Hillary thinks our Second Amendment can be nuanced? Really? As disgusting as this creature is, the statement “If it is a constitutional right… and it is Judge Scalia’s fault that it lost it “nuance?” takes it over the top. I thought it was a majority opinion. She goes on to support lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Of course, all the better to put them out of business as they are forced to defend endless lawsuits. Here goes:
Hillary Clinton couldn’t definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment. While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn’t true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left.
“Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” he asked.
“I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice 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,” she said. “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Clinton then went into her gun control platform, but Stephanopoulos hit her for dodging his question, noting the D.C. vs. Heller decision that protected an individual’s right to have a firearm for lawful purposes.
“And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions, but that’s not what I asked,” he said. “I said, do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”
“If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations, and what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms,” Clinton said.
More at Free Beacon
June 7, 2016 at 8:28 am
[…] Clinton won’t say if guns are a constitutional right […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 7, 2016 at 6:55 am
[…] Clinton won’t say if guns are a constitutional right […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2016 at 7:19 pm
It was a simple yes or no question and she would not answer it, that tells us all we need to know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2016 at 8:39 pm
We are getting ourselves into a real bind aren’t we? Don’t see any light and the end of the tunnel so far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2016 at 10:50 am
Reblogged this on Rifleman III Journal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2016 at 11:14 am
Thanks. This is so disgusting
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2016 at 12:46 pm
You’re welcome, and yes, it is, most disgusting, and very cunning.
LikeLike
June 6, 2016 at 9:10 am
She must not be elected to the Oval Office!
LikeLiked by 2 people
June 6, 2016 at 9:53 am
Scary isn’t it. Really to heck with the constitution.
LikeLike
June 6, 2016 at 8:10 am
Kudos to Lard Ass. She didn’t answer the question and she never will have to. If guns are outlawed only Clintons will have guns- I mean outlaws, oh is there any difference?
LikeLiked by 2 people
June 6, 2016 at 8:16 am
It really is annoying to the libtards that we have our guns. Of course they could enforce what laws are out there, but thats no fun. P.S. A little redundancy over at Mika’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person