Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

We can't.

a reply to: superman2012

That is how I see it.
I would have the same reaction if the govt wanted to change who got a jury trial or who needed warrants to search a home.

I think the limits on govt power that were established, were done so with specific examples in mind. Things that were done in England at the time, or in the colonies at the time that the founders did not agree with.

I do think the founders intended for the general population to be armed(if they chose to be) as the ultimate check to a tyrannical govt. They had firsthand knowledge of what the govt could do to an average citizen in England, and they wanted lives less constricted by govt.

Bad post. Error.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: stosh64

My guess is that they'l be coming after any semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine.

I can easily see them banning sales of such weapons.

What I can't see them doing easily is making the ownership of such weapons illegal because that would amount to a "taking without compensation" unless there's a federal buy back of such weapons. Which.....they might just do!

This may mean saying goodbye to semi-automatic handguns like the Glocks and 1911's as well as all the AR 15 types.....anything that's semi-auto and accepts a detachable magazine. That's what they're trying to do in California.

The wannabe dictator AG in Massachusetts has already attempted to ban semi-auto's.

I expect this to be tried at a Federal level in the near future.

This experiment in freedom was nice while it lasted.

Unless the tree of liberty is again refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

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

I am afraid the surfs have been too brainwashed to be capable of that refreshment.

They will walk willingly into their captivity.

You can already see it in the Blind acceptance of corruption.

a reply to: uncommitted

Sadly if history doesn't fail me, we are due to another population rebellion regardless of what the reasons maybe, and gun control and second amendments infringes will due just fine as a motivator.

Remember is not only those that are defending constitutional rights, but the ones behind the scenes that are waiting with all the money to spend in creating chaos if American goes into a full blown rebellion.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: EternalShadow
If it really were to oppose a tyrannical government, what chance do you think the public has against a trained army?
I believe that people use that wording as an excuse. If they started going door to door collecting weapons, who is going to say no when they have a group of soldiers in front of them and their family behind them?

The Rambo mentality will not last in the face of reality. The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.

My God, you sound just like the opposition to breaking away from King George.

History really does repeat itself. Wow.

When are people going to address the post instead of the poster? My God, that is a major reason I don't participate in many of these threads.
You do know what weapons they had in the revolutionary war, right? And that we are living now, not then?

It seems like you're implying that most Americans are cowardly knee benders. I personally take offense to that notion considering how most Americans are good people who WANT to do good things for their families and others. It's the corrupt policies and agendas of the few that's causing so much division and turmoil in our lives. Then this chick and others like her want the People to turn over their rights?? For what? A failed economy and government hand outs? More wars overseas and quite possibly here? A judicial system that's a complete mockery of justice? A failing infrastructure no one is addressing? A laughable educational system? Shall I go on????

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: marg6043

And there you go, leaping from 'reasonable regulation' to total gun ban. That to me is what this really comes down to, utter paranoia.

That's correct.

Many, if not most, of the people that claim to support the 2nd amendment make the rest of us pro-2nd supporters look like nuts with their paranoid rantings about gun confiscation and such. There is no way the state could build up the resources and manpower needed to do such a thing. It's completely ridiculous to think that they could.

As far as regulations, the SCOTUS has already upheld that states can regulate firearms as long as those regulations are equally applied throughout the state.

The "shall not infringe" people need to get a grip on reality. They are a bigger threat to our 2nd amendment right than anyone else.

a reply to: DAVID64


Sorry.....

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: uncommitted

Sadly if history doesn't fail me, we are due to another population rebellion regardless of what the reasons maybe, and gun control and second amendments infringes will due just fine as a motivator.

Remember is not only those that are defending constitutional rights, but the ones behind the scenes that are waiting with all the money to spend in creating chaos if American goes into a full blown rebellion.

We are not going to have a full blown rebellion in this country. The people are not going to rise up and take to the streets with firearms.

Even those that are armed to the teeth and fantasize about rebelling to fight tyranny are not going to get off their lazy asses to start a rebellion.

That idea is a fairy tale. It's fantasy.

Our Government was created with the belief that the people will hold the ultimate power over the government. If and when they decide that the government have become so corrupt and tyrannical that they could try to overthrow it. The 2nd ensures that they have at least a fighting chance.

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

- Thomas Jefferson

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

Okay let's take a look at the wording:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

Amendments can be repealed. It has happened before...

The problem is they are not trying to Lawfully repeal it.

They are trying to castrate it with, as another poster stated, a thousand little cuts.

If Hillary gets in she will appoint the next SC Justice, assuring she can further erode the rights of the people.

The Judicial branch has become the activists weapon against the constitution.

Augustus is correct the constitution is to protect the people FROM the government.

Alinsky would be so proud of Hillary perfecting the art of takeover from within.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: uncommitted

Sadly if history doesn't fail me, we are due to another population rebellion regardless of what the reasons maybe, and gun control and second amendments infringes will due just fine as a motivator.

Remember is not only those that are defending constitutional rights, but the ones behind the scenes that are waiting with all the money to spend in creating chaos if American goes into a full blown rebellion.

But you automatically equated 'reasonable regulation' - which would have to go through due process with total gun ban - why is that, why is that always the gut reaction on ATS when there has been nothing of the sort actually ever said?

a reply to: introvert
ON what criteria have you analysed it to KNOW that?
I feel you are JUST guessing as usual.
WE TELL you and you think we are deluded or lying so WHY are you even bothering trying to talk at any one at all?
WE own the guns
WE know their uses expertly and WE have told you that ,TIME and TIME again.
WE don't expect much civilian support at all.
IF THE MILITARY backs it, it's done,if they don't WE get it.
I'll bet MY life on it and have before ,no big deal,it's my country it's worth it.



ISN'T IT TO YOU?

a reply to: marg6043

Sadly if history doesn't fail me, we are due to another population rebellion regardless of what the reasons maybe, and gun control and second amendments infringes will due just fine as a motivator. Remember is not only those that are defending constitutional rights, but the ones behind the scenes that are waiting with all the money to spend in creating chaos if American goes into a full blown rebellion.

You're absolutely correct because the cultural divide between Red and Blue is too broad and deep to bridge, much less unite. The only solution to thwarting a full blown rebellion is to break this thing up. It's too fractured to maintain.

a reply to: superman2012

That's a big part of what I don't understand. Something needs to change, but no one wants change.

The change that needs to happen is the LAWS already on the books need to be enforced with extreme prejudice.


If you are not going to enforce the laws on the books, then don’t start talking about implementing new laws.

a reply to: introvert

Never say never, people in this country are feed up with government, social issues, inequality, racism, prejudice and many other manufactured and none manufactured issues to stay sitting calm at home if the opportunity arise.

a reply to: uncommitted

And that was the point to be and begin with, in my post of who wants to ban guns in America, politicians are all talk but they approach gun ban or gun control with extreme care.

a reply to: stosh64


Let's run with her logic now.

So gun sellers and makers are responsible? Awesome.

Now other countries can sue the crap, out of the USA and weapons manufacturers, for illegal wars, military actions and more. Or does this just apply to people here in the USA?

I can see it now Iraq family wins 1 trillion dollar lawsuit for family members loss, due to irresponsible gun ownership.

I'm getting a bad feeling if this woman gets into office.

originally posted by: uncommitted
The constitution presupposed no such thing, and no right is inalienable. All amendments seem to be to further define what the authors of the constitution actually meant - usually when someone wants to expand or in some way change the only available definition to meet their own needs.

It most certainly does and you have a very poor grasp of what the Constitution's intentions are. It is a document limiting the power of government, not the private citizen. It clearly describes what the government cannot do and does not list anywhere what the private citizen can or cannot do.

Madison, a Jeffersonian Democrat, clearly understood the importance of placing serious limitations on the government's ability to curtail the rights of the private citizen.

a reply to: TonyS

You know is fascinating how society works, in the land of the free, even when we are divided when it comes to certain issues politically due to party lines, when it comes to rights and constitutional issues most Americans stands behind the constitution, over the desires or laws of politicians that comes and go, the constitution has always been there.

Most Americans want it to stay the same.