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

I am willing to entertain the notion of targeted specifically written bills for gun control..

That said, anytime a politician of any stripe starts saying any part of the bill of rights doesnt really apply any more scares me to the core.

If she really did say/mean this every american in the country should be terrified at what is coming, we all know the 4th has been under assault for decades now, now we have a potential president that just wants to dismiss the second... whats next?

The first? maybe just the peacefully assemble part.. whether you agree or disagree with gun rights should have no play in this, a major politicians just dismissed a right guaranteed by the constitution... she should be getting blasted for it on every major news network, just like every major news network should be blasting DC for the assault on the 4th.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well in our country at one point private citizens owned artillery as well as war ships so...
As a matter of fact our countries Navy was born from civilian ships so I would figure they intended arms of the day to be available to all who could afford them. The problem isn't the arms but rather the decay of morality and conscience in society. You see those guys back then didn't ever start problems when it wasn't a big deal and if they did the majority which also had access to the same arms would crush them. The system used to work fine until we forgot ourselves.

a reply to: Realtruth

Wha? "Living a lie?" Uh, no I don't feel that I'm "living a lie." My opinion about the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. I'm also confident enough in my own ability to reason that I don't defer to the SCOTUS justices to tell me what I should believe. Note, this isn't the same as saying I don't respect their role or their authority.

Do you imagine that the SCOTUS is always right?

What do you have to say about the use of the phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Articles of Confederation and how it should properly inform any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment... or do you have no opinion of your own?

a reply to: Metallicus

You didn't address ANY of my questions.

Where is the line drawn?

WHO gets to draw that line?

Please, feel free to answer the questions.

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

History is not always an indicator of the future. It would be extremely hard to use a pistol to trade up to a unmanned drone.

originally posted by: Realtruth
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.

This is just another politician looking for voters and trying to up the ante on Sanders with the far left voters of NYC, Chicago, LA and the like. Pay no attention to promises made by Hillary, Bernie, or the Trumpet. Congress runs the roost which is why the GOP and the Koch Bros are putting effort and money into those reelections.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Metallicus

You didn't address ANY of my questions.

Where is the line drawn?

WHO gets to draw that line?

Please, feel free to answer the questions.

Hasn't the "line" been defined already by the Constitution?

Why does the "line" need to be redrawn?

That's fine, she can keep driving voters to Trump. Maybe that's her plan, bucking for a Trump pardon.

a reply to: Sremmos80
Why I'm against abortion? Because there are condoms, birth control pills and morning after pills (Plan B). Condoms alone have only a 2% chance of failure and birth control pills 1 to 6% chance. Used together there is almost no chance of pregnancy. .02 times .06 gives us .0012 or .12% chance of failure at the highest possibility (it would be closer to .02% chance actually).

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Realtruth

Wha? "Living a lie?" Uh, no I don't feel that I'm "living a lie." My opinion about the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. I'm also confident enough in my own ability to reason that I don't defer to the SCOTUS justices to tell me what I should believe. Note, this isn't the same as saying I don't respect their role or their authority.

I was actually being sarcastic in that post, but the thread is about Hillary saying the SC is wrong, so I assumed you were keeping in line with my original post, and staying on topic.

And yes the 1st amendment allows us freedom of speech a wonderful thing, but when it comes down to it a landmark decision by the Supreme Court is law, and must be enforced and obeyed after the decision. When the decision changes by way of reason, logic, and clearly presented facts, then that new decision will become law.

Hillary Clinton shows very little signs of logic, reason, or wisdom, much like 99% of the other candidates running for office.

People need to stop buying into the political red herrings. It's not about "Guns" it's about a total breakdown in our society, if people were content, happy, and doing well in their lives we wouldn't need to worry about gun issues.

Criminals, and people in a desperate mindset don't give a crap about laws, who's going to carry them out, and those that enforce them. How do I know this? I spent a number of years in law enforcement.

The solutions to mass shootings is not more or less laws, more or less punishments, more or less guns, bigger or smaller guns, but rather a sober and truthful look at why it's happening. The gun issues is already written into the 2nd amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Most people live in a plastic world made up of temporary comfort, and a paycheck or two away from homelessness. Our politicians live in a permanent world of comfort, and financial security supported by us the tax payers, and large lobbyists.

The vast majority of us have absolutely nothing in common with any of the candidates running, but yet many will defend to the death their political parties and choices.

We are delusional at best, but delusions are normal when enough people believe it so.

There certainly is no hidden agenda.
The Democrats want guns out of the public hands period.
There will be more and more mass shootings until they get what they want.
Except for the criminals who won't give up their guns.
There's precious little left of this country or it's founding ideals.
I can hardly believe we've gotten to this point of lunacy.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

How would they do it?

How could they do it?

How could they remove all the personal firearms in the country?

They'd have to turn the US into a police-state.

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.

Washington couldnt pay for the army during the revolution and knew there was no way to pay for one following. Considering the weaponry used for 18th century warfare is the same used for survival on the frontier it killed two birds with one stone.

Militia and its role are never defined in the constitution aside from the second admendment and under powers of the president. This allows for the militia laws in 1792. States can call up the militia but command transfers to the president of the united states. In fact the 1792 provision forces every citizen between ages 18 and 52 to maintain a musket, powderhorn, and 24 rounds of ammunition should the militia be called up. That said the war of 1812 showed how militia cannot be relied upon for defense. Madison, one of the writers of the federalist papers, as president came to understand this fact.

Up through the 19th century you have an increase in military training and spending through the civil war. 1903 the concept of militia is federalized with the creation of the national guard. The federal goverment took control of supplies for the militia making the original intent of the 2nd admendment a dead article.

Now there is more historical precedent that needs to be considered. 2010 supreme court ruled federal law cannot prevent maintaining a handgun in the homefor defense. Fact they limited the decision to just federal law as of right now means that handguns are subject to being a states right case. Handguns rifles and shotguns have a historical place within society. Assault rifles and military grade weapons are another aspect all together. Due to the fact that they are designed for warfare, they would fall under federal control.

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

As if I needed another reason to despise this evil amoral demoness?

She's ssssoooo much smarter than Jefferson, Franklin, and the other Framers who wrote the damned thing.

She's ssssoooo much smarter then William O. Douglas, John Jay, and other Supremes who have interpreted the Constitution, and actually understand it.

Hillary? From this voter to your little evil pink ears... BITE ME!!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Explosive ammunition
and explosives are not legal to own for a non buisness reason
You can BUY a SCUD but you cant fuel or arm it.
There's your line.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So, if I want biological weapons, nukes, missiles ect ... There should be some kind of open market for them?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why have you chosen to answer/reply to everyone but me? Is my response to much for you to counter or do you just have blinders on?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: DBCowboy

So, if I want biological weapons, nukes, missiles ect ... There should be some kind of open market for them?

There is an open market.

Governments and NGOs buy and sell all kinds of weapons to each other and to para-military groups like Al-Qada and ISIS.

a reply to: xuenchen

If anything the type of arms being discussed shouldn't be in anyone's hands as it has been shown to be abused by all parties including our own government.

a reply to: RickyD

The Human Race inhabits a wicked world.