Posted on 07/31/2016 12:49:04 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
Hillary and media are wrong about the Constitution, even conservatives give them a pass!
Conservative media is not doing a great job pointing out the problems with liberal statements on the second amendment. Hillary has been consistent in what she has been saying lately. She said this on ABC news "If it is a constitutional right," she began her next answer, "then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations."
If it is a right? It may not be a right? When the 2nd amendment says "The right of the people" somehow it is still debatable? Then this part about "subject to reasonable regulations" is said like it is a well known and accepted fact. It may be true that the Supreme Court has inserted limitations, and the founders knew this was coming when they used the phrase "shall not be infringed". If you wanted to make sure the right was absolute, what other language would you use? Seriously, what language would you use?
A few weeks ago during the Democrat sit in in the Congress, one Congressman said that Republicans gloss over the section of the second amendment that talks about a "well regulated militia". As I have pointed out here before, the term "regulation" has been hijacked in the modern era, like the word "gay" and does not mean what it used to. In the era that the second amendment was written, the term essentially meant "self maintained" or "self calibrated".
In the era of bloated, all pervasive big government this original meaning of the term regulation seems odd, but what matters is what was meant when the Bill of Rights was written. Consider this. There was a variant of the pendulum clock called the "Regulator". It was invented about the time of the writing of the Constitution. This design got this name because of the specific design and its accuracy. You can find all kinds of references to this. Do you think this had anything to do with the Federal government? How about the voltage regulator that is in the alternator of your car? Do you think there is some little government bureaucrat in there making sure it puts out the right voltage? No, what was meant was the language of the time, and they meant that the citizen militias be well maintained.
Then the next liberal knee jerk reaction is to use the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" remark to somehow show limitations on the 1st amendment. This is really stupid. The generic crowded theater is private property. The 1st amendment isn't even relevant in a crowded private theater. The first amendment applies between "the people" and the government. Unless the congress oversteps it authority and makes laws that apply to your speech in private theaters, the phrase is not relevant, so stop using it.
Finally, no discussion like this should go without discussing the "separation of church and state". What the Constitution actually says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Having been on the agnostic side earlier in my life, I wholeheartedly agree that I don't want the church involved in the affairs of government. I want the government to be "agnostic" in these affairs.
I also want the rest of the phrase "prohibiting the free exercise" to be adhered to as well. Why in the world is the government involved in marriage in the first place? Marriage is (was) a religious sacrament and has been hijacked by the government to mean something else like the above use of the word "regulation". It is within the purview of the government to establish laws regarding civil unions, but why is the government even using the word marriage? The use of that word should be a violation of the separation of church and state.
If the country of a whole does not like the meaning of the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution, then amend it. Don't torture the English language and claim the Constitution is a "living and changing document" because it is not. The purpose of laws is to know what I can and can't do without punishment. If the words don't mean what they say, then I will lose my liberty waiting for somebody else to do what I want to do so I can discover what the current Supreme Court thinks, not what the Constitution says. The only reason to say the Constitution is a living document is so that you can kill it!
The clause “Shall not be infringed” carries the force of law. Nobody in government can change that, period. If they try, then they’ll find out exactly why that clause exists.
Muslims don't recognize the Natural Rights of Man - and neither do Hillary and the media.
No, bitch, rights are not subject to any regulations. Only privileges are subject to regulations.
As you well know.
Kings and Queens don’t care about silly old words on paper...
Very good, all too often we hear pols and media types use the phase “Constitutional right”. No ones rights come from the Constitution. The U. S. Constitution is a guarantee that the government will respect the rights given to all people by the very fact of their existence. Just like any guarantee, the Constitution describes the process by which we can hold our government responsible if our rights are infringed.
BREAKING: State Dept. Releases Phone Transcript of Hillary Admitting She Knew #Benghazi Was Planned Attack https://
Blah blah blah. Like they care. The battle is force and numbers, not intellectual arguments.
The truth is....you're not going to regulate the bad guys. They will get their guns from someplace.
From Star Trek TOS “Omega Glory”
Captain James T. Kirk: Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before, or since, tall words proudly saying, “We the People”. That which you call Ee’d Plebnista, was not written for the chiefs of kings, or the warriors or the rich or the powerful, but for ALL the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution”. These words and the words that follow, were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing!
I look forward to her spirited defense of Voter ID laws.
That must not apply to state governments, then. Numerous states have gun laws that infringe on the rights recognized in the second amendment. And we the people have not yet rounded up and executed the violators.
IF Hillary wins SCOTUS will destroy the first and second amendment, illegals will stream across the border and be given the right to vote
A constitutional right is a right and not subject to political interpretation by 9 blacked robed justices. The only way to abridge our rights to keep and bear arms is by constitutional amendment and that "ain't gonna happen."
Until they discover that the people are willing and ready to fight and kill and die for the enforcement of those silly old words on paper. They know that all those who have violated those silly old words on paper will end up on the bad side of that equation.
It should be noted that The United Kingdom has extreme restrictions on firearms. Firearms are readily available in the UK is you are willing to pay the price for them on the illegal market. They are not cheap but they are available.
If we banned firearms in the United States the illegal market would be there and you would be able to buy the firearm of your choice if you can pay the price.
I would also like to note that the NRA supports extreme penalties for those that use firearms in an illegal manner. They are the good guys.
Read the 10th amendment. If a state decides to go against the constitution, then it’s up to the citizens of that state to rectify the situation.
If FOX was a real news outlet, they would be countering the Constitutional lies 24/7 instead of using their time to spew Republican Establishment propaganda, and appeasing the left just enough to get invited to the cocktail parties every week.
So what she is saying is government “has the right to REASONABLY” restrict/regulate fundamental rights so important that the framers decided to enumerate them explicitly apart from the body of the Constitution so as there would be no doubt as to what they were saying. First, and foremost, citizens have rights. The government is not mentioned in the Constitution as having any rights. Secondly, she is playing the lawyers weasel word game using the word “reasonable”. What’s reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. It’s like O’Bama’s constant use of “common sense” reforms. What’s common sense to one is not common sense to another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.