Hillary Clinton Says - "The Supreme Court is Wrong On The 2nd Amendment!"

Really Hillary?




Let's look at what our founding fathers had to say about this Hillary.

The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

2nd Amendment and "Well Regulated Militia"

I think a manditory test for all politicians in US history, The Constitution and Bill of Rights every 6 months is necessary, if they fail they lose their positions, and are exempt from running for office for another 2 years.

a reply to: Realtruth

That it...game over.

Hilary is wiser than Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al combined.

What a tool.

ETA: IF you add in Sanders recent attack on gun ownership the entire Democratic side of 2016 has eliminated themselves from my vote. I find it strange that they are fine with no restrictions on abortion which ACTUALLY KILLS someone, but legal gun ownership is such a problem for them. I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage despite the fact I disagree with both of them.

Just imagine flipping this around to be restrictions on abortion and you can imagine how gun owners feel. We don't wan't to discuss or negotiate we want our damn rights.

I'm just waiting for some politician to support the idea that the 2nd amendment means ALL ARMS, so I can go to my gun store and buy a nuke or some anti-aircraft missiles.

I mean seriously, where do you draw the line?

Furthermore, which person gets to decide where that line even is?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Realtruth

That it...game over.

Hilary is wiser than Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al combined.

What a tool.

Agreed when any politician, be they Republicans or Democrats, take a stance like this, one has to wonder about what they will do once in the highest office in the land.

Wait I think I know.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm just waiting for some politician to support the idea that the 2nd amendment means ALL ARMS, so I can go to my gun store and buy a nuke or some anti-aircraft missiles.

I mean seriously, where do you draw the line?

Furthermore, which person gets to decide where that line even is?

So you are okay with some restrictions on Gay Marriage and Abortion rights? I can be in charge of those for you...how is that going to work?

NO NEGOTIATION...NONE.

a reply to: Realtruth

"Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army."

Sorry to say, but I think it might be time to change this amendment. There is no safe way to for armed citizens to have the level of equipment to be effective and formidable against the national governments standing army. Back when we had wooden ships and muskets that was one thing, but you can't stash Apache helicopters in your backyard or give Cletus next door an Abrams tank to put in his driveway. Technology has changed the world.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm just waiting for some politician to support the idea that the 2nd amendment means ALL ARMS, so I can go to my gun store and buy a nuke or some anti-aircraft missiles.

I mean seriously, where do you draw the line?

Furthermore, which person gets to decide where that line even is?

That's a Straw-man argument if I ever heard one, and a slippery slope one to boot.

I guess you put yourself way above "The Supreme Court" as well?

a reply to: Slanter

Let me suggest an alternative for you.

Since the Federal Government is responsible for shooting deaths all over the world on a daily basis then let THEM be disarmed down to our level instead of vice-versa.

I have never killed or harmed someone with my fire arms while the Feds have proven themselves to be irresponsible. THEY should be disarmed not me.

a reply to: Metallicus

People die to gun violence all the time. And your argument has the exact opposite 'hypocrisy'. Why do people call for no regs on guns but want abortion banned because it leads to a death? Abortion is just the tool or mechanism. It doesn't grow legs and go kill on it own.

We know Crone-zilla and Bern-Ward want to take away guns and gun rights.

But, I have to wonder HOW they plan on doing it.

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: Realtruth

Sorry to say, but I think it might be time to change this amendment. There is no safe way to for armed citizens to have the level of equipment to be effective and formidable against the national governments standing army. Back when we had wooden ships and muskets that was one thing, but you can't stash Apache helicopters in your backyard or give Cletus next door an Abrams tank to put in his driveway. Technology has changed the world.

Military grade weapons will legally never be able to be had by the average joe, but limiting what is already available to pea-shooters and squirt guns wouldn't help either. /sarcasm

As long as insanity/egoism/corruption runs rampant in the world, I feel safer with our current 2nd amendment the way it is interpreted.

So nice that she feels she can choose what laws to follow.

a reply to: Slanter

Then there is a process by which you Amend it, but you do not do it by any other means. It isn't legal for you to take away my rights because you believe they are no longer my rights.

Good luck getting the majority of the country to go along with you, btw, especially when the majority of the country hates the government.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm just waiting for some politician to support the idea that the 2nd amendment means ALL ARMS, so I can go to my gun store and buy a nuke or some anti-aircraft missiles.

I mean seriously, where do you draw the line?

Furthermore, which person gets to decide where that line even is?

Why have a line at all?

There wasn't one when the amendment was created

Most of the continental armys artillery was privately owned.

One of the comments below the video sums it up best:

"I would like to know why this crook is not in Jail..."

Bottom line, she's a criminal...

Criminals always lie, and they always hate justice.

a reply to: Realtruth

Seriously? 99.8% of what a President does is NOT focused on the private ownership of firearms. If you vote solely on the basis of a candidates position on gun control, you are seriously screwing yourself.

That said, what document of the founding fathers does your highlighted section reference? You do not identifiy it and your link merely goes to a current day pro-Gun rights site.

It is simply clear that in the 2nd Amendment the founders were trying to do two things; prevent the rise of a standing army and do cheap defense spending by means of BYO-Gun. If the founders were around today to take in the advances in arms and their lethality, I'm quite sure being prudent and wise men they would favor legislation mandating significant background checks, firearm safety training and mandate that the gun owner have a demonstrated legitimate need of a weapon.

Moreover, if the founders were present today they would see that the militia is handled by the national guard. They would also undoubtedly note the size and competence of the US Armed Forces. The founders mayhaps would not be happy that their creation developed a standing army afterall. But they would certainly see that small groups of armed citizens opposing the US Armed Forces as an alleged agent of tyranny would not stand a chance. Not wanting to encourage slaughter they undoubtedly would refute those currently arguing that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to fight against our forces.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

People die to gun violence all the time. And your argument has the exact opposite 'hypocrisy'. Why do people call for no regs on guns but want abortion banned because it leads to a death? Abortion is just the tool or mechanism. It doesn't grow legs and go kill on it own.

Abortion is not a tool, it is an act.

Like murder, is an act not a tool.

A gun isn't an act, it is a tool.

a reply to: Sargeras

No it is the tool to carry out the action. The action of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
Be disengenous about it all you want. Shooting someone is the act and the tool is the gun. Abortion can't exist with out a tool or mechanism to carry it out. Which is what is regulated, the how and when it can be performed. Some want to ban it completely, which all it leads to is underground abortions. Just like an all our ban on guns would lead to underground gun markets. Which is why control, not bans are the answer.

a reply to: Metallicus

I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage despite the fact I disagree with both of them.

I'm not being argumentative just curious as to what you mean by this... Because isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?
Your pro-choice,yet you disagree with a women's choice to have an abortion. Your also pro-gay marriage yet I can only guess as to what aspect of gay marriage you disagree with...

originally posted by: lunatux
a reply to: Realtruth

Seriously? 99.8% of what a President does is NOT focused on the private ownership of firearms. If you vote solely on the basis of a candidates position on gun control, you are seriously screwing yourself.

That said, what document of the founding fathers does your highlighted section reference? You do not identifiy it and your link merely goes to a current day pro-Gun rights site.

It is simply clear that in the 2nd Amendment the founders were trying to do two things; prevent the rise of a standing army and do cheap defense spending by means of BYO-Gun. If the founders were around today to take in the advances in arms and their lethality, I'm quite sure being prudent and wise men they would favor legislation mandating significant background checks, firearm safety training and mandate that the gun owner have a demonstrated legitimate need of a weapon.

Moreover, if the founders were present today they would see that the militia is handled by the national guard. They would also undoubtedly note the size and competence of the US Armed Forces. The founders mayhaps would not be happy that their creation developed a standing army afterall. But they would certainly see that small groups of armed citizens opposing the US Armed Forces as an alleged agent of tyranny would not stand a chance. Not wanting to encourage slaughter they undoubtedly would refute those currently arguing that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to fight against our forces.

Do you have a military background?

Because I do, 6 year US ARMY.

And if you don't think that 100,000,000 armed citizens could defeat the military you are just silly.

That is of course assuming the military would turn on the people, which it won't.

What do you base all these assumptions on?