Second Amendment

Clinton's False Assurances About Her Respect for the Second Amendment

The Democratic nominee says "there's an individual right to arms" but does not think it includes handgun ownership or self-defense in the home.

|

C-SPAN

"There's no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment," Hillary Clinton said during last night's presidential debate. "I also believe there's an individual right to bear arms." That's as close as Clinton has come during this campaign to acknowledging that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms—a question she conspicuously dodged in an ABC News interview last June. Last night she once again showed why, notwithstanding her assurances, there is ample reason to doubt her respect for that right.

As debate moderator Chris Wallace noted, Clinton last year declared that "the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment." Last May one of Clinton's advisers said the candidate believes District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Court first explicitly recognized the right to armed self-defense that Clinton claims to respect, "was wrongly decided." Last night Clinton said her problem with Heller is that the Court overturned a "reasonable regulation" aimed at protecting little children from gun accidents. "I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case," she said, "because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns, and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them."

Clinton neglected to mention that this so-called safe storage law 1) banned ownership of handguns, which as the Court noted are "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home" and 2) required that long guns in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock at all times, making it impossible to legally use them for self-defense. If that law did not violate the Second Amendment, it is hard to imagine what law would. Yet to Clinton it is a "reasonable regulation" perfectly consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

Taking Clinton at her word, she believes "there's an individual right to arms," but it does not include the right to own a handgun or the right to use a rifle or shotgun for self-defense in the home, which the Court recognized as a "core lawful purpose" under the Second Amendment. What does the right Clinton has in mind include? She won't say, and this year's Democratic platform unhelpfully refers to "the rights of responsible gun owners" without providing any clue as to what those might be or so much as mentioning the constitutional basis for them.

"I support the Second Amendment," Clinton said last night. "I lived in Arkansas for 18 wonderful years. I represented upstate New York. I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country." Yet she seems to have no idea why.

NEXT: Neither Trump Nor Clinton Understands What the Supreme Court Is Supposed to Do

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. “Sure, there’s an individual right to bear arms. Doesn’t say anything about WHICH individuals, though.”

    1. Trigger warning: Hihnfection below.

          1. Yes, but he seems out of control.

            1. 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.highpay90.com

    2. But TOP MEN in the Libertarian Party have told us that to vote Trump is to vote for Hitler. Didn’t he confiscate guns, too?

  2. “Taking Clinton at her word…”

    How can anything after that clause be taken seriously!

    1. Come on, dude, it’s just a thought experiment. A far-fetched one, to be sure.

    2. Assuming for the sake of argument that what someone says is true, and then showing that even if you give them the benefit of a charitable interpretation they are full of shit, is a fine rhetorical technique.

    3. You’re talking about a website that *still* hasn’t done a piece about the Project Veritas videos showing Democrat operatives admitting to rigging elections. Of course they’re gullible enough to take Clinton at her word.

    4. The great thing is, taking Clinton at her word in other areas leads you straight to the conclusion that she should not be in the White House under any circumstances.

      She claims that she can’t remember any of the security briefings because of her concussions. Why on earth should someone with severe traumatic memory problems be President?

      She claims she had pneumonia, diagnosed two days before, at the 9/11 ceremony. Bacterial pneumonia is contagious during its early stages, yet she is out in public breathing on and touching people, including small children. Why on earth should someone who would expose others to a contagious disease for photo ops be President?

      Etc.

      1. Yeah, it’s too bad her supporters don’t actually take her words seriously. She is so terrible that her own defenses of herself would be seen as strikes against her to any neutral observer. “I’m not a criminal, I’m just incompetent and clueless”.

    5. She said the Heller decision was about toddler safety.

      This bitch is anti-gun, she just knows that saying so publicly outside her circle of nut jobs is political suicide.

      Luckily, she is not going to win. I just hope Trump does get a good new FBI Director and Attorney General appointed to reinvestigate Hillary, have a Grand Jury indict her, arrest her, let her out on bail and give her a trial. That way, she and Chelsea will never be heard from again for political positions.

      1. That was her public position. Her private position is the one she repeatedly stated publicly but now won’t-confiscation and ban.

  3. Of course she believes in the second amendment! She believes people don’t have a right to keep arms because the 2nd amendment (as she reads it) says no one has a right to keep arms!

    “Look, see? It says clearly ‘the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be taken seriously.’ See?”

  4. Taking Clinton at her word…

    Can’t be done, unless you’re reading her word from a leaked email to a confidant.

    1. Or calling those who do not support her a basket of deplorables. She was telling the truth, but whenever that happens she dissembles, back peddles, and claims she “misspoke” or that she has “evolved” on the issue.

  5. “”the District of Columbia was trying to… protect toddlers from guns””

    With a law that applied to the single and childless. Because… ubiquitous toddler infestations. Or sonething.

    We need a president whose lies will be shallower than Obama’s

    1. It was quite a misrepresentation to claim that the purpose of the Heller regulation was the protection of toddlers and not an obtuse firearm ban. It was a 2A workaround firearm ban which basiclly said you can have your firearm, but you must keep it in a state that makes them unusable for the very purpose for which they are designed.

      1. Look, you can have a “firearm”, where definitions of “firearm” are limited to an unformed block of steel the approximate weight of a typical handgun. If you can defend yourself with that, try learning how to throw properly, pussy.

        1. *if you can’t

        2. that doesn’t exactly jive (comply) with the Second Amendment’s RIGHT to keep -and BEAR- arms. The one that “shall not be infringed”,which seems pretty clear to most rational people.

          (the right that is “of the People”,not “of a militia”.)

          The Second is a restriction on GOVERNMENT,not on the people. (same as the rest of the BOR)
          In fact,most of the entire Constitution is a limit on government,not on the people.

          1. Hillary believes the right to bear arms means that individuals are free to wear tank tops. She has very little time to get to the gym, so she has to sculpt her guns at the office. 2 tickets to the gun show?? We need to close that loophole!!

      2. facts and logic have no place in political rhetoric. move along.

    2. Latest from the gun grabbers. I thought it was a joke. Reverse Poe’s law.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjlxXAy1_eE

  6. Well, that’s her public position. I assume her private position, the position towards which she puts her efforts, is something else.

    1. Why every journalist isn’t adding that caveat to everything Hillary says in public, the same way they’re careful to add “allegedly” to every discusion of criminal-level acts, is a mystery to me. Oh, wait, I thought about it for 3 tenths of a second and I think I’ve solved the mystery. Nevermind.

      1. Mass Media = Clinton Publicists

    2. her bodyguards should be the first to turn in their guns

  7. I wonder if any fact-checkers took up her claim that Washington’s “common sense” regulations were about protecting toddlers? My hunch is no.

    1. “Protecting toddlers, disarming The Blacks, po TAY to, po TAH to.”

    2. . Clinton said she opposed a Supreme Court ruling on guns because the overturned law was trying to protect toddlers. It did involve kids, but that’s not all the law did.

      1. Only saw two fact-checks of Clinton skimming. That and the bullshit about talking about energy only in her speech on open borders. Of course, NBC, they of the “Assad isn’t fighting ISIS” fact-check rubber stamped them both.

      2. What’s funny is, their fact check comprehensively invalidates her claim if you click all the way through. It demonstrates that (a) the law never mentions toddlers or children and applies regardless of whether any are in view and (b) was passed and defended on the basis that they were trying to reduce the use of stolen guns in crime.

  8. “There’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment,” Hillary Clinton said during last night’s presidential debate. “I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.”

    +5 pinocchios

    1. she means “bare arms”, ie arms with no weapons in them, so she’s in the clear.

  9. “I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms. A right that I can regulate the shit out of until only my bodyguards will actually have guns.”

    IOW I take her at her word that she doesn’t intend to repeal the Second Amendment; she just intends to interpret it to suit her. A Second Amendment that only protects her and her “elite” friends is a-okay with her.

    1. Why would you place such an outright lie in quotes? Fact: gun rights are not absolute, for the same reason NO rights are absolute. This from many centuries of Natural Law, then enshrined in our Declaration and Constitution. Simply check the definition of unalienable, which means all fundamental rights are co-equal: Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of Happiness …and all the others.

      IOW I take her at her word that she doesn’t intend to repeal the Second Amendment; she just intends to interpret it to suit her

      I’m sure you have some self-righteous purpose such blatant lies. Her only statement is “reasonable” regulations, of which she has specified only what she calls “loopholes” (gun shows and online). Also check the definition of loophole.

      Please provide a source for your assertions here.

      1. It would be great if you used the handle “Please Give AllMy Comments A Strong Ignore”.

        For Teh Noobs.

        1. Please provide a source for your assertions here.

          For Teh Noobs.

          FAIL

      2. Fact: gun rights are not absolute, for the same reason NO rights are absolute.

        Well, what do you mean by gun rights? The right to shoot an annoying neighbor? Or the the right to own, carry, and use a gun in self-defense.

        I would argue that the latter, under the Constitution is, in fact as absolute as any right, and the government has no authority to restrict it outside of imposing punishment for a crime.

        I suppose, if you say that imposing punishment for a crime is an “infringement” on a right, then yes, no rights are absolute. But aside from that extreme position, there are rights that the government has no authority to restrict.

        1. Fact: gun rights are not absolute, for the same reason NO rights are absolute.

          Well, what do you mean by gun rights?

          Even the NRA uses the term for “the right t bear arms.”

          Simply check the definition of unalienable, which means all fundamental rights are co-equal: Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of Happiness …and all the others.

          I would argue that the latter, under the Constitution is, in fact as absolute as any right, and the government has no authority to restrict it outside of imposing punishment for a crime.

          EVERYONE here knows you’d argue with Jefferson .. and all the signers of the Declaration.

      3. There is only one right, the right to do all other than initiate force against other humans.

        Therefore, if you think that “rights” aren’t absolute it is because you think that a “right” implies the ability to initiate force (where your misunderstanding comes in).

        You have no right to initiate force against another. You have the right to do all else. Rights (actually, there’s just one but I’ll ignore that for now) are absolute.

        I have the right to own/carry/shoot any weapon as long as doing so doesn’t initiate force against another human.

        ~An-Cap

        1. There is only one right, the right to do all other than initiate force against other humans.

          One = all other,

          1. Yes, in that what we call “rights” are actually different expressions of the one right, to do all (anything) but initiate force.

            But that means that “rights” cannot come into conflict. Hence these “rights” actually are absolute.

            1. Behold the moral depravity faux libertarians, (NAPsters)

              ace-m82
              There is only one right, the right to do all other than initiate force against other humans.

              I can do anything as long I don’t initiate force!. Here’s what ace-m82 so shamelessly defends. Along with Ron Paul’s cult (among others)

              No force is needed to deny equal rights. (refusing to acknowledge is “passive”)
              No force was needed to deny ALL rights to negroes ? deny woman’s suffrage ? to deny equal rights to homosexuals ? to deny marriage equality.

              Ron Paul did not initiate force by sponsoring a bill to forbid the Supreme Court from even HEARING any challenges to DOMA ,… hoping to deny constitutional rights for the first time since Jim Crow
              But, “He didn’t initiate force!!”. (wink,wink)

              Our founders rejected NAP over 200 years ago. Libertarian political philosophy rejected it 57 years ago. There are only two purposes for government.
              1) To defend individual liberty.
              2) To impose one’s values on everyone with government authority.

              (The authority to define marriage, in OPEN DEFIANCE of individual liberty — defined in Natural Law as including equal and unalienable rights)

              NAP defends nothing ? except the power to impose bigotry.
              So have you been manipulated? Or might you fit better in North Korea?

              1. If NO rights are absolute, what’s the big deal if the government were “to deny ALL rights to negroes ? deny woman’s suffrage ? to deny equal rights to homosexuals ? to deny marriage equality”?

      4. Why would you place such an outright lie in quotes?

        That was sarcasm, dolt.

        1. That was sarcasm, dolt.

          AND an outright lie.

      5. IOW I take her at her word that she doesn’t intend to repeal the Second Amendment; she just intends to interpret it to suit her

        That’s an opinion, dolt.

        1. That’s an opinion, dolt.

          “You’re a raging cocksucker who fellates your own father and brothers, rapes your own mother twice a month and sodomized your sister when she was 4 years old.”

          Would that be a responsible “opinion” or the words of a hatred-spewing psycho?
          Dolt?

          1. Hahahahaha! You are seriously butthurt over this, aren’t you?

            Look, neither one of us can look into the future or read the candidates’ minds. So it boils down to a matter of trust. I don’t trust Clinton or the Left in general on this issue. You plainly disagree, but you’re just going to have to get over it.

            The reasons I don’t trust the Left on this issue would fill a book, but in brief:

            1. Whatever their candidates say when the TV cameras are on them, most Leftists insist that there is no individual right to own a gun, that the Second Amendment protects a “collective right”.
            2. Whenever the idea of keeping a gun for self-defense is raised, most Leftists insist that it’s a horrible and dangerous idea.
            3. If you want to see a really potent mix of horror and disdain from Leftists, talk about the idea of the right to keep and bear arms as a check upon government.
            4. Having been a gun owner for over 30 years, I’ve been heaped with gratuitous verbal abuse by the Left, “gun nut”, “ammosexual”, etc. I don’t care about the insults personally but it’s a pretty good indicator that they have little regard for me or my rights.

            If you aren’t a dolt, you’re being deliberately obtuse.

            1. Hahahahaha! You are seriously butthurt over this, aren’t you?

              That was ridicule,

          2. I think you’re confused, or you just have the wrong opinion. You actually just described me almost perfectly, not Enjoy Every Sandwich. You got the part about me raping my mother wrong, it’s the other way around. She rapes me, and it’s more like 3-4 times a month, not twice.
            And one more thing, quit spying on me and my family, you fucking stalker!

            1. You actually just described me almost perfectly, not Enjoy Every Sandwich.

              You admit I was not talking to you, babble for a bit, then ,,,,

              you fucking stalker!

              (smirk)

              (My tone and boldface in response to aggression … maybe. Hard to tell)

      6. perhaps they are not “absolute”,but since this is a basic civil right we’re talking about,the government HAS to show some reasonable evidence for a restriction,and that said restriction is actually effective at it’s intended purpose. IOW,gov’t cannot just CLAIM that “X” law is needed,it has to SHOW that their proposed law is necessary,and that it will have the effect without unduly restricting the right. I can’t recall the legal term for this at the moment.

        1. I can’t recall the legal term for this at the moment.

          It’s called bullshit. Per Justice Scalia’s ruling in United States v Heller.

          Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller.)
          “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”
          “…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

      7. The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say, “the right to keep and bear arms shall be dependent on gun ownership’s impact on crime.”

        1. Same error. Different phrasing. See previous at 10:22.16

      8. http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable – unalienable: impossible to take away or give up

        “…self-righteous purpose … Her … “reasonable” regulations…”loopholes” (gun shows and online)…”

        Her so-called “reasonable regulations”, like outlawing private sale of firearms, is so the government can compile lists of firearms and their owners so that some future regime can confiscate them if the political climate changes to permit it. The aim is to put into place the means and work for any restriction possible until total confiscation. After all, NO rights are absolute. Give me any substantive example of “Her” defending the right to keep and bear arms aside from mere words said out of political necessity.

  10. I guess we’ll find out how this plays out.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Thomas Jefferson

    1. Be careful what you say on here Almighty, Justice Department is watching for more woodchippers.

    2. But Jefferson knew what liberty means.

      1. Having committed what the British monarchy considered treason, punishable by hanging and drawing and quartering, in a war that started due to said monarchy’s troops committing a gun grab, he sure as fuck knew what liberty meant, and why guns needed to be used against those who would seize them.

        1. Well then LEARN FROM HIM!

        2. why guns needed to be used against those who would seize them.

          So you don’t know what “citizen’s militia” means either?

  11. The thing about Shrillary is that she actually believes she can lie as much as her (scumbag) husband and get away with it, but she is about one tenth as charming as the sonofabitch. Bubba could lie to your face and do it sooooo smoothly that a lot of people without a political reason to pretend would buy it anyway. Shillery couldn’t believably preach nonviolence to an audience of buddhist hippies.

    Of COURSE she doesn’t believe the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to bear arms. That would imply that the Great Unwashed actually have rights at all.

    1. The Great Unwashed. I may have to rethink bathing.

    2. Of COURSE she doesn’t believe the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to bear arms. That would imply that the Great Unwashed actually have rights at all.

      But you’re not a hate-spewing bigot, equally ignorant of the Second Amendment.

      1. I’m not sure I get your point. I maintain that I’m not a bigot; what I feel about Shrillary is focused on her sole person. It isn’t hatred either; it’s contempt. I don’t like Progressives as a class but Shillary isn’t a Progressive; they are the body she parasitizes off of. She herself has no beliefs or principles other than the firm opinion that she should be running things.

        As for the Second Amendment; we know from the debates on the Constitution that it was included in the bill of rights specifically to ensure that the general population had easy, legal access to military grade arms. That may or may not be a sound idea, but absent an amendment to change things, that s what the Second Amendment SHOULD mean. And political position that does not support a citizen in good standing being able to purchase the weapons used by the common foot soldier is an attempt to weasel.

        Now, since I don’t actually own a gun that might not matter to me, but I hold that a politician who is unwilling to either let the Second Amendment have its full force OR propose an amendment to it, cannot be trusted with any other part of the Bill of Rights.

        1. I’m not sure I get your point.

          You bdo not

          It isn’t hatred either; it’s contempt

          Proves mty point!

          As for the Second Amendment; we know from the debates on the Constitution that it was included in the bill of rights specifically to ensure that the general population had easy, legal access to military grade arms.

          Scalia says otherwise …

          that s what the Second Amendment SHOULD mean.

          But NEVER did. Scalia also defended a ban on military style weapons … WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME,

          And political position that does not support a citizen in good standing being able to purchase the weapons used by the common foot soldier is an attempt to weasel.

          There was no :”common foot soldier” at the time. It was a citizen’s militia.They grabbed whatever was in their house at the time. Whatever they used for hunting (if they had one at all)

          I hold that a politician who is unwilling to either let the Second Amendment have its full force OR propose an amendment to it, cannot be trusted with any other part of the Bill of Rights.

          Do you also believe that Ron Paul’s TOTAL rejection of the Ninth Amendment, dishonesty on the Tenth .. his clam that the Supreme Court NEVER had power to defend constitution rights … and that states have powers never delegated? … means HE can’t be trusted either>

          If not, then why trust YOU?

          1. I don’t trust any politician I have ever met or heard of, and including historians cal figures which dely admired for their ‘honesty’.

            I’m what used to be called a Crank. I believe that throughout history there has been a succession of self-sel ct d elites, and that the progress (or decline) of civilization can be calculated by the degree that the common man can tell the curr nt elite to go climb a tree and get away with it.

            1. I like the cut of your jib C.S.P.

            2. I’m what used to be called a Crank.

              Me too. Is that a retraction of your original bullshit?

              Progress (or decline) of civilization can be calculated by the degree that the common man can tell the current elite to go climb a tree and get away with

              When has that ever not been true here? (excluding slavery and Ron Paul’s fascism)

              My problem is people who commit shameful slander, get called out on it, and switch to irrelevant babble on patriotism.

          2. Scalia says otherwise …

            Scalia was incorrect, if so. That wouldn’t be the first time a judge decided to ignore the Constitution because they wanted the government to have more power than it was actually granted.

            1. That wouldn’t be the first time a judge decided to ignore the Constitution because they wanted the government to have more power than it was actually granted.

              Lame. About a ruling you know nothing about.

              One more time: Military style weapons did not exisy at the time. He cites ‘Miller’ as precedent, a ruling since 1929. So militart-style weaons have been excluded from the 2A guaranteed right for 87 years.

              Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller.)
              “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”
              “…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

              1. Michael wrote, “One more time: Military style weapons did not exis[t] at the time.”

                They did at that time and they do now. There were semi-automatics and military surplus bolt-actions owned at the time – both military-pattern weapons at the time. And at this time in history, military-pattern weapons are owned at the time.

    3. The thing about Shrillary is that she actually believes she can lie as much as her (scumbag) husband and get away with it,

      Why not? Trump is a bigger, more blatant liar than Bill and Hillary combined.
      I mean, how many time has Trump denied what he said in front of 10-50 million witnesses?

  12. You should see what she thinks about the First Amendment!

    1. You should see what she thinks about the First Amendment!

      In fairness, she can’t possibly be a greater absolute fascist than Donald Trump.

      1. I wouldn’t be so sure of that.

        1. She can’t possibly be a greater absolute fascist than Donald Trump.

          I wouldn’t be so sure of that

          Some of us are more objective.
          Trump wants the power to deny a Free Press to media he opposes.
          If he wins, he’ll put his opponent in jail. If he loses he won’t accept the results.
          He’s a blatant public liar — denies words everyone in America heard him say.
          And proposes a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF.

          1. Every single one of those points can be applied to her shrillness. The only way she differs is on methods.

            1. Every single one of those points can be applied to her shrillness.

              Shrillness is
              an attack on the Free Press,
              a theat to jail Trump
              proposing a 60% tax cut for herself
              repeated blatant lies, denying things that tens of millos of people heard her say?

              The only way she differs is on methods.

              Oh.

          2. Are you actually saying she SHOULDN’T be in jail? After all we’ve seen? WTF is wrong with you?

            1. WTF is wrong with you?

              I’m not hysterically illiterate.

          3. “Trump wants the power to deny a Free Press to media he opposes.”

            What he wants to do is make it easier to sue them for libel. I don’t agree with him, but how is that any different or more radical than Hillary’s “common sense” gun-control?

            “If he wins, he’ll put his opponent in jail. If he loses he won’t accept the results.”

            So, what? He’s got no obligation to accept anything. There’s nothing he could do about it. If he appoints a special prosecutor if he wins, any charges would still have to go through the justice system, which is fair. I’m sure the media will do everything to defend her.

            “He’s a blatant public liar — denies words everyone in America heard him say.”

            They both do that. So what else is new? Yet, I have witnessed quite a few times where he is misquoted or misconstrued.

            “And proposes a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF.”

            Yeah, what’s wrong with that? At least he’s proposing some kind of tax cuts. What tax cuts are Hillary proposing?

  13. If you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

  14. I don’t want to defend Clinton, but I will defend he Constitution and Natural Law from another distortion by pro-gun absolutists. While Sullum was sleeping, Clinton supported what she calls “responsible” regulations including the gun show loophole and the online loophole I hadn’t heard her use before.

    One may disagree with what she calls reasonable, but no real defender of fundamental rights and liberties can honestly claim that NO regulations are reasonable.

    At one time, libertarians defended issues based on principle, not political pandering and convenience. One core principle enshrined for centuries in Natural Law, and more recently in our founding documents, is that no rights are absolute … not even Life … by definition. The definition of unalienable. Unless one argues that Jefferson and the founders were illiterate.

    Abortion may be the worst example,… where both extremes pull an “absolute right” out of their ass. With the Second Amendment, only one side pulls an absolute right out of their ass, in the main. (Anti-gun absolutists are not now a factor.)

    In all cases, absolute rights are defended by similar manipulations, most often the “slippery slope” fallacy And by fomenting hysteria. The first step in taking back America must be taking back our movement.
    If it’s not too late.

    1. Not all slippery slopes are fallacies.

      1. Not all slippery slopes are fallacies.

        True, but your very next comment is a MASSIVE slippery slop fallacy … for the reason I already gave.

        People who use “leftist” as an entire argument are no different than those who use “rightists” … or “niggers” …or “kikes” … “pollacks” … “krauts” ,…. “nips” and the like.

        1. People who use “leftist” as an entire argument are no different than those who use “rightists” … or “niggers” …or “kikes” … “pollacks” … “krauts” ,…. “nips” and the like.

          Speaking of fallacies, that one is called “ad hominem.”

          1. “No different than” is neither positive or negative

      2. I would like to upvote this comment 1000 times, please.

      3. Not all slippery slopes are fallacies.

        All slippery slope fallacies are.

    2. Especially when it comes to leftists and their yearning to disarm the public, one regulation at a time.

    3. Huh, so that’s the definition of unalienable. (Which is also inalienable.)

      You might want to tell the dictionary about that, Mike.


      in?al?ien?a?ble.

      [in??l??n?b(?)l]

      ADJECTIVE

      1.unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

      So, what is the real definition? I’m curious.

      1. My understanding is that the only time Natural Rights should be legislated or curtailed is when they are in conflict. What other Natural Right is in conflict with gun ownership? I would presume the ‘Right to Life’ perhaps?

        1. My understanding is that the only time Natural Rights should be legislated or curtailed is when they are in conflict.

          Close, but no balloon. That’;s why I always use the abortion example. Perhaps they no longer teach this in high school. In the vernacular, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”

          The tip of my nose is the “boundary” or “line” between two rights. When rights are in conflict, only the judiciary is empowered to resolve that conflict, and they are obliged to draw a line that best defends BOTH rights. Nether right may be “curtailed” in your word — denied or abridge in the Bill of Rights. They are BOTH defended in the only way possible,

          Abortion is a clear example because both extremes seek REJECTION of a right, which there is NO power to do.

          What other Natural Right is in conflict with gun ownership? I would presume the ‘Right to Life’ perhaps?

          That would be one example, but Life is superior to gun ownership which is why it’s an unenumerted right. Bearing arms had to be enumerated, ALL unenumerated rights would be superior to gun ownership. “Fundamental” rights may be a better distinction,.

          1. So, merely by owning a gun one is curtailing the right to life of another? Expound on that please, it would appear to be a necessary distinction how ownership of an item would necessarily mean that someone is deprived of their right to life.

            Would this not also imply that ownership of a knife, or possession of martial arts knowledge, should also be limited since it could be used to defend oneself or kill another?

            There are no regulations on learning how to kill a man with your hands, a knife, or a rock. Do we need common sense Judo regulations on the books? How is it any different, I wonder?

            Also, for the record, it would appear that you do need a dictionary.

            cur?tail

            VERB

            1.reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on:

            This is exactly the right word to choose, given that it is the direct policy prescription & constitutional interpretation that’s being discussed. The same could be said of abortion ‘rights’, in that they’re imposing restrictions on it; are they not?

            1. So, merely by owning a gun one is curtailing the right to life of another?

              I never said that — even denied it as the issue.

              I have no more time for your lies and mind games following your many falsehooods here … on top of lying about your own dictionary definition.

              YOU MAY CONTINUE YOUR LIES, MIND GAMES AND RUDENESS ALL YOU LIKE, WHICH IS YOUR NATURE … BUT I HAVE A LIFE

              I will gladly discuss the issue of unalienable rights and related moral principles is with anyone who does so in good faith … and no obvious lies.

              1. Mike, you’re an idiot.

                  1. You don’t even know what ad hominem means, which only confirms that you are an idiot.

                    1. Sarcasmnic
                      Mike, you’re an idiot.

                      You don’t even know what ad hominem means, which only confirms that you are an idiot.

                      No response needed. (smirk)

                    2. If I say “You are an idiot, therefore your argument is stupid” I am making an ad hominem argument. I am arguing against the person.

                      If I say “Based upon the stupid crap you write, I can only conclude that you are an idiot” I am making an observation.

                      In this case it was the latter.

                      So like I said, you don’t know what ad hominem means. And I expect that you will not learn. The fact that you cannot learn is what makes you an idiot.

                  2. Tissue?

              2. I can only read what you write Mike, I can’t read your mind. Your statement below means something other than what you meant, perhaps.

                One core principle enshrined for centuries in Natural Law, and more recently in our founding documents, is that no rights are absolute … not even Life … by definition. The definition of unalienable

                This statement, as read, is that unalienable’s definition is that rights are not absolute. I posted the definition of that word, which refers to it’s meaning where something can not be taken away or given away. Thus, your statement that this right is somehow limited is false at false value since it can not be taken away, or given away, and the rest of the text leaves no wiggle room yet you imply there is wiggle room with no examples or proof of said statement.

                If you want to get pissed that people take you at your word, then take an extra five minutes and say what you mean sir. The only person throwing out lies and ad hominem thus far, between the two of us, is you. I don’t appreciate your hostility towards me, when I’ve been nothing but civil.

                Clearly, you want me to attack you instead of your ‘evidence’ or ‘argument’ but I’m not going to bite.

                1. I’ll go slowly .. for any other retarded, imbecilic bullies ….
                  If two or more rights are UNLIMITED … cannot be taken away … then ….

                  wait fot it ….

                  NONE OF THEM CAN BE ABSOLUTE ….

                  because ….

                  THEY CAN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER

                  and ….. .

                  AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT WOULD HAVE PREFERENCE OVER *ALL OTHER RIGHTS

                  (FOURTH EXPLANATION)


                  1. I’ll go slowly .. for any other retarded, imbecilic bullies ….

                    I only quote this bit because it’s amusing that you’re calling me a bully when so you’ve insulted me in every post you’ve made, while I’ve tried to be respectful even though I know you won’t return the favor.

                    In essence, I was indeed correct although I didn’t explain it very clearly.

                    Gun rights are not absolute, nor was I trying to say that they are, when they come into conflict with other natural rights such as life. My main issue with your language is that the language itself of this Amendment does not leave any ambiguity that there wasn’t recourse for the government to legislate any limitations on it. That is a legal problem, and the remedy is to amend it. (Not legislating around it, as they have been doing.)

                    So, the only time my right to own and carry a firearm should be limited is when I have used it to somehow violate someone else’s rights. Right?

                    Since the government is preemptively regulating people’s ability to own firearms with absolutely zero proof they intended to use it in such a way, current ‘common sense’ firearm regulation should indeed be found unconstitutional. If you follow 1st Amendment law, preemptive denial of someone’s rights is a violation.

                    Thanks for finally clarifying Mike. It made it a lot easier to have a discussion, even if it was pretty hard for me not to reply in kind to your rude behavior.

                    1. Also, merely to reply and reiterate this bit:


                      So, merely by owning a gun one is curtailing the right to life of another? -Me

                      I never said that — even denied it as the issue. -You

                      But this is the issue. They are limiting the right to own a firearm based on the presumption that you will use it to violate someone else’s’ rights without proof or a trial. How can this not be a problem?

                    2. it’s amusing that you’re calling me a bully when so you’ve insulted me in every post you’ve made,

                      Liar
                      Self-evident in the thread

          2. Fuck you and your nose

            1. Elliot|10.20.16M|#
              Fuck you and your nose

              Elliot’s ERECT dick can fit into a nose?

              1. HEY, KEEP UP THE BOLDING…. IT CONVINCED ME!!!!!!

                1. HEY, KEEP UP THE BOLDING…. IT CONVINCED ME!!!!!!

                  Without thew bolding you may not have seen what a fucking bully he is.
                  You do understand selfl-defense, eh?

      2. So, what is the real definition? I’m curious.

        Bizarre question. But thanks for proving my point.

        1. “One core principle enshrined for centuries in Natural Law, and more recently in our founding documents, is that no rights are absolute … not even Life … by definition. The definition of unalienable.

          I’m curious what your definition of unalienable is, since it would appear to be in conflict with the actual definition that I referred to above. It seems like a point you would want to clarify, since your entire argument above rests squarely on what your definition of that term is.

          I’d actually agree that Natural Rights are not unlimited, but only in the sense that they can fall into conflict with each other such as in your example above on abortion (life on one hand, ownership of one’s self on the other). I’m curious how this is actually applicable to the Second Amendment though, since you don’t make any kind of rational argument for that point being in conflict with another right or in pointing out how my understanding of conflicting natural rights is incorrect. I’m more than willing to admit I could be wrong, but you seem unwilling to explain why.

          This is a good faith argument on my part, I’m genuinely curious how you arrive at your conclusion since your logic would appear to be flawed.

          1. since your entire argument above rests squarely on what your definition of that term is.

            It’s not my definition, since you cited a dictionary saying the same thing.

            I’d actually agree that Natural Rights are not unlimited,

            I never said that. None can be “absolute”

            since you don’t make any kind of rational argument for that point being in conflict with another right or in pointing out how my understanding of conflicting natural rights is incorrect. I’m more than willing to admit I could be wrong,
            but you seem unwilling to explain why.

            I explained why BEFORE you posted this … in my very first reply to your question.

            This is a good faith argument on my part, I’m genuinely curious how you arrive at your conclusion since your logic would appear to be flawed.

            Your “good faith” argument is multiple falsehoods.
            1) Distorts the definition YOU cited.
            2) Misrepresents “absolute” as unlimited
            3) Falsely claims I made no argument (a falsehood proven by timestamps)
            4) And your “logic” is an assertion based on those falsehood.

            1. My dictionary cite didn’t say the same thing as what you said, perhaps it only said the same thing as what you thought which I’m sure we can agree are not necessarily the same thing.

      3. Which is also inalienable.

        Not in the Declaration.

        1. This isn’t actually an argument, it’s a declarative statement with no support. You said the same above, yet seem unable to clarify your position. Curious.

          1. Not in the Declaration.

            This isn’t actually an argument, it’s a declarative statement with no support. You said the same above, yet seem unable to clarify your position. Curious.

            You need PROOF of the Declaration’s language???

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
            Support

            1. Are you being obtuse on purpose, or is it because you know I’m right so you need to pretend that you don’t know what words mean?

              unalienable

              /?n?e?lj?n?b?l/

              adjective

              1.

              (law) a variant of inalienable

              1. Not to mention Jefferson’s drafts where he used “inalienable”.

                It appears that John Adams may have decided to use the alternate spelling on the way to the printers.

                1. Not to mention Jefferson’s drafts where he used “inalienable”

                  It’s 10000% irrelevant and you mentioned it anyhow

              2. You need PROOF of the Declaration’s language???

                We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

    4. Complete lack of regulation may be unreasonable, but it IS the clear meaning of “Shall not be infringed”, and we have gotten to this point because a lot of Politicians have been unwilling to actually play by the rules, and propose a Constitutional Amendment rather than weasel. And unregulated ownership of firearms strikes me as far LESS dangerous than a government that does not follow its own rules. Governments that felt free to ‘make it up as they go along’ murdered 100 million people or more during the 20th Century (I refer you to THE BLACK BOOK OF COMMUNISM, from the Harvard University Press).

      The proper response to “Surely we can agree on reasonable regulation” is “make your proposal, and get the necessary Amendment passed and we’ll talk; if you aren’t ready to play by the rules you aren’t a Moderate, you’re a scofflaw.”

      1. there’s a BIG difference between regulation of misuse,and the regulation of “you can’t have these”.
        the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
        semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

        Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
        Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

        In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

        it’s VERY clear the Founders INTENDED that civilians have “weapons of war”,militia arms suitable for militia purposes,that include combat.

        1. it’s VERY clear the Founders INTENDED that civilians have “weapons of war”,militia arms suitable for militia purposes,that include combat.

          There were no such weapons. We have over a century of legal precedent regarding military style weapons, You’ve been bamboozled on US vs Miller. Scala cited it as precedent in his ruling against military style weapons

          Justice Scalia (Heller) . (my boldface)

          “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ ? We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’

          Miller was decided 87 years ago, 1929, and prohibitions on military style weapons were already an established tradition.

          Scalia broadened the interpretation a bit, if only to clarify the right included whatever weapons are in common use at the time … not 18th century muskets and hunting rifles.

          To classical libertarians it’s rather sad how gun grabbers and defenders are both severely manipulated by falsehoods. But that’s tribal politics, eh?

    5. What does this have to do with abortion?

      1. Abortion is a clear example because both extremes seek REJECTION of a right, which there is NO power to do.

        What does this have to do with abortion?

        Sorry if that was unclear. The two (right bear arms and abostion) are both have extremists claiming rights which do not exist — a total ban or no restrictions at all.

    6. What part of, “…shall not be infringed.” do you not understand? Numbnuts.

      1. What part of, “…shall not be infringed.” do you not understand? Numbnuts.

        The full context, dumbass, that NO rights are absolute,

        And over a century of tradition and court rulings that the guaranteed right applies only to weapons in common use. Do you understand what a “citizen’s militia” is. They show up with whatever weapons they used normally. “Military style” weapons did not even exist.

        The first SCOTUS ruling was 1929, which cited a tradition of prohibition was already historical. The most recent, ruling, 2007, was written by that gun-grabbing progtard, Antonin Scalia. He added the 2A protected whatever weapons ate in common use a the time, not 18th century muskets, The rulings are described elsewhere on this page

        https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6489854

    7. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” – Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251
      ___

      The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

      Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

      1. Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

        That;s a commentary, nor a ruling … and he describes something well beyond a well-regulated militia. Can you really imagine a well-regulated militia that overthrows ,,,, the regulations?
        The full context” of that excerpt does not mean what you may think.

        Nothing there denies prohibitions of what we now call “military style” weapons — which did not exist at the time,
        The only two SCOTUS rulings, 1929 and 2007, both affirmed prohibitions on “military style” weapons. The latter ruling by Justice Scalia. The 1929 ruling cited an established tradition prohibiting “dangerous and “unusual” weapons.

        There is no standard, anywhere at any time, linking the 2A with overthrowing the government … who provides the “well-regulated” thingy. Some use or discard the “militia” depending on the current argument.

  15. “If that law did not violate the Second Amendment, it is hard to imagine what law would. Yet to Clinton it is a “reasonable regulation” perfectly consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.”

    Look, you can own a gun! Where does it say the gun should actually be able to fire bullets? I don’t see a problem with allowing people to own the parts of a gun, as long as those guns are never assembled and can never conceivably be fired. That’s consistent with the text, right?!

    -HRC, Constitutional Scholar

    1. -BYODB, Constitutional ignoeranus

      1. “-BYODB, Constitutional ignoeranus”

        So, straight to ad hominem then? You like to claim the victim around here pretty often Mike, sometimes rightfully so, but it seems to me that you like to dish it out just as much as everyone else.

        1. Good point. I apologize. The notion of a gun that cannot fire being an “arm” struck me as beyond the pale.
          Now, you owe me at least three apologies, but one will,suffice.

    2. You’ve got a good point. Nothing in the 2A dictates that the arms must be functional. So regulation banning functional firearms would be totally reasonable.

      1. If it’s not functional then …. it’s not an arm!

        1. Bingo!

          1. Careful, Schofield, sarcasmic gets vicious.

              1. One more time: If it’s not a functioning gun then it”s not an arm.
                A table is not a functioning arm
                A drawing of a gun is not an arm.
                A wooden carving of a gun is not an arm.
                Whoooooooooof!

  16. Obligatory Arkansas defense – we hates Hillary when she was here, and continue to hate her today. She is NOT one of us, and we want nothing to do with her. There isn’t a more pro-2nd-Amendment state in America.

  17. You have the right to keep a disassembled firearm in a safe with ammunition in a separate safe so what’s the problem?

  18. Your raging hatred is noted, I never knew Clinton seized power as Governor in a military coup. FIVE TIMES! ,
    Are you saying all Arkansans are as ignorant that gun ownership is NOT an absolute right?

    1. PSYCHO ALERT

      1. Woodchippin’ 4 Jesus
        PSYCHO ALERT

        Celebrates feeding humans into woodchippers … for Jesus.
        Calls someone a PSYCHO for …. knowing Clinton was elected five times.
        But slaughtering people in the name of Jesus is normal.

  19. Hillary Clinton is on record as saying the 2008 Heller Supreme Court case was wrongly decided. The Heller ruling struck down DC’s handgun ban but also DC’s ban on keeping any gun loaded for self-defense in your own home. 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 courts have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City’s $340 permit fee and one year process to get a permit to keep a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * A “safe storage” law in San Francisco that requires homeowners to keep guns on their person or locked up when they are sleeping, directly contradicting the Heller ruling.
    * A complete ban on any gun possession by anyone who has a doctor’s prescription for medical marijuana.
    * 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 Clinton Supreme Court to uphold all of these laws and more, including enabling the bankruptcy of gun makers by frivolous lawsuit.

    1. PSYCHO ALERT!!!

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

      1. “the easier to control you, my dear”

  20. She’s correct. It had to do with the purposes of forming a militia. The idea of individuals back then to even need permission from the government to own a handgun for personal protection to begin with would be as ridiculous as if today we were told we needed permission to own a knife and fork.

    This just shows how far the individual has come in over 200 years as far as being a sheeple to government.

    1. You seem confused, perhaps hopelessly.
      Even Scalia says the Second Amendment does not include a right to assault weapons.
      Do you you what the citizen’s militia was?
      People would grab whatever rifle was in their home.
      Any weapons beyond that did not even exist.

      his just shows how far the individual has come in over 200 years as far as being a sheeple to government.

      And to the NRA. Sheeple to the left t of me. Sheeple to the right of me …

      1. Even Scalia says the Second Amendment does not include a right to assault weapons.

        1) As far as I know Scalia wasn’t a founder or framer, and
        2) “assault weapon” is a ridiculous, made-up redundancy.

        ALL weapons are “assault” weapons. By definition.

        Arms at the time were whatever was available to be used by the citizenry/militia against tyranny.

        Do you honestly think that if the Redcoats at the time had had gatling guns, that the framers would have put a “gatling gun” exception in the second amendment? Ridiculous.

        In fact, I’d wager that if the British HAD had automatic weapons and the colonials did not, that B. Franklin would have come up with something better, and used the postal service to distribute them to the citizenry.

        1. In fact, I’d wager that if the British HAD had automatic weapons and the colonials did not, that B. Franklin would have come up with something better, and used the postal service to distribute them to the citizenry.

          You’re probably right.

        2. Claims powe to overrule SCOTUS.

          As far as I know Scalia wasn’t a founder or framer,

          Umm, doesn’t have to be.,

          Arms at the time were whatever was available to be used by the citizenry/militia against tyranny.

          Military weapons did not exist, and have been excluded from Constitutional protection for 87 years! (‘Mlller’ cited below)

          Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller. (Supreme Court website)

          “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

          …. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

          I’m always amazed when anyone strenuously debates an issue they know nothing about.

        3. Do you honestly think that if the Redcoats at the time had had gatling guns, that the framers would have put a “gatling gun” exception in the second amendment? Ridiculous.

          What if they had nuclear weapons? See, I can be as wacky as you!

          But your hissy fit is against two Supreme Court rulings, on prohibitions that were already legal “tradition” 87 years ago. Most recently that gun-grabbing progtard, Antonin Scalia (when he was still kssing the ass of George Soros.)

          What if the British had light sabers?

      2. All weapons are assault weapons. By definition.

        Oh, you mean assault rifles?

        Well, those, being fully automatic military weapons, are already banned.

        You must mean scary rifles with scary pistol grips that are painted scary black that look really scary and scare people who are scared of scary guns.

        Looks like your knowledge of firearms is severely lacking.

      3. “grab whatever rifle was in their home”,NOT true.
        Militia were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what was in use at the time. also,the armies of that time used smoothbore muskets,for their faster reload time,while colonists were likely to use rifled muskets,for their better accuracy. But the fact remains,the militias were expected to fight in COMBAT,and today,that means combat arms,and of this era,not colonial muskets or hunting rifles. (small arms,to be “reasonable”.Not bazookas,RPGs,Stingers,etc.)

        You try to nitpick,and we’re not buying your crap.

        1. You try to nitpick,and we’re not buying your crap

          (smirk)

          (emphasis added for the morally disabled)

          Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller.)
          “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

          “…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

          Hihn: “grab whatever rifle was in their home”
          JayWye: “NOT true”
          Scalia: “who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty”

          P.S. The Miller ruling was 87 years ago … citing “historical tradition by 1929!!!
          (flush)

      4. Even Scalia says the Second Amendment does not include a right to assault weapons.

        Scalia never said any such thing. Stop lying.

        1. Another one!

          Even Scalia says the Second Amendment does not include a right to assault weapons.

          Scalia never said any such thing. Stop lying

          You bluff. I call. You lose. Proof linked above (4:00 AM)

          1. You bluff. I call. You lose. Proof linked above (4:00 AM)

            Your “proof” consists of dicta from Heller that doesn’t mention “assault weapons” at all, you gibbering fucking moron.

            “Assault weapons” are magazine-fed semi-autos. They are neither dangerous nor unusual, and are in fact the most common sport-shooting rifles in the country. They are exactly the sort of in-common-use longarms that today’s citizens would bring with them for militia duty.

            So, again: stop lying.

  21. this from the crazy tyrannical family that helped bring about the waco siege massacre where big brother government shot first

    1. “The era of big government is over” – Bill Clinton

    2. Fucking Chelsea bears a LOT of blame!

  22. “I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case,” she said, “because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns, and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

    So, she wants the government to do what – break into gun owners’ homes to confirm that the guns are “safely stored”?

    Isn’t that a violation of the 4th amendment, Hillary?

    1. Isn’t that a violation of the 4th amendment, Hillary?

      Was that example a violation of sanity and reason?

  23. Hillary has already shown how much respect she has for documents.

  24. Clinton’s emails already show she has “public positions” and private (true) positions. IOW,she’ll LIE to the American People,if it serves her ends. This is one of those instances.

    1. Clinton’s emails already show she has “public positions” and private (true) position

      That was a speech.
      She cited Lincoln as doing the same in his effort to pass the 13th amendment.
      Independent factcheckers have confirmed she cited Lincoln in that speech.
      How many times can you brazenly lie on one page?
      Shame on you.

  25. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  26. “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

    ….Good News,Bad News I suppose. At least we are past the awkward stage part of this thingy .

    1. I have bought futures options {call} on tar and feathers.

  27. Hillary Clinton Delegate Explains Her Deceptive Propaganda to Ban Guns
    Of course, much of what she said is no mystery. It has been common phraseology to say that one is for “common sense gun legislation.” The reality is that kind of talk is actually “communist gun legislation.”
    “Saying you want to ban guns altogether, that’s going to piss everybody off,” Clinton alternate delegate Mary Bayer told the undercover Project Veritas reporter.
    So, she reveals openly that this is the ultimate goal, not some common sense legislation. She realizes that it will not only upset people, but it is unlawful and this is the reason they try to deceive the people.”You have to take that sort of moderate? ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!'” Bayer added. “You say sh*t like that, and then people will buy into it.”
    The real issue is that the Constitution gives absolutely zero authority for those in government to write legislation that restricts or bans the ability of citizens to keep and bear arms of any kind, including warships and tanks. So, Congress can write all the words they want to write and in the end, they are simply acting unlawfully and treasonous against the people they are supposed to be serving.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/unde…..-ban-guns/

    1. ranrof … wrong

      Justice Scalia’s 2007 ruling (Heller) cites Miller .. 87 years ago

      Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller.)
      “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”
      “…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
      ?

      Further, NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE, even Life. Per the definition of unalienable.
      You been manipulated,dude.

      .

  28. The way that this thread has been completely shit upon leads me to really believe in the “dicks, pussies, and assholes” theory.

    1. Agreed. All the brainwashed goobers who think the right to arm bears is absolute … when NO right is … and don’t know that military-style weapons have been excluded from the second amendment for over 100 years.

      1. just because “military style weapons have been excluded from the Second Amendment for the last 100 years” doesn’t mean it’s legitimate or Constitutional. the Court has been wrong before,as in Dred Scott.
        Besides they haven’t been excluded,they’ve been RESTRICTED,because one CAN own and use machine guns,provided they are NFA-registered,and all the hoopla that goes into getting that tax stamp. One can also own and use “destructive devices” provided they go through the same paperwork and bureaucratic process. I could do it today,if I had the money,and a year for F-Troop to complete the paperwork. (is that not an “infringement”? what rights does one have to get permission from FEDGOV to exercise? [Constitutionally])

        The first significant gun restriction was the 1934 National Firearms Act,that required registration and a $200 tax on each NFA weapon. Since it’s not yet 2034,your “100 years” is not accurate either.

        IMO,you’re the one that’s brainwashed.

        1. BTW,a $200 tax on a weapon (or suppressor) that cost LESS than $200 (at that time,1934) definitely IS an “infringement” and the RKBA. Taxes may not be used (Constitutionally) in that manner,only for raising revenue.

  29. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  30. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

    see……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  31. Her response to the 2A question and to the question about SC judge selections both show that she is unfit for office.
    First, 2A is not a right granted by the government but one that the Bill of Rights acknowledges as a basic human rithg that the government can not “infringe”. She had no understanding of the issues in the Heller decision yet publicly wants it changed.
    Second, selection of judges that will “vote for what is good for the people” is about as wrong as any statement that I have heard from any government official. Namely, this is saying is that the law and Constitution is not binding and should be ignored and the government should just “decides” what is good for the people. If this is not the Constitutional Republic that the founders had in mind. I am sure that North Korea and Iran would be the model that she proposes as a replacement for our liberty.

    1. She had no understanding of the issues in the Heller decision yet publicly wants it changed.

      You MAY have proclaimed your own ignorance of Heller … where Scalia re-affirmed that prohibiting “military stuke” weapon is NOT unconstitutional.

  32. If Americans were as passionate about the Fourth amendment as they are about the Second, the Second wouldn’t be in danger now. But, no, you only care when loss of private property rights affects you personally.

    1. The Fourth does nor have a gaggle of groups generating hysteria over invented threats to it.
      Both amendments are subject to interpretation, What does :”unreasonable” mean? The founders left to the courts to interpret and/or define any number of potential rights.

  33. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  34. Anyone know how old hinnsanity is? I want to know if I’m going to outlive him.

  35. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  36. A presidential candidate claiming to support a specific amendment is a good sign that they don’t. And the president doesn’t (shouldn’t) get to choose which rights to respect, that’s why they’re rights. i don’t care what they think the law should be, their job is mostly enforcement. I don’t know why more people don’t see all the fuss about who the president is as a bad sign in and of itself. Should not matter this much.

  37. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.