Hillary Clinton Won’t Admit Right To Bear Arms Is Constitutional

[RugersGR8]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...on-wont-admit-right-bear-arms-constitutional/
Hillary Clinton Won’t Admit Right To Bear Arms Is Constitutional
by AWR Hawkins 5 Jun 2016

Hillary's two responses to George Stephanopoulos's question, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”

FIRST RESPONSE: "I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations."

SECOND RESPONSE: “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulation.”

 

[MadDogs]

We can only hope her next roommate has large fingers.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I love it when politicians use words like "reasonable". It always means "Everything I think is reasonable. Anyone who disagrees is an imbecile".

 

[RugersGR8]

I love it when politicians use words like "reasonable". It always means "Everything I think is reasonable. Anyone who disagrees is an imbecile".

I have posted the following here before and I think I should post it again: ““COMMON SENSE” , “BALANCED”, “REASONABLE” & “A GOOD FIRST STEP” are all lib dem “DOUBLE SPEAK WORDS/TERMS” in their playbook/lexicon used to describe their gun grabbing/2nd Amendment hating/psychobabble legislation.”

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I have posted the following here before and I think I should post it again: ““COMMON SENSE” , “BALANCED”, “REASONABLE” & “A GOOD FIRST STEP” are all lib dem “DOUBLE SPEAK WORDS/TERMS” in their playbook/lexicon used to describe their gun grabbing/2nd Amendment hating/psychobabble legislation.”

I'd have to agree with that. I'm old, and have seen it too many times to believe otherwise.

 

[RugersGR8]

If Hillary or Bernie are elected, Legislation from the Bench = Law of the Land

 

[rawhide]

Regardless of any position that one might agree or disagree with Hillary or Trump on, one doesn't need to look any further than the judicial appointments that will result from her election. This one consequence of her election to the oval office should be enough to vote for anyone or anything other than her.

 

[RugersGR8]

Regardless of any position that one might agree or disagree with Hillary or Trump on, one doesn't need to look any further than the judicial appointments that will result from her election. This one consequence of her election to the oval office should be enough to vote for anyone or anything other than her.

+1 x 10 to the 100th power

 

[MadDogs]

Agreed ... As big of a douche as Trump, we cannot let any Democrat (whether it is Clinton or Biden) be elected.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...on-wont-admit-right-bear-arms-constitutional/
Hillary Clinton Won’t Admit Right To Bear Arms Is Constitutional
by AWR Hawkins 5 Jun 2016

Hillary's two responses to George Stephanopoulos's question, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”

FIRST RESPONSE: "I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations."

SECOND RESPONSE: “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulation.”

Know what is reasonable? If you don't, here it is: "Shall Not Be Infringed" is reasonable. There are many reasons the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed, and all are valid. I can't think of any reason that infringing on the right would be valid.

As for any level of government having a right to infringe upon the RKBA with ANY regulation, no such right exists. In fact, the United States Government, created by We the People, has not been given any right whatsoever, nor is any form of government capable of having a right. Governments only have specific POWERS granted by the people.

Woody


If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved. B.E.Wood