Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ "This Week": “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right...”
But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.
Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun. Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence. Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.
Hillary never mentions it, but the new background checks that she keeps pushing will also make guns more costly and not make us safer. In Washington and New York City, expanding background checks to private transfers will add at least $125 to the cost of obtaining a gun. In New Jersey, it usually adds $100. It is as low as $60 in Washington State.
On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes. As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.
After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns. That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn't be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.
It's time for someone to ask Clinton a simple question: Won’t overturning the Heller decision make gun bans possible again? If so, exactly how is Donald Trump’s statement wrong?
Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president | Fox News
I'm sure that nothing even close to the necessary support exists, or that it will any time soon. Most Americans--that is, most except for the collectivist lumps in the lumpenproletariat, who are un-American and have a taste for totalitarian rule--understand that the individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to preserving our liberties.
Oh noes! Hitlery is going to take our GUNZ
Why call her hitlery?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You prefer Cankles, Hildebeast or just Crooked Hillary?
Do you believe there's a misunderstanding in our country of the amendment?
In the 1930s we passed a national firearms act on weapons to keep them out of the hands of citizens. They did this by creating a tax that was so high that citizens could not afford the weapons. Why did we not just bar them at the time?
OK then why did they make the national firearms act a tax to prevent them from getting the weapons. Why not just say those weapons are not allowed?
I wouldn't just say "blah blah blah" and make that my second amendment.
Factual history is not your strong points. At the end of prohibition (another example of hysterical assholes demanding legislation) there were some 5000 moonshine cops with nothing to do. So using fraudulent methods and propaganda the commerce clause was used to create work instead of letting 5000 now useless cops go and the resultant fall out of bad publicity, loss of popularity and votes. Don't you know anything about governments especially your own?
So FAIL it has nothing to do with the 2A and was passed in one of the most fraudulent ways rivalling the paper monetary system and 9/11. Non-vigilant citizens get the laws they deserve.
Oh noes! Hitlery is going to take our GUNZ
Because that was not the intention. It was to create work for 5000 moonshine cops with nothing to do.
Amazing how many idiots do not think like the founding fathers and claim to know better.
Voting for Hillary is like chickens rooting for Col Saunders.
Well thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm happy to know that the candidate I will probably vote for shares my view of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be rewritten. I'm going to vote for the candidate that would be open to that if given the opportunity.
in other words, you are a gun banner and wan the second amendment to be obliterated so that the ruling party can ban any gun it wants as long as it has the votes to do so
Well thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm happy to know that the candidate I will probably vote for shares my view of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be rewritten. I'm going to vote for the candidate that would be open to that if given the opportunity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And how would one "rewrite" the Second Amendment? What would be the process?
Voting for Hillary is like chickens rooting for Col Saunders.
Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ "This Week": “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right...”
But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.
Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun. Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence. Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.
Hillary never mentions it, but the new background checks that she keeps pushing will also make guns more costly and not make us safer. In Washington and New York City, expanding background checks to private transfers will add at least $125 to the cost of obtaining a gun. In New Jersey, it usually adds $100. It is as low as $60 in Washington State.
On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes. As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.
After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns. That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn't be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.
It's time for someone to ask Clinton a simple question: Won’t overturning the Heller decision make gun bans possible again? If so, exactly how is Donald Trump’s statement wrong?
Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president | Fox News
The Republicans have really created a mess by making that man Presidential candidate.
Do you believe there's a misunderstanding in our country of the amendment?
In the 1930s we passed a national firearms act on weapons to keep them out of the hands of citizens. They did this by creating a tax that was so high that citizens could not afford the weapons. Why did we not just bar them at the time?
Why call her hitlery?
I'm really just trying to validate that the Second Amendment is poorly written as my opinion. I am truly an idiot. My parents genetics were not that strong. And they raise me very poorly. And I've made very poor choices in my life. However I am trying to learn as I can. And right now I'm just trying to learn how big machine guns got banned when they are a firearm. And how this was claimed constitutional by our Second Amendment. And is this validate my point it is poorly written in my opinion after I figure it out.
My humble apology the arrogant assholes of gun control bring out the worst in me. I should not tar all with the same brush. You see such people are totally incapable of realising they are in error nor will their beliefs allow then to ever recognise that. Often called zealots but in truth people inculcated by propaganda.
It was not claimed as constitutional but sold on the basis of crime fighting and taking Thompson's and other stuff out of the hands of criminals. It was claimed government had the right to TAX guns. That even though the prohibition laws had all been repealed by 1933. The organised crime violence, hijackings, turf wars and leadership grabs brought on totally by prohibition lead to organised crime, widespread corruption to the highest levels and the most violent period the US has suffered. Duped and lied to people were ready to accept the falsely promised relief. Much the same as gun control uses crime and tragic killings today.
Turtledude can give you a better perspective from a legal point of view.
The 2A is written in two parts one a preamble and the other the protection of the right. The preamble taken with the Declaration of Independence is an explanation of why. A common mistake is the meaning of regulated, in means well organised, well equipped and well functioning.
The right protection is great wording with one small exception. It is not possible to prove a negative. Nobody can say for certain that a gun control law cannot be found that does not infringe the right. Thus honest people must accept that it is not unlimited. Gun control expands on this to mean incursions are included, that is totally false. It is the only clause to use the term shall not be infringed for good reason. It means inviolate to any measure
I copied this to my Facebook to keep. You have truly inspired me to continue to try to be humble and accepting of others views. It is very hard to discuss political topics in my country and I fear that is causing them to devolve.
I value your knowledge you shared with me!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?