Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Clinton Says That the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms


Allegiance

Recommended Posts

Clinton Says That the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

 

 

A recent CNN/ORC International Poll found that 57-percent of Americans do not find Hillary Clinton honest or trustworthy. If there are figures in American public life with a stronger disregard for the rights of the American people, they have yet to come to our attention.

 

Obviously, Clinton is referring to the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The central conclusion in Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The McDonald decision made clear that this right is fundamental and applies to all Americans.

 

When Clinton said, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, she was making clear her opposition to our individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense; to her, governments at every level can strip us of this right without restriction.

 

It is hard to overstate the extremism of Clintons position on the Second Amendment. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision, asked those surveyed, Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns? The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members.

 

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership? 78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were found to be in favor.

 

And in May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing individual gun ownership to 21-percent answering only citizen-militias.

 

A professional politician like Clinton is almost certainly aware of the publics views on this matter, which is likely the reason shes gone to great lengths to hide her most extreme positions on the subject. To be sure, Clinton has publicly advocated for all manner of gun control; including gun owner licensing, taxation, and bans on popular firearms. However, with Clintons latest comments, the discussion has moved degrees of legally permissible controls. Clinton has made clear that she does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects your individual right to have a firearm at all.

 

During her previous run for president, at the April 16, 2008 Democratic debate held in Philadelphia, Clinton made sure to feign some respect for the Second Amendment. Clinton stated, I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, adding, we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right When later asked whether she supported D.C.s total ban on handguns, she staked out a similar position, noting, What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms. Moreover, Clintons 2008 campaign broke new ground in hypocrisy when they attempted to paint her opponent, Barack Obama, as the more radical anti-gun candidate. A Clinton campaign mailer criticized Obama for telling people he was for the 2nd Amendment, in order to get votes. Sounds familiar.

 

More recently, at an August appearance in Iowa, Clinton called to balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures. Of course, there can no balancing of a right with an individual that does not even recognize that rights existence.

 

The importance of Clintons extreme views cannot be overstated. The next president could be responsible for nominating one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to the dissents issued in the Heller and McDonald decisions, we know that not all of the current justices view the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as a matter of settled law. According to an item published in the Wall Street Journal, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted that a future, wiser Court could overturn Heller. If Clinton were president, there can be little doubt that she would choose to nominate those who share her false interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

America deserves a president that holds a genuine respect for the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. It is never too early to learn how to help make this a reality. To find out what you, your family, and your friends can do to help, please visit https://www.nraila.org/take-action/, or call 1-800-392- VOTE (8683).

Link to comment

Just one more example why we can never relax our efforts. As was said many years ago, the price of liberty is ETERNAL vigilance.

 

There will always be someone with designs on taking away our freedom...Obama and Clinton are just two in a long line of such politicians!

Link to comment

Howdy,

Its called the 'Bill Of Rights', not the 'list of things to be changed whichever way the political wind blows'.

Best

CR

 

Yep,. SCOTUS took the Blll of Rights off the table in 1943:

 

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

Link to comment

And is there anyone here who thinks that Hillary considers the Constitution is a binding document??

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

And is there anyone here who thinks that Hillary considers the Constitution is a binding document??

Only if there was a poll taken that said it was. And then only in her next speech. If you want to know where Hillary stands publicly on anything, just look at whatever the latest poll says. Can someone please take a pool to see how many people would like her to permanently fade away. I wonder what would happen then? What do they call that? A paradox maybe? Would it destroy the universe?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.