Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

originally posted by: uncommitted
Go on then, tell me why you think the original 2nd presupposed all of the other additions that have been piled on it.

Simple. The 'shall not be infringed' part.

You seem to be stating that everything written in the original constitution is still absolutely valid and unchanged...

It is valid and unchanged unless it is amended. Laws that are passed must be found Constitutional because they are held against that document to determine if they are violating the intent of the Constitution.

a reply to: marg6043

Really, introvert, really, so you think that most people in this nation are all against guns, against chaos, rebellion, pro government and anti constitutional rights? and is never forces behind the scenes creating situations so they can cash on mayhem.

I think that every American has their own opinion on the issues and no one is in a position to speak for Americans as a whole. Not everyone believes as you do. Not everyone thinks as you do.

You are projecting your beliefs on to the rest of us because you want it to be true.

Since it is already decided legally then all of this is MUTE.
WE keep them.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

I back him...
MORE back me than JUST you.
AKA .....pluralty

Nonsense.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Klassified

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.

There is a growing number of police officers and military men/women who have said they will not confiscate guns from Americans. So there's going to be a division there as well. I think you underestimate our cops and soldiers.

You mean the people that swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from foreign and domestic threats? And ACTUALLY meant it?

Yep. That would be them. I live in a town with some of those folks.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Do you have a point?

You are reinforcing my assertion that those that call for rebellion and such are a bit off.

You mean just like the founding fathers that drafted the constitution?

Yea they were "off" weren't they? lol

The two are not comparable. Those that call for rebellion today live in a delusional world in which they believe the world is out to get them and tyranny is but a moment away. They hope and dream for a reason to use their firearms beyond their firing range.

They make us all look nuts.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Amazing how so few people seem to remember there is a tenth amendment, much less what it does.

a reply to: introvert

NOPE even if he and I were the ONLY ones ..pluralty ,so he can say WE..in this regard.

SOLIDARNOST!

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Amazing how so few people seem to remember there is a tenth amendment, much less what it does.

I just realized I am debating that point with someone who is not from the United States so I will generously assume they were unaware of this very critical aspect of the document.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: stosh64

This bodes well with my personal philosophy that the US government and the muppets groomed to do its bidding, are actively involved in a long-term propaganda war to deconstruct the Constitution.

A situation that I refer to as "Death by a thousand cuts".

Agreed. I just wish my fellow American's could see it as clearly as someone "down under" does.

Most don't. They think of it only in terms of getting more "rights," but what's really going on is that laws are being passed that slowly curtail everyone's freedoms, even theirs, although what they see are the short terms advantages they think they are gaining at someone else's expense.

a reply to: Shamrock6

And a 9th ...

a reply to: introvert

At my age I tend to see society and social issues from a bench as I been there and done most of what is to be done, my friend.

Life is no what it seems we make what we want.

Now is time for me to seat back and watch the show.

And no, Is not what I want really but most of the time is what I observe. And introvert I can spot, disdain, immaturity, youth and certain bit of innocent when it comes to social issues and reality view by others.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: marg6043

Really, introvert, really, so you think that most people in this nation are all against guns, against chaos, rebellion, pro government and anti constitutional rights? and is never forces behind the scenes creating situations so they can cash on mayhem.

I think that every American has their own opinion on the issues and no one is in a position to speak for Americans as a whole. Not everyone believes as you do. Not everyone thinks as you do.

You are projecting your beliefs on to the rest of us because you want it to be true.

NO interpretation is need in READING the Bill of Right.

It was laid out rather simply.

So easy even a CLINTON can read it.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert

At my age I tend to see society and social issues from a bench as I been there and done most of what is to be done, my friend.

Life is no what it seems we make what we want.

Now is time for me to seat back and watch the show.

And no, Is not what I want really but most of the time is what I observe. And introvert I can spot, disdain, immaturity, youth and certain bit of innocent when it comes to social issues and reality view by others.

I'm unsure of your point.

a reply to: neo96

Sometimes you have to address certain issue like you do with a child, I guess my training as teacher help. yes some people want to debate what is already on paper and has been since this nation became one.

Is a reason why politicians are all talk but no action specially when it comes to changing constitutional rights.

Then you wonder who is really living in a fantasy world.

I remember that our constitution is part of the curriculum as early as the 4th grade.

Yes.... at least the preamble.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: marg6043

Really, introvert, really, so you think that most people in this nation are all against guns, against chaos, rebellion, pro government and anti constitutional rights? and is never forces behind the scenes creating situations so they can cash on mayhem.

I think that every American has their own opinion on the issues and no one is in a position to speak for Americans as a whole. Not everyone believes as you do. Not everyone thinks as you do.

You are projecting your beliefs on to the rest of us because you want it to be true.

NO interpretation is need in READING the Bill of Right.

It was laid out rather simply.

So easy even a CLINTON can read it.

You say that, yet you cannot read and understand the SCOTUS rulings on this issue that says the states are within their right to regulate the 2nd amendment to an extent as long as they are equally applied.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There's a reason "constitutional scholar" is an actual thing. The problem comes in when somebody reads an article on huffpo, or conversely an article on 3%'ers R' us and decides they're suddenly a constitutional scholar because a six minute read is enough.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert


I'm unsure of your point.

Sadly that is the whole problem since you been addressing my post, my friend.

a reply to: introvert

No they aren't.

NOT when it comes into direct conflict in the Bill of RIGHTS.

There is not just the second at play, but almost the entire BILL of RIGHTS.

Extending to the 14th.

The SCOTUS,YOU, and CLINTON

ALL have it wrong.

That paper can NOT be any clearer.

Give gun owners their days courts of LAW, and their crimes be PROVEN beyond ALL reasonable doubt.

Lets look at this realistically.

What ever decrees Hillery puts into place will just be laughed at.

She, like all other freedom-hating communists will ultimately fail.