Hillary Clinton Believes the Second Amendment Can Be Infringed


#1

This just about made me puke. Hillary Clinton, the spawn of Satan, at her worst.


#2

HRC stated: I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.

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.”

I guess the wild Hildebeast is struggling with the “shall not be infringed” piece of the 2nd Amendment.


#3

She hears the Charlie Brown teacher when asked a question, then spews her agenda and ignores the question because she feels she is right and above us peasants, just like when Hitler’s gun control program went into effect and about two years later when everyone was unable to protect themselves they were loaded into boxcars.


#4

Wow - she literally says “if” the Second Amendment is a right, then like all rights they can be regulated. Is that like having just a little bit of freedom? Only as much freedom as Hellary is willing to give?


#5

American citizens are being pushed, little by little with stories like this, to possible armed revolt sometime in the future. I hold this opinion because we see a constant stream of conspiracies that go unchallenged, the busting of and disregard for the constitution by policymakers and more. If Donald Trump gets elected and makes some serious inroads into this across the board corruption, perhaps it can be avoided.


#6

This is exactly why we need comprehensive gun control and a registration / tracking system for all limited individuals that are permitted to own a firearm legally.


#7

@FiredUpDem

Amazing. So your answer to the government creating more and more barriers to freedom and more and more discourse between citizens with programs and propaganda that divides and angers is to neuter the citizen…

Look, we haven’t had any conversations before and I am sure you have heard all the standard argument before like… knifes kill more people than rifles… no statistics on how many crimes are prevented by someone with a gun… more people on average are killed by serial killers than those who commit mass shootings… Almost all of the mass shootings have been perpetrated by people on or having taken themselves off of anti-psychotic drugs, etc. etc, etc. … and you still want to blame the gun. Reason isn’t a good approach to work with you on this problem as past experience has taught me the ‘logical liberal’ is an oxymoron.

I will bring it down to the elementary and we can work from there. The second amendment was put in place for a reason… for the ability of the citizenry to defend itself; not just against raging bears, not just foreign enemies, not just robbers of jewelry but to defend themselves period. The declaration of independence makes clear that a people have the right to deal with a government if the government no longer serves the people. Now some people would stay in their campest voice… “That is sooo 1700’s!” I say that it is no less true today as it was then.

Whereas progressives seem to believe that all evil exists in the minds and hearts of civilians and corporate CEO’s, I happen to believe that evil seeks any kind of power that is available and governance is right near the top… or if I were even the slightest bit the conspiracy type… they would seek to be the people who control the people who govern. I do not trust the government particularly when it is filled with professional career politicians; people who by the nature of their reason for being in Washington care much more about themselves than they do you or even their country.

Solve this problem… how do you allow the government to regulate firearms and still have an effective second amendment? How do you, with aftermarket legislation or a Supreme Court edict (not a proper amendment), get around the contract words… “Shall not be infringed” and still believe in the rule of law?


#8

Uh, scott, you forgot that Lincoln killed off that line of thought. We no longer retain the natural right of succession, remember?


#9

It’s my hope that Hillary truly goes after all of the lunatics (we can see some of them here) who cling to their guns and claim a right to ownership - which is completely moot because I don’t see most of these “lawful gun owners” serving in the militia. I hope Hillary orders the military to seize all weapons by force in this country if necessary.


#10

We get it. You don’t like the big scary guns. But I’d really like to know – how do you propose seizing them from the estimated 80 million gun owners in the USA? Do you think you’ll just pass a law and everyone will willingly hand them in? Of course not.

Know what that means? You’re going to have to send other guys with guns to take the guns. What happens when the first gun owner decides to forcibly resist? What happens when 5 of his buddies rally to his side? What happens when their friends, and their friends friends do the same?

Civil war. That’s what happens. Maybe that’s what you want. And let me tell you that’d be about the worst possible outcome – for YOU. In an instant every one of you gun-hating leftist cucks becomes a target. You have no means of defense and you’re the first demographic that gets wiped out. Why? Because you’re the instigators and you will be eliminated.

“But, but, the military will come in and…”

The military won’t do jack squat. The military will fall apart…bottom line. You think because Obama appointed a few token generals to further his agenda that the military is on YOUR side? Our soldiers, the people who actually have their boots on the ground and are out pulling triggers in defense of this nation DESPISE you. You who ostracize and lambast them at every opportunity suddenly think they’re going to take up arms to defend your pansy asses? Hah! They’ll go AWOL faster than a fart in the wind, and most likely join up with and lead their fellow patriots. So now you’ve got millions of pissed off gun owners being trained and led by millions of others with experience in every form of warfare since Vietnam – and they’re all gunning for YOU.

But let’s entertain that asinine notion for a bit. Let’s say some of the military would follow such an absurd government directive. How are they going to do it? Have you actually considered the logistics of trying to quell even a million armed people, let alone the potential TENS of millions you’d have to eliminate?

Precision strikes won’t do it. There’s too many of us. FFS just look at Hitler. He couldn’t exterminate a group of people that didn’t even have the ability to fight back because there was just too many of them!

And what happens when they drone the wrong house or building? They’ve just generated more enemies. So are they going to raze entire cities and residential neighborhoods with WMDs, incurring even MORE collateral damages? What the hell would be left for them to govern?

15 years and we’re still chasing people through caves in a sandbox, and you think the military would stand a chance against millions upon millions of armed citizenry? Keep hitting that pipe. If civil war breaks out in this country it’s over. It’s over for the leftist mentality. It’s over for the government. It’s over for the USA. This country and its military will fracture 10 fold, and none of you libs would even be here to see it.

I’m ready. I know how to live without the government being my nanny. Are you? If you think so, then by all means – come and take the guns.

Let’s see who comes out on top.


#11

I’m not going to really bother reading your post since it seems the entire premise is just some excuse for you to roleplay some kind of revolution and all the cool stuff you will do fighting the evil government.

Let me tell you that unlike your stupid action hero movies depict, fighting a revolution is hard. I doubt that you will even find 1% of the country willing to do it.


#12

Guys, it’s not even about civil war or revolution.
it’s just for protection against anarchy. Anarchy can happen anywhere at any time.

I lived through Katrina in a poor neighborhood. The power was out for 19 days. My neighbors stayed with us because their house was looted while they were in the shelter and they had nothing left. We were safe at night until somebody poisoned our dogs, then we had to sleep in shifts. We had guns and we sat out in the yard with them so everybody knew. We had a bonfire going for like 2 weeks straight just to burn all the debris in the streets. It was actually pretty fun in retrospect, like a really long camping trip.

BUT without those guns it would have been terrifying. The police aren’t worth a damn, liberals have no right to take away our self defense just because you’re sheltered. You either have no idea what its like in the real world or you just hate poor people.


#13

Hell, Rick… when have you stopped ranting about the oppressive effects of the 1%… and they aren’t even shooting at you. Besides 1% represents 3.5 millions people which is about 2.5 times the number of all military and police and if you don’t think 3.5 million people running around pressing their point at the end of a barrel won’t turn life in the US up side down and create total dysfunction at all levels of government including the issuance of your precious social security check… you are wrong.


#14

@Rick don’t let them phase you. You are correct. Obviously a comprehensive gun control initiative won’t be able to take every single gun away from these wackos. But it will halt guns ownership from there on out. Eventually these 2nd amendment gun nuts will die off.

All of you do realize we would be a lot safer if no one had assault rifles, right?


#15

@FiredUpDem weren’t you a Bernie supporter? Now all of a sudden you are backing a paid Hillary shill? Typical weak liberal. I was glad to see that some Bernie supporters were going to be using firearms appropriately. You should join them.


#16

You never answered some rather direct questions so I assume that either 1. you have no answers to the preservation of the intent of the 2nd amendment or 2. Your real argument is absolute disarmament of the citizen in the guise of “reasonable regulation”…

By the way… safer from who?


#17

Look - I am against personal attacks on this board…but I have to ask…are you slow?

Guns are an absolute necessity to our Constitutional democracy. It’s not just about ones ability to overthrow the government but to preserve freedoms guaranteed by this document. If one freedom gets stripped that sets more precedent for the removal of more rights.

People want to enforce that “addition” to the constitution without using the mechanic intended for a constitutional change. They want to bypass the amendment process because they know there is not enough support for it. So what they would rather do is use the illegally expanded powers of one branch of government to put the rights of the people in the trash.


#18

“In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.”

I saw a picture of rick on wiki when I looked this up.


#20

As Patriot said above… personal attacks really aren’t on but it might be good if you would care to summarize those things that make him in specific and so many others in general… useful idiots. :smiling_imp:
Thanks
Scott


#21

To be kind Scott, let’s just say, a parrot couldn’t hold a candle to our boy rick when it comes to reciting leftest dogma. Maduro, Chavez, Castro, Mao, Stalin, and even Bernie are to the right of our boy rick. One useful,idiot.

Nothing personal of course, just speaking from experience with our boy rick.