Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

On the Sunday news shows Hillary came out saying that the 2nd amendment is subject to regulation.

Get ready for Federal rules on 'evil' attachments, like we have in New York, at the very least.


Just remember, the next POTUS will appoint at least 1 SC justice.

If she is admitting to supporting more gun regulation before she is elected, just imagine what she really hopes to accomplish.

'Change maker', one thing she tells the truth about.

a reply to: stosh64

Um no thank you
What part of , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does she not get?

a reply to: stosh64



Regulation? She means confiscation at an ever increasing pace. The less guns in private citizens hands at home the less we can fight against a government rapidly becoming the world tyrant abroad.

It won't matter ultimately, the growing US police state can no more control a real revolution at home than the ones they got going overseas.

Common sense regulation should mean, no more mass ammo buying from abc agencies, until civilians make their purchases first.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

It seems you do not understand the 18th Century definition of "well regulated". It means well trained, orderly. It has NOTHING to do with laws infringing upon the right. If needed, I can post primary research to back up my statement and educate you even more.

If the country elects this !@#$%^ as POTUS we will have more than just gun control to worry about.. Maybe if she gets in everything will finally come to a head one way or the other. I could see some Marine this time paint "Broomstick One" on the Marine helicopter that is tasked to carry the presidents around D.C. and to Andrews Air Force base.

But they have no idea what "reasonable" means. To them, it means, keep your gun at home, unloaded, locked in a safe. Oh and never, ever dare to scare some poor criminal with it. They have feelings too.
No.
No more.
I am god damn sick and tired of a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals putting their hands over their eyes, fingers in their ears, singing lalala "I can't hear you" and pretending the world is a safe place. Protecting violent immigrants with multiple felonies, while telling me I can't be safe from them. No more telling me the safety of my family is subject to "reasonable restrictions". No. Get rid of your armed body guards and I'll get rid of my Glock.
Till then...GFY

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

LOL
You understand at that time all people able to fight constituted the "militia"?
Also it was important enough to actually write the "peoples" right to keep and bear which is separate from anything else.

Go parse elsewhere. The country the founders came from had gun control; that is why the founders understood the need for a populace able to defend themselves.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Common sense regulation should mean, no more mass ammo buying from abc agencies, until civilians make their purchases first.

The fight isn;t about which guns are bad and how many bullets, thats arguing gun control (infringement) The real issue is the broken justice system, the growing crimewave due to poor economic position and gainful employment for a livable wage.

a reply to: DAVID64

Even if they got rid of their armed guards, I'm not giving up squat!

Don't want my tax dollars wasted on a buy back program either.

Pound sand, I'm keeping everything I've bought and so should everyone esle!

a reply to: stosh64
It doesn't matter who gets appointed elected. More gun regulation is going to come incrementally, until they get what they've been after for a long time. A dumbed-down, disarmed population. They have a ways to go yet, but gun owners are losing the media/propaganda war.

a reply to: stosh64

I disagree with her interpretation.

Therefore, not giving up sh#t.

a reply to: stosh64

This bodes well with my personal philosophy that the US government and the muppets groomed to do its bidding, are actively involved in a long-term propaganda war to deconstruct the Constitution.

A situation that I refer to as "Death by a thousand cuts".

This is VERY important!!!

Let us not forget her views on Scalia's views! She said he was WRONG!!!
Hillary Clinton Opposes Heller Gun Rights Ruling

In striking down a longstanding handgun ban in the District of Columbia, the D.C. v. Heller ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

Hillary Clinton believes a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that is the linchpin of an individual's right to own a gun was "wrongly decided," her policy adviser told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.

"Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns," Maya Harris, a policy adviser to Clinton, said in an e-mailed statement. "In overturning Washington D.C.'s safe storage law, Clinton worries that Heller may open the door to overturning thoughtful, common sense safety measures in the future."

This election will have lasting effects FAR longer than the years we have to deal with Hillary or Trump!

Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

a reply to: KawRider9

I always tell them that because it will be a cold day in Hell before they put their precious little lives at risk. Isn't it funny that, politicians, who rarely go anywhere outside of an armored car, with multiple armed guards, tell me the world is not as scary as we think? That we walk the streets every day, see what happens, but those who are well insulated from it all, tell us everything is juuust fine.
No. More.

a reply to: stosh64

Haven't seen that one.

Yep, she also mentioned the 1st needs tweeking too.

I almost spit my coffee when she said that stuff.

Chris Wallace interview.

Greetings to One and ALL -

We, The People, in order to remove our collective heads out of Our collective sphincters better think looooong and clear whom We, The People erect to do our bidding. Not to toss a wrench into the works but how has that worked out thus far?

Why would anyone think that this erection will be any different? Look at what We get to choose from?

I will type this: If the division that is now rampant continues to grow, if "THEY" are coming after Your guns the division will make it easier to accomplish. The helpful neighbor will now just watch instead of watching and then calling the cops.

When arguing about a politician, there is more likelihood that You have more "in common" with the person You're arguing with than that of the politician You're arguing about.

My best advice: Stay hydrated...

namaste