Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment

[TurtleDude]

Agreed. That same Justice Stevens also authored an opinion which held that CO2 is a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. As someone who has studied the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and read pored over the Congressional Record reading the debates on the bills that led to them, I know very well that no one debating the question of what was a pollutant was ever thinking of carbon dioxide.

But Justice Stevens made me aware of what the lawmakers should have put in the Clean Air Act, but didn't. He fixed that law to make it the way it should be. Now, I shudder every time I go into a McDonald's and see those machines dispensing that poison gas in soft drinks. All those open cups of Coke, bubbling away! And to think of how we humans are raping Gaia every day, just by exhaling that toxic pollutant! I tell you, our government should do something about it.

We may have lost Stevens, but we gained the Wise Latina. Surely she is one of the most impressive justices ever appointed to the Court, don't you agree? Nothing like that right-wing dope Clarence Thomas, who's too dumb even to ask any questions during oral debates on cases.

I have had over a dozen friends clerk for the supreme court. Breyer, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia,, none for Thomas but none of them think he is a dope

 

[jaeger19]

yet he managed to win the nomination despite the establishment doing everything possible to stop him while Hillary-the self anointed Goddess of the DNC-who had the game rigged in her favor-has yet to wrap it up

which is more a comment about the state of the current Republican party than an indication of "Trump brilliance"

 

[TurtleDude]

which is more a comment about the state of the current Republican party than an indication of "Trump brilliance"

I partially agree with that. I have yet to figure out what the allure of Trump was to real republicans

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Pretty pathetic attempt to make Trump sound like the NRA lie isn't a lie like all his others... :2wave:

But I don't expect much more than that from you. fact is ALL our Constitutional Rights have limits- which was rebutting the OP's claims.

Now I know your elite education leans more to 'noble born' but fact is neither Obama nor Hillary will be King and able to with an airy wave nullify the Constitution.

But nice try... eace

Obama has and so will Hillary. But you keep believing otherwise.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I am a conservative that has no good conservative choices. NONE.

So I have a choice. Vote libertarian as a protest vote.. as I have voted before and hope the crap doesn't hit the fan.

Or vote for the less scary of the two. And right now.. Trump is very very scary.

I don't have the luxury of being a one issue voter.

If you think Trump is scary then do a little research on the Clinton empire. Oh yes, and do a little in-depth research on the Arab Spring and Benghazi remembering Hillary was SOS.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Like it our not, Trump isn't smart enough to know WHO he is putting on the court. Gun banner or not.

Do you really think Trump has the acumen to personally choose a member of the supreme court? Come now.

:wow:

 

[beerftw]

Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment | The Hill

Holy crap on a cracker... Please, PLEASE, click the link above and watch the video as well as read the article. The real scary part to me is not that she dodged the question, but that when asked if the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional Right, she said "If it is, then..." and then she says that "like all other Constitutional Rights, it is subject to reasonable regulations..."

WTF did she just say???

My Constitutional Rights can be regulated? Free speech can be regulated? The Freedom of the Press can be regulated? The Right to a Trial by Jury can be regulated? The Right to Freedom of Religion can be REGULATED?

Has she lost her mind? Or has some yet unrevealed propensity of hers toward actually being a dictator finally come out?

There's more, like that the Second Amendment was nuanced before what she calls, "Scalia's ruling."

Just watch the video. Why the hell didn't the George Stephanopoulos ask a follow-up question about the press' 1st Amendment Rights being regulated according to her? Is he so far down the rabbit hole with the Clintons that he just ignored that obvious attack on our rights?

EDIT: Got the video off of YouTube, but please, still go and read the article in the link above.



I gotta tell you folks... This may be enough to make me vote for... I can't even say it, but... God, I feel sick.

t is fine by me, historically running an anti gun campaign while running for president has been a dealbreaker. It is so much so even obama downplayed how anti gun he was in 2008 and 2012, avoiding saying much more than he supported the awb, but knew running on a heavily anti gun platform would likely cost him the election.

Hillary is clearly not the campaigner obama was, obama knew what people did and did not want to hear, while hillary is good at saying what they don't want to hear.

 

[jet57]

Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment | The Hill

Holy crap on a cracker... Please, PLEASE, click the link above and watch the video as well as read the article. The real scary part to me is not that she dodged the question, but that when asked if the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional Right, she said "If it is, then..." and then she says that "like all other Constitutional Rights, it is subject to reasonable regulations..."

WTF did she just say???

My Constitutional Rights can be regulated? Free speech can be regulated? The Freedom of the Press can be regulated? The Right to a Trial by Jury can be regulated? The Right to Freedom of Religion can be REGULATED?

Has she lost her mind? Or has some yet unrevealed propensity of hers toward actually being a dictator finally come out?

There's more, like that the Second Amendment was nuanced before what she calls, "Scalia's ruling."

Just watch the video. Why the hell didn't the George Stephanopoulos ask a follow-up question about the press' 1st Amendment Rights being regulated according to her? Is he so far down the rabbit hole with the Clintons that he just ignored that obvious attack on our rights?

EDIT: Got the video off of YouTube, but please, still go and read the article in the link above.



I gotta tell you folks... This may be enough to make me vote for... I can't even say it, but... God, I feel sick.

I saw that this morning. The NRA and the gun crowd are in trouble.

Told ya.

 

[matchlight]

I have had over a dozen friends clerk for the supreme court. Breyer, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia,, none for Thomas but none of them think he is a dope

I think he may be the most brilliant justice on the Court. It seems to me that in case after case, his arguments stand out for their clear reasoning. He likes to write concurring opinions, especially, in which he makes innovative proposals for fixing some problem the Court is struggling with. And his proposed solutions make good sense. In McDonald, he concurred with Alito's opinion for the majority, but he argued for using the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause instead of the Due Process Clause in incorporation cases like that one.

In the process, he wrote the most complete, insightful analysis of the Pr&I Clause I've ever seen. He traced the process by which the Court had made the clause into a dead letter early on, in the Slaughter-House Cases, and explained how that led the Court--unfortunately, for reasons he explains--to rely on the Due Process Clause instead to incorporate rights and apply them to the states. What Thomas concludes about the right to keep and bear arms being a basic right protected by the Pr&I Clause is very interesting--I've never seen anyone else talk about that.

Same thing in his concurrence in Elk Grove Unified School Dist., where he made the case (as others had earlier) that the states had wanted the Establishment Clause to prevent the new United States from interfering with their religious establishments. I think six states still had official religions in 1791. By incorporating the clause, Thomas argued, the Court had brought about the very prohibition on religious establishments the states had meant the clause to prevent. Thomas was discussing all this as part of a proposal for how the Court could make some order out of the convoluted mess its Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become.

And in Obergefell, Thomas' dissent gives a brilliant history of what due process has meant historically, going all the way back to the Magna Carta. He takes a civil, academic tone, but it's very clear he does not agree with Anthony Kennedy that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment meant it to guarantee a right for homosexuals to marry each other. In a way that's all the more powerful because it's so scholarly, Thomas exposed Kennedy's substantive due process gobbledygook as a concoction that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I think leftists especially despise Clarence Thomas because he dares to think for himself, instead of being a good big-government Democrat as they like their Negroes to be. For them, he was too uppity to know his place was on Uncle Sam's plantation, helping to cultivate the welfare state. And even worse, Thomas was uppity enough to marry a white woman.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think he may be the most brilliant justice on the Court. It seems to me that in case after case, his arguments stand out for their clear reasoning. He likes to write concurring opinions, especially, in which he makes innovative proposals for fixing some problem the Court is struggling with. And his proposed solutions make good sense. In McDonald, he concurred with Alito's opinion for the majority, but he argued for using the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause instead of the Due Process Clause in incorporation cases like that one.

In the process, he wrote the most complete, insightful analysis of the Pr&I Clause I've ever seen. He traced the process by which the Court had made the clause into a dead letter early on, in the Slaughter-House Cases, and explained how that led the Court--unfortunately, for reasons he explains--to rely on the Due Process Clause instead to incorporate rights and apply them to the states. What Thomas concludes about the right to keep and bear arms being a basic right protected by the Pr&I Clause is very interesting--I've never seen anyone else talk about that.

Same thing in his concurrence in Elk Grove Unified School Dist., where he made the case (as others had earlier) that the states had wanted the Establishment Clause to prevent the new United States from interfering with their religious establishments. I think six states still had official religions in 1791. By incorporating the clause, Thomas argued, the Court had brought about the very prohibition on religious establishments the states had meant the clause to prevent. Thomas was discussing all this as part of a proposal for how the Court could make some order out of the convoluted mess its Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become.

And in Obergefell, Thomas' dissent gives a brilliant history of what due process has meant historically, going all the way back to the Magna Carta. He takes a civil, academic tone, but it's very clear he does not agree with Anthony Kennedy that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment meant it to guarantee a right for homosexuals to marry each other. In a way that's all the more powerful because it's so scholarly, Thomas exposed Kennedy's substantive due process gobbledygook as a concoction that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I think leftists especially despise Clarence Thomas because he dares to think for himself, instead of being a good big-government Democrat as they like their Negroes to be. For them, he was too uppity to know his place was on Uncle Sam's plantation, helping to cultivate the welfare state. And even worse, Thomas was uppity enough to marry a white woman.

agreed, and BTW CT record at Yale Law school was better than either Clinton's

 

[Crimefree]

I saw that this morning. The NRA and the gun crowd are in trouble.

Told ya.

It's an expression of what is the only thing that can remove rights, the peoples idiotic support of that removal. What the law and constitution actually say is immaterial. Apparently this is rocket science to firearm organisations who somehow think the courts or politicians who depend on votes will save the day.

The NRA has been in trouble from the day the NRA decided that or rights were negotiable and need not protect the right of members as sacrosanct. Most other organisations have followed suit leaving a few only to try and oppose gun control.

 

[Crimefree]

Pretty pathetic attempt to make Trump sound like the NRA lie isn't a lie like all his others... :2wave:

To what lie do you refer and if the NRA is a lie whjat about the fact gun contol is based on a complete lie as has been demonstrated many many times.

But I don't expect much more than that from you. fact is ALL our Constitutional Rights have limits- which was rebutting the OP's claims.

Of course they have limits but you as yet have not shown one that meets constitutional muster for the 2nd. It is entirely possible one may not infringe the right to bear and keep arms as it is foolish indeed to to deny the possibility. However up to now nobody has shown that such a limit has been suggested or currently exists. That does not mean it cannot exist.

Now I know your elite education leans more to 'noble born' but fact is neither Obama nor Hillary will be King and able to with an airy wave nullify the Constitution.

But nice try... eace

Well lets stick to known facts and if Hillary is king you can bet that given the public support of current gun control propaganda of background checks and other POPULAR supported interventions shown by polls she will make inroads on curbing those rights.

Are main stream firearm organisations in a position to oppose the pubic support? No they never have been. It is not part of their strategy.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I saw that this morning. The NRA and the gun crowd are in trouble.

Told ya.

That makes no sense.

 

[Southern Dad]

Just So Ya Know: Trumps also believes the same thing, history does not lie, people do.

This is the typical response from the left in here. Not a statement about the issue but rather finding something a Republican said to try and make it look better. Donald J Trump has the endorsement of the NRA. Hillary R Clinton does not for good reason. Here's the question Casper, do you support the 2nd Amendment? If not, vote for Hillary.

 

[matchlight]

agreed, and BTW CT record at Yale Law school was better than either Clinton's

You know Judge Bork taught con law at Yale for years, including the time the Clintons were there. I once read a remark by him that they were enrolled in his class, but that he only remembered seeing them there a couple times all semester. They probably weren't interested in the Constitution. And Obama! Imagine him as an adjunct professor, teaching con law at the University of Chicago. Christ almighty!

 

[Deuce]

Correct, OP. No rights are absolute. Is that controversial?

 

[jaeger19]

If you think Trump is scary then do a little research on the Clinton empire. Oh yes, and do a little in-depth research on the Arab Spring and Benghazi remembering Hillary was SOS.

I have. I have done a lot more than most on the Arab Spring and Benghazi. Honestly.. there is really nothing there. 7-8 probes in over years and all you have is armchair quarterbacking.

At the end of the day.. its not as scary as a President deciding that he is "going to take the oil" and use the military to secure oil that our competitors like China and Russia need. That's how world wars get started.

 

[jaeger19]

I partially agree with that. I have yet to figure out what the allure of Trump was to real republicans

He is the wrong man at the right time. (you can quote me on that).
He
People are fed up with a government that is deadlocked and doesn't work.

People want things to get done.. want their lives to be better and feel more security. They aren't happy with a republican party that worries more about bathrooms than their paychecks.

They are angry at things.. and trump voices that anger.. which makes him popular. He gives them something to blame.. and that makes him popular.

 

[jimbo]

Just So Ya Know: Trumps also believes the same thing, history does not lie, people do.

Trumps current gun positions:

"We're going to cherish the second amendment." (May 7, 2016)

You had hundreds of people, hundreds of people, in those rooms, especially the big dance room. Paris and France have probably the toughest gun laws in the world. We have tough gun laws here some places, and by the way they’re usually the places that have the biggest problems… Out of all those five, six, seven, eight hundred people, there wasn’t one gunman. The only one that had the gun were the thugs, were the stupid people, were the losers. They were the only ones that had the guns… So they killed almost 150 people… They just moved them over. You know what? If I’m in that room and let’s say we have two or five or 40 people with guns, we’re going to do a lot better because there’s going to be a shootout. These people would have been helpless. If they had some guns in that room, they would have been so much better off and it would have been a much, much different result. (Nov, 2015)

 

[jet57]

That makes no sense.

You missed the part where she said "if it is a right".

She doesn't like the gun crowd. She has enough delegates to win the nomination and she's gonna beat Trump.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You missed the part where she said "if it is a right".

She doesn't like the gun crowd. She has enough delegates to win the nomination and she's gonna beat Trump.

Did you not read my first post in this thread? The Original Post? I quoted her saying just that. In fact, that was one of the major issues I had with her statement - that she questioned whether it is a right or not.

I suggest you go back and re-read the OP before commenting any further on what you obviously have no idea about.

 

[jimbo]

as someone else noted, there are few issues that the Lying Bitch has been consistent about over the 24 years that we, the public, have known her. One of those has been a burning hatred of citizens being armed. The Lying Bitch was a key proponent and cheerleader for her husband's gun ban. Members of the administration that she chose (like Janet Reno) were consistently and vigorously anti gun.

she has never ever dialed back her seething hatred of the NRA and us voters who see our second amendment rights as important. Her daughter is braying that the Lying Bitch will appoint justices who will rape the second amendment rights of the citizens.

this is one area where I actually believe the lying Bitch. I really do believe she wants to impose a British style gun confiscation program here in the states

When Billy was elected, Hillary immediately jumped on two issues. Universal health care and gun banning. She totally lost the health care issue and was only able to accomplish a small portion of the gun banning.

Hillary doesn't forget. If she's elected look early on for calls for increased regulation of both.

 

[VanceMack]

"A majority of research supports the hypothesis that increased eye blink rate is a nonverbal cue to deception. Constructing a lie can be very demanding. Liars worry about the possibility of revealing the truth, triggering the fight/flight response. Liars experience a heavy cognitive load, causing less conscious attention to eye blink rate. Research has not identified any one nonverbal or verbal cue to produce a one-hundred percent accuracy rate; however, eye blink rate has been shown to be an effective nonverbal cue to detect deception."

"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013). People tend to blink more rapidly when they become nervous or when they hear or see something unpleasant (Navarro & Schafer, 2001). Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "The eyes of men converse as much as their tongues" (Nelson, A., 2010)."

Watch the video...watch here eyes.

 

[jimbo]

yet he managed to win the nomination despite the establishment doing everything possible to stop him while Hillary-the self anointed Goddess of the DNC-who had the game rigged in her favor-has yet to wrap it up

Hillary is not just the self anointed, she is the anointed. And still, even with a quarter of the votes in her camp prior to the primaries and three or four competitors she still cannot wrap it up.

Trump OTOH, beat 16 competitors weeks ago without a head start and his feet tied, and the word on the liberal street is that he can't possibly win.

 

[jet57]

Did you not read my first post in this thread? The Original Post? I quoted her saying just that. In fact, that was one of the major issues I had with her statement - that she questioned whether it is a right or not.

I suggest you go back and re-read the OP before commenting any further on what you obviously have no idea about.

Yeah, you didn't use the whole quote, so I wasn't sure what you were saying, so I threw in the entire quote... So I DO know what I'm talking about.

I told you gun guys that you were going to be in trouble if you didn't smarten up.