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

a reply to: lunatux

Sorry. Something that is a fundamental right is pretty darn important, so yeah, there are few things that are as high a priority as preserving one of the few I have left to me that the government hasn't stepped in to completely cluster-F.

a reply to: lunatux

"simply clear"? Your take in the last 2 paragraphs of your post have been disproved by the SC and the logic could be extended to the paper & quill vs modern computers. Further, no one needs to prove to our government their "legitimate need" for firearm ownership. Self defense is an inherent right, much to progressive's dismay.

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?

Pretty sure if nukes were legal for the average citizen, the average citizen would not even begin to take the first step toward ownership due to the finances needed. Nukes tend to cost many times the amount earned in ones lifetime.

Not to mention the hazmat requirements that would need to be met to handle the radioactive materials. Plus, nukes aren't really that much fun, they tend to mess up the shooting range excessively.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.

No!

Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy, you don't get to change the meaning of words to fit your idiology.

" can you handle me that abortion over there? "

No, because it isn't a tool, it is an act.

Gun control has been part of the Dems platform for some time. The positive I take away from their incessant desire to curtail citizen's rights is the historical outcome when they press the issue. They get voted out of office.

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?

I don't think for one second the 2nd ammendment means what the NRA has demanded it means.

It was written in a different time, having specific meaning for that time.

It sounds more like, have a gun at ready in case you are called to join a militia.

But, as a gun owner --- I want my personal right to have that gun.

Where to draw the line? YES, that is the most important question.

a reply to: Slanter

I agree so much with you.
The right to have arms is only a portion of the 2nd.
The rest is rather outdated and th government has been slowly building a strong immunity against it, no militia would ever stand a chance against the US military, the country would need to split itself in two an it's military would need to do the same for the militias to have access to that weaponry.

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?

Hillary and Sanders think they get to decide where to redraw the line. The line has already been generally drawn before fully automatic and some features like silencers for average citizens. The democrats are pushing toward a ban on arms altogether, one step at a time. Every time they get something they want, they want to ban the next incremental thing. They don't ever stop. Yes, a line should be drawn before nukes. Should be drawn before nukes for the state too.

My second amendment test is about it's intent. It's my understanding that the intent of the second amendment is twofold. First it's for personal use in both hunting and self defense. 2nd, and this is made clear to me by the militia provision, it is intended to give citizens and ability to protect themselves as groups from an over reaching government. As such, it makes sense to me that citizens should have access to the same arms as that of those that police them. That is where the line needs to be applied. It is not a static line, but a line that remains in equilibrium with state policing forces.

double post

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Slanter

I agree so much with you.
The right to have arms is only a portion of the 2nd.
The rest is rather outdated and th government has been slowly building a strong immunity against it, no militia would ever stand a chance against the US military, the country would need to split itself in two an it's military would need to do the same for the militias to have access to that weaponry.

Do you know how much ordinance this giant sprawling country has in it?

They couldn't guard half of it if they had to during a full out war against the people.

Did you not notice how guys in caves in a desert did against our military?

Or Vietnamese soldiers?

You watch way too much TV

a reply to: Sargeras

They also live in parts of the world that have ready access to military weapons. The government's are in shambles or are corrupt, police forces are useless, I can go on.

In the state of NY alone their police force is bigger than Canada's military, I think you under estimate the power the US government has over its citizens.

First, let me say that I'm a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. Like it or not, the US is soaked in firearms of all types. Firearms are part of our heritage, and that's not going to change.

However, I do believe that we do should whatever we can to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. For instance, there are certain mental illnesses that should preclude some people from purchasing or otherwise owning firearms.

The so-called gun show loophole, if it does in fact exist, should be addressed. I'm also in favor of requiring insurance, in some cases, for people who purchase new firearms. I think that would help promote responsible firearm ownership.

I think that there are ways that gun violence, as it is perceived, can be addressed without limiting the rights of responsible citizens to own firearms. It may encumber the ability of those citizens to quickly purchase these weapons, but it is a small price to pay to keep them away from those who should not have them.

Finally, one thing that annoys me about these videos, and other propaganda pieces, is when they push the idea that the government is coming after the firearms that responsible gun owners already possess. This is not the case; nor do I ever see this being the case. Such an action by the government would be tantamount to a civil war.

-dex

a reply to: pirhanna

The democrats are pushing toward a ban on arms altogether, one step at a time.

D's want big government that oversees it's population,a population they want dependent on said big government. There's no need, in their eyes, for citizen gun ownership--only LE and military. They can't amend the Constitution by accepted means, so they chip away with more restrictions and laws. I don't care if a candidate or sitting politician has an R or D after their name: any official that violates the public trust by attempting to strip away equality, the right of decision by women of their bodies, gun ownership or any other inherent right doesn't deserve support no matter what they promise.

Recall is a wake-up call to those sitting in power that go against those that placed them in that seat. In the recent past, Colorado was a great example of this effect.

a reply to: Realtruth

Where do these idiots get their info from?

Morons. Every single one of them.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Slanter

I agree so much with you.
The right to have arms is only a portion of the 2nd.
The rest is rather outdated and th government has been slowly building a strong immunity against it, no militia would ever stand a chance against the US military, the country would need to split itself in two an it's military would need to do the same for the militias to have access to that weaponry.

Do you know how much ordinance this giant sprawling country has in it?

They couldn't guard half of it if they had to during a full out war against the people.

Did you not notice how guys in caves in a desert did against our military?

Or Vietnamese soldiers?

You watch way too much TV

That was the first thing that came to mind for me when I considered how the Vietcong, and the plethora of Middle East enemies fought against the might of the US. Even with all our technology, sophisticated weapons, and superior training, we still encountered strong resistance. In a war where there are rules of engagement, the US always puts itself at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, in a war where there are no rules of engagement, in other words total war, those meager forces may not have fared nearly as well. If the US Government, for whatever reason, decided to respond with such violence, the "well-armed militia" wouldn't stand a chance.

However, I don't believe for one second that the US military would take up arms in that manner against the populace of the US.

-dex

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?

You would hope it was decided by a consortium of the wisest heads, unfortunately it's decided by politicians.

a reply to: Realtruth

Are you at all familiar with the precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation? Take a look at the usage in Article 6:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

It's QUITE clear what the 2nd Amendment is referring to and that is the state militias. HOWEVER there is absolutely no reason why we need to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to protect our right to bear arms. I'm all for gun ownership but I'm not going to premise my right to own firearms in what is essentially a lie.

originally posted by: Slanter
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.

The current conflicts as well as lessons from the past prove you wrong.
In WWII small hand guns were air dropped on France so the people could kill Germans and trade up to rifles.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Realtruth

It's QUITE clear what the 2nd Amendment is referring to and that is the state militias. HOWEVER there is absolutely no reason why we need to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to protect our right to bear arms. I'm all for gun ownership but I'm not going to premise my right to own firearms in what is essentially a lie.

If you feel yourself living a lie because the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision, then by all means vote for Hillary, because obviously with her flawless track record, and impeccable decision making she knows better, than the wisest, and highest judicial branch, in our land.

originally posted by: Slanter
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.

I am inclined to agree there, I think there is a tendency to interpret the second amendment just about every which way.
It's sadly a human trait that people cannot always be trusted to perform in a responsible manner, and I dare say hence the use of the word, 'regulate' in the amendment itself.