Airforceone

Trump lied again it seems like everytime he opens his mouth he is lying. He now incites violence against Clinton only because of one reason he is getting his butt kicked for his stupidity. All Trump had to do is go home with his trophy wife and shut his mouth and he would have beaten Clinton. But low information voters on the right need to be reminded of the truth.

So the fraud/scam artist/ leader of republicans makes a statement (CLINTON WANTS TO ABOLISH THE SECOND AMENDMENT)
What a GD lie

I try real hard to understand your ideology of hate and racism, I try to respect your ideology but it's difficult when Trump Garbage is acceptable by you people. Everyone of you know exactly what that piece of garbage meant.

I have asked time and time again for one of you low information voters to give me one piece of legislation sponsored by the left that takes away the right of a responsible citizen in this country the right to own a gun. For two years now I have yet to get that answer. So again I will post exactly what Clintons agenda on gun ownership in this country.

1) Universal background checks 80% of this country agrees
2) Prevent Terrorest from owning a gun. Almost 100% of this country agrees.
3) Install an assault weapons, and military style weapons ban.

That's her agenda and we have Trump inciting violence.

moldyoldy

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

They are not smart enough to know the difference nor do they care. Ya just can't fix or teach stupid.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Hillary Clinton Outlines Plan to Abolish the Second Amendment

During the June 5 airing of This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton outlined her plan to abolish the Second Amendment.

Hillary Clinton first disavowed that she is seeking to abolish the Second Amendment then went on to list five Second Amendment-crippling gun controls she plans to implement if elected in November.

Clinton said:

I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the “gun show loophole,” closing the “online loophole,” closing the so-called “Charleston loophole,” reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers.

The crippling effect of these gun controls is already evidenced in states like California, where comprehensive background checks — i.e., universal background checks — have been paired with gun registration and even confiscation laws. The latest California gun control to emerge from universal background checks is the push to implement background checks for ammunition purchasers — and Clinton supports the ammunition background checks.

Her push to reverse the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is all about enabling crime victims to sue gun makers and gun sellers for crimes committed with lawfully made and lawfully purchased firearms. Once the door to such suits is opened, it will not be long until America’s gun industry simply disappears. And as The Hill reported, this is why Bernie Sanders says Clinton’s gun control is all about “ending gun manufacturing in America.”

It is also important to understand what Clinton is actually proposing when she talks about closing the “Charleston loophole.” This is about expanding instant background checks to indefinite background checks. It means Americans in every state would begin to experience the kinds of waiting periods that residents in New Jersey currently experience.

And here is how such waiting periods work out in reality: On June 3, 2015, New Jersey resident Carol Bowne was stabbed to death by a former boyfriend while waiting for state’s permission to own a gun for self-defense. She had applied for the license to own a handgun on April 21, and over a month later, she was still waiting for New Jersey to say yes or no. She was killed while waiting.

So Clinton is pushing these gun controls — all of which are demonstrable crippling to the Second Amendment — yet she says she does not want to abolish the Second Amendment.




"Liberty lies in the hands of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. No law, no court, no constitution can even do much to help it. While liberty lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." --Judge Learned Hand, 1961

bilordinary Loc: SW Washington

If that was such a hard and fast rule we surely wouldn't be burdened with ObamaCare.
If you can't get what you want just change the rules. (nuclear option)
Even with that Obama had to sign a paper promising no funding for abortions,
everyone knew he was lying just to get the bill passed, only needed one vote
from the Michigan turncoat.
Wise up, they do what they feel like, not what we want.

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Hey turd STFU find definition of infringed see if you can understand. And armed means I can have any weapon that the U.S. has. The arms are not for hunting or plinking they are for defense against tranny. And trump never incited violence. Now pack a bag and move to Cuba it is gun free. Man or there any more idiots like you in our country. You if so take them with you

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Good for Hillary.

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Evidently you can teach stupid to stupid people you caught on right away. But dick head you are still a moron and how about your home address.

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Keep drinking the cool aide. You are being duped.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

`

Kenjay we have a cell with your name on it at one of the FEMA camps.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

What is yours?

PeterS

Conservative men measure the size of their dicks by how many bullets they can fire in a minute. To threaten to take away their semi auto is a direct threat on their manhood--even though it would solve 99% of the problems we have with mass shootings in this country. They don't understand that real men could just as easy defend themselves with bolt actions and revolvers. No, without the semi auto you might as well cut their dicks off and cook them in a stew...

PeterS

Ah, so gun control kills. Man you guys don't miss a beat. I thought the purpose of the second amendment was so we could form a well regulated militia to protect the free state. Wasn't that why the right to bear arms was not to be infringed? Maybe there is another amendment that says we have a right to bear arms in a timely manor for our own protection. Which amendment is that one Blade. Is that the one Hillary is trying to cripple?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You thought wrong. Way wrong. No surprise there. Always entertaining how thoroughly you can butcher the meaning and intent of 2nd amendment to fit YOUR anti-gun agenda. Last I checked the 2nd amendment clearly states that "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. 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.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."


I just finished reloading 1000 rounds of 5.56x45 ammo for my SEMI-AUTOMATIC AR 15. By your fallacious logic, I have one humongous dick.

Now tell us, genius, how taking away our semi-auto WEAPONS and allowing us only bolt action rifles and revolvers is going to reduce mass shootings by 99%. That is one of the most absurd propositions I've ever heard. The bad guys are arming up with whatever the f*ck they can get their hands on EXCEPT bolt action rifles and you think the law-abiding among us should go back to the days of Wyatt Freaking Earp.

Semi-auto firearms are not going away no matter how many laws are passed to restrict or ban them. In case you were unaware, such firearms are manufactured in countries all over the world, America does not have a monopoly on making semi-autos. So, apart from the gun smuggling and gun running into the US that occurs on a daily basis, Obamanation has greatly facilitated this with his open border policy. And, we Americans are supposed to prepare for possible violence with a six-shooter and a five shot bolt gun?

BTW: Less than 1% of all shootings, mass or otherwise, are committed with rifles OF ALL TYPES. The Sandy Hook, San Bernardino and Orlando shootings hardly made a tick on the overall statistics for firearm violence.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia