmonger.

    5. So what you’re saying is that we’re still fucking around in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    6. I see your ADHD is on full throttle . . . .

  17. OT: What up, my glip-glops! Been out for about a week and a half, what have I missed?

    1. Lou Reed died.

    2. You racist motherfucker.

      1. “It’s like the n-word and the c-word had a baby, and it was raised by all the bad words for Jews.”

        1. You have seen the court transcript reenactment, right? So NSFW.

          1. How the fuck did I miss this.

            1. It was mostly buried in Comic-Con news.

    3. Trump said something.

      1. Pearls were clutched. Narratives were constructed.

        Seriously, Reason is doing a better job of providing coverage since the big Trumpitlergasm of the conventions.

  18. Whether that’s enough reason to prefer Trump over Clinton is another question.

    Gary Johnson.

  19. I’m super fidgety today. Want to book a vacation for sometime next year. Of anywhere in the world, where would you go.

      1. I’m sure you’d love it there.

        1. Wham, bang, sweet Pyongyang

        2. I kid. Any non-college town in a Red State.

      2. That’s a long way to travel.

        If I want to experience awkward Asians with forced expressions of happiness and helpfulness, in a completely contrived and artificial setting, I can just go get a massage.

        1. This is where it’s obvious he’s just a troll. Because that’s the answer he thinks we want to hear.

          1. It’s a lampoon of AmSoc I’m pretty sure.

      3. That might be a bit tougher road for you than running that Cuban blockade.

    1. Lyon, France was super nice and the food was amazing. Chill people, chill place. I’ve also heard from more than a few people that Estonia rocks.

    2. I would like to go down to Argentina and maybe go dove hunting on the pampas and then go down to Patagonia. I hear it is quite amazing and I have never been to South America.

      1. I was in Torres del Paine this past January and it was indeed quite cool. A really unique landscape. Not where you go for a wilderness experience, though. Was not as impressed with Chile in general. If I did it again I would combine it with a trip to Argentina as well (that was pretty popular among the many, many recent college grads).

        1. I have some friends who are from Finland and here on a two year tour with the World Bank. When they go back to Finland next year, I really want to go over and see them. I have never been to Scandinavia.

          1. That’s actually another place high on my list. I’d actually like to go in the winter. Having trouble convincing the wife that it would be more fun than a tropical beach, though.

            1. My parents just got back from a month in Finland. They raved about it.

          2. “I have never been to Scandinavia”
            Then why would you go to Finland? /pedant

      2. I was in BA most of the time, but Argentina is beautiful. I went to an estate in the country while there, and the scenery and everything was gorgeous.

    3. Washington, DC, our nations capital. Or Lagos, Portugal, it isn’t on fire.

    4. Akron, Ohio; Newark, New Jersey; Des Moines, Iowa-the possibilities are endless.

      1. You are the worst kind of human being.

      2. Maybe if you have an expense account. I just take a trip to the liquor store and I can create my own vacation.

        /sarc /sarc /sarc

      3. I dunno about Akron but Newark actually has a thing or two worth seeing.

        1. The Ironbound section of Newark has a lot of great Portuguese and Spanish Restaurants.

        2. Which exit?

          1. “Newark”?

            Oh by car? I live in NYC, I wouldn’t know.

    5. New Zealand

    6. Australia. If I feel that I can outrun the wildlife.

      1. You only need to be able to outrun the others in your party.

        1. I suppose, if I’m with a big enough party.

    7. We’re going to New Zealand in January.

      1. I may very well hit you up for some advice on that later.

        1. No problem.

          Primarily a fly fishing trip for the men and sightseeing/hiking for the wymenz.

      2. Be careful – New Zealanders are a bunch of cocky a-holes descended from criminals and retarded monkeys.

        1. “No, you’re thinking of Australians”

    8. I don’t know exactly why, but I’ve always wanted to go to Malta. The pictures I’ve seen are gorgeous and, besides, how many people do you know who have ever been there? Half the fun of traveling is when you get to brag to other people about going to places they’ve never seen.

      1. That’s an interesting one. Probably better in the summer.

      2. I want to go to the Faroe Islands. To stay, if I could swing it.

    9. I’m thinking about booking an Amtrak Bedroom Suite and taking a train trip out west.

      And yes it has to be the Bedroom Suite because I want the private bathroom and shower.

      1. I just did this a couple of weeks ago, Denver to San Francisco, and flew home. It leaves Denver at 8:00-ish am and takes about 34 hours. Western Colorado and Utah are beautiful. So much so that I didn’t want to read a book or anything, just watch the scenery go by. Got into Salt Lake at about 11:30 pm, so some of Utah was missed. Woke up somewhere in Nevada. The sleeper car with private bathroom was worthwhile and comfortable enough for my tastes.

    10. Went to Scotland earlier this year. Highly, highly recommended, assuming you portion enough time to the highlands.

    11. Park City, Utah.

  20. I see Shreek is shitting up the promoted comments.

    1. I guess the DNC has upped the stipend for their paid trolls.

    2. Gotta love paying a libertarian foundation money for the privilege of telling them they’re wrong a few inches higher than you could tell them for free.

      1. Some people will pay anything to be a few inches higher, judging by my spam inbox

  21. I find it easy to make up my mind on this election. Can’t vote for third partys as that feels like a wasted vote. Won’t vote for Hillary as she has shown rampant disregard for the law over a very long period of time (she really is crooked). So that leaves Trump or no vote. No vote means I dont care enough to make my voice heard. So Trump it is. And fortunately our system is so screwed up that nothing significant will get changed anyway. Tax reform? ha! Deficit reduction? ha! Neither provides a plan that would do either.

    Its actually sad.

    1. Trump has a plan. It doesn’t make a difference whether he loses or not, but he has a plan.

      1. Trump has a plan like the Cylon on Battlestar Galatica had a plan: It’s long, complicated, incoherent and adds up to jackshit in the end.

        1. Honestly, it’s one of the few areas actually appears to be fleshed out and coherent. And, except for the blinkered carried-interest tax rate which is pure populist pap, it’s persuasive. But I don’t believe for a moment that Trump had a hand in drafting it (besides that one exception), nor that he’d waste any of his limited political capital trying to drag it through Congress.

    2. Can’t vote for third partys as that feels like a wasted vote.

      If every asshole who said this would simply vote third party, it wouldn’t be a wasted vote (whatever that is).

    3. So, ‘No Vote’ is an option for you more than voting 3rd party.

      I think that says more about you than you cared to reveal.

      1. He thinks it’s important for his “voice” to be “heard,” but it’d be a waste if they heard his preference for a third party.

  22. “if it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.”

    —-Hillary Clinton

    This goes far beyond being hostile to the Second Amendment.

    I’d like her to list what reasonable regulation of the First Amendment by Congress looks like.

    The only time our speech becomes criminal is when we use it to violate someone’s rights. Threatening to shoot someone if they don’t empty the cash register is not protected speech. Violating other people’s rights with speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and shooting other people indiscriminately isn’t protected by the Second Amendment either. We’re free to choose what we say or believe without interference from Congress, but criminalizing the violation of other people’s rights is not “reasonable regulation” of speech. It’s not the right of individuals to speak that’s being violated by criminalizing fraud–it’s the violation of other people’s rights that’s being reasonably regulated.

    1. Shall

      not

      be

      infringed

      That is all.

      1. That isn’t all. That isn’t even the issue. I hope my point is getting across.

        “Regulating” criminal behavior that violates someone’s rights is perfectly Constitutional.

        Shooting people with a gun because you want to take their money is a legitimate crime.

        Fraud, violent threats, and ransom notes are legitimate speech crimes.

        Those crimes have nothing to do with the First Amendment or the Second Amendment. Those crimes are not “regulating” our rights.

        Neither the First Amendment nor the Second Amendment protects anybody from criminal prosecution for violating someone’s rights with speech or a gun.

        The problem is that Hillary Clinton wants to “reasonably regulate” the Second Amendment rights of people–who have not violated anyone’s rights.

        There isn’t anything in the Second Amendment that says violent criminals can’t be prosecuted for shooting people, but why does Hillary Clinton think she has the authority to regulate the behavior of people who haven’t violated anyone’s rights?

        1. I always liked how Spooner explained it. http://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=514

        2. Because you MIGHT violate someone else’s rights. It is all about what you MIGHT do.

    2. They really have an issue with that word “reasonable.” To progressives, “reasonable” means “conforming word-for-word with my recommendations.”

      1. They’re hiding the fact that they want to prosecute non-criminal behavior.

        A legitimate crime involves violating someone’s rights. Even if you think our rights are a popularity contest, Hillary should need to prosecute people for “crimes” that don’t violate anyone’s rights–like sitting at home minding your own business with an AR-15 in the gun locker.

        And she’s not even trying to justify the throwing these people in jail. She wants to justify preventing them from being able to acquire guns in the first place.

        She’s also claiming the authority to “regulate” people’s speech that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

        This should send honest liberals to the moon. Hillary Clinton saying “if it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation” should send Twitter into a frenzy like when Donald Trump says he wants to bomb ISIS even if it kills people.

      2. You’re unreasonable if you don’t humbly submit to Hillary’s reasonable regulations and her reasonable taxes and her reasonable single-payer health care.

        Quit being difficult.

    3. Ken, I think you missed a very important word right there at the beginning of her statement.

      IF it is a constitutional right,…”

      So at that point you almost need to ask Hillary if she think’s it actually is a right at all. Not that the Clintons were ever very sure about the meaning of ‘is’ so why should they understand the meaning of ‘if’.

      1. She’s got it all backwards.

        In her mind, IF IF IF it’s a Constitutional right, then the government can reasonably regulate it.

        When actually, at most, if anything, the government can only regulate things in a way that doesn’t interfere with our Constitutional rights.

  23. Ha ha, Gawd Almighty. The progs openly hate gun owners; I experienced this ever since I bought my first gun in 1985. But they pee their panties with righteous rage when we have the nerve to notice it.

  24. If Hillary Clinton wants to subject individuals to criminal prosecution for violating someone’s rights, there’s a perfectly legitimate way to do that, but it has nothing to do with the “reasonable regulation” of speech–that does not violate anyone’s rights. Likewise, if Congress wants people to face criminal prosecution for violating someone’s rights with a gun, that’s fine by me and the Constitution. The problem is that Hillary Clinton is claiming that the government has the authority to regulate our First Amendment, Second Amendment, and all our other Constitutional rights–even when our behavior doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights.

    That she doesn’t understand that the government has no business subjecting our Constitutional rights to her “reasonable regulation” unless we violate someone else’s rights is frightening. She really is an authoritarian.

  25. I’m not entirely sure why anybody thinks Trump will actually continue to like gun rights for the masses in January 2017. He has zero history of being a supporter of gun rights before running for president last year.

    1. That’s not true at all. He (his lawyers really) got himself a carry permit in New York long ago.

    2. He has zero history of being a supporter of gun rights before running for president last year.

      AFAIK, he has zero history of being an opponent of gun rights. Which makes him much better than Hillary on this issue.

      Don’t worry though. I don’t think it will really affect the election this year, which is turning into a race between Trump’s word salads and Hillary’s Praetorian Guard in the media.

    3. “I’m not entirely sure why anybody thinks Trump will actually continue to like gun rights for the masses in January 2017. He has zero history of being a supporter of gun rights before running for president last year.”

      Great analysis. He’ll reverse himself on his most winningest issue.

      1. I mean, given what we’ve seen of him, the odds are about 50/50.

  26. Lots of pro gun Democrats out there. It’s a huge loser in PA and OH.

    This is what a lot of the hard core gun grabbers don’t comprehend. There is no bright us-vs- them line outside their little cosmopolitan beltway soiree society. There are a LOT of two time Obama voters with guns, and the vast majority of them are no more willing to drop them off at the police station to be melted down than we are.

  27. “if it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.”

    So she has no understanding of the concept of ‘rights’ at all.

    1. Ooops; scooped by Ken.

      1. Great minds think alike!

  28. Yeah it’s stories like this where the media seems to be making an ass of themselves in the process.

    The next time someone starts screaming about the dirty Republicans trying to overturn Roe V Wade, are people going to be writing articles and editorials explaining just how rarely The Republican in question has actually called out for banning abortion at the federal level?

    Suddenly were all sticklers for the specific claims in the policy proposals of the candidates, with absolutely no fear of handing the government to the crazy person in the corner.

  29. Hillary Clinton thinks that the Heller Supreme Court case was wrongly decided. Note that the Heller ruling struck down DC’s ban on keeping any gun – handgun or long gun – in your own home loaded for self-defense. And the four liberals on the court voted to uphold that effective ban on self-defense. Why does Hillary Clinton want to ban the use of guns for self-defense in the home?

    The lower federal circuits have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City’s $340 permit fee for keeping a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are wealthy and connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is the most troubling because the bogus legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called “assault weapons”.

    Expect a Hillary Supreme Court to uphold all of these laws and more, including neutering the law that prevents bankrupting gun makers by frivolous lawsuit.

    1. “Why does Hillary Clinton want to ban the use of guns for self-defense in the home?

      The problem is that it’s hard to tell who’s going to criminally shoot someone before they do it, and prosecuting them afterwards doesn’t prevent the crime from taking place before it happens.

      I’m being perfectly serious.

      I’m not saying that banning guns would mean less violent crime in the future, but even IF IF IF it did, I’d rather live in a free society and keep guns legal anyway.

      I have a fundamental qualitative preference for freedom, but Hillary Clinton doesn’t feel that way.

    2. On top of that is the progs’ attitude toward gun ownership in general. To review:

      Guns for self-defense? The progs insist that guns are worse than useless for self-defense. You’ll shoot yourself or your kid or your pet. You could put an eye out with that thing! Or the criminal will take it from you and shoot you with it. Plus they think it’s evil to defend private property. And anybody who owns a gun for self-defense is “paranoid” and “cowardly”.

      Guns to resist government tyranny? No frickin’ way! Our mighty government will crush you like a bug! Besides, resisting our benevolent masters is horrible, utterly beyond the pale. Unless a Republican is President.

      Guns for sporting purposes? They express a grudging tolerance for it if pressed, but they plainly despise hunting. Other sports like bullseye competition, skeet and trap, etc. may be tolerable to them but they have no enthusiasm for it and certainly wouldn’t see it as a legitimate obstacle to gun control laws.

      When you add in their contemptuous attitude toward gun owners, it’s not at all hard for me to think that they’d like nothing better than to ban all private ownership of guns if they could get away with it.

      1. And anybody who owns a gun for self-defense is “paranoid” and “cowardly”. Not to mention they’re an “ammosexual” with a small penis,,,

  30. she has never said such a thing

    She believe gun bans and endless arbitrary regulation of firearms are constitutional. That’s close enough.

    the president does not have the power to edit the Constitution in any case

    In theory. But exec fiat seems to go a long way.

  31. This is really fucked up:

    Police shoot husband, family’s dog, offer few answers

  32. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Reportmax90.com

  33. “Who do they think they’re fooling” is the obvious question.

    And the answer is “their own supporters”, who will believe them and continue to think The Other are deluded fools for actually paying attention to what Clinton has said about gun rights.

    “But it’s not literally repealing the Second Amendment so shut up!” has about as much value as “we’re just reinterpreting the First Amendment to allow ‘reasonable restrictions’ on speech”.

    Oh, right… like her desire to repeal Citizens United.

  34. Please note, the president, whomever that might be cannot “repeal” any constitutional right. The president, if he or she could garner the necessary congressional support, spelled votes, could via legislation, render The Second Amendment or any other part of The Bill of Rights moot, reducing same to a simple collage of words robbed of either meaning or significance. It is this that Clinton would establish if elected and if she obtained the necessary congressional support.

  35. I don’t think Trump was talking about assassinating Clinton. I think he was talking about militia-type people taking out BATF goons and other cops to prevent any enforcement of a gun ban.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.