Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos,Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise.
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:
I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] 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.While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
The first time Stephanopoulos asked if “an individual’s right to bear arms is constitutional” Clinton sidestepped the question, claiming instead the government’s “right” to regulate.
So Stephanopoulos repeated the question, and Clinton responded: “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every other constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulations.”
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
The mad facsists are coming out in droves to completely strip Americans of their god given rights.
BTW, when a facsist suggests, "GOVERNMENT HAS RIGHTS" they are subduing the issue diametrically opposed to the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights. In America, we as individuals have RIGHTS guaranteed as citizens completely removed from the POWER of any government to infringe upon our RIGHTS.
Get it? Government does not have RIGHTS. Government has POWER.
#1: Deckard To: buckeroo (#0)
I believe that Trump's views on the 2nd Amendment are not that all different than Hillary's.
Trump: Sons have so many guns, 'I get a little concerned'
Deckard posted on 2016-06-05 15:00:58 Reply Private Reply
#2: BorisY To: buckeroo (#0)
Sorry, lady, you fail Civics 101.
People have rights, government get its just powers as a derivation from the people.
The govt is ... "created ( by the people) to protect those rights" --- not regulate them.
So says the DOI and US constitution.
8 posted on 6/5/2016 8:39:03 AM by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3437150/posts#8
BorisY posted on 2016-06-05 15:09:49 Reply Private Reply
#3: Stoner To: buckeroo (#0)
Stoner posted on 2016-06-05 15:35:05 Reply Private Reply
#4: ConservingFreedom To: BorisY (#2)
Amen!
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-06-05 16:04:54 Reply Private Reply
#5: tomder55 To: BorisY (#2)
exactly ...and the wording is unambiguous and not at all nuanced :the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
tomder55 posted on 2016-06-05 16:30:56 Reply Private Reply
#6: misterwhite To: buckeroo (#0)
The correct term is a "constitutionally protected right".
And yes, we have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And yes, it may be reasonably regulated, just as the constitutionally protected right of free speech is reasonably regulated.
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-05 19:13:39 Reply Private Reply
#7: buckeroo To: misterwhite (#6)
Please explain where in the US Constitution that we have the guidelines of your opinion for both "reasonable" and the definition of 'reasonable.'
Other than that, please cite the court case that transfers that authority to govrnment. Perhaps an example is important to note, here. Since the US government has accumulated 20 trillion dollars in debt for both on-going operations a special circumstances, is this the basis for "reasonable?"
buckeroo posted on 2016-06-05 19:41:40 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: buckeroo (#7)
A constitutionally protected right can be reasonably regulated by Congress if it's protection conflicts with other constitutionally protected rights.
If the regulation is challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court would use the three tests of "strict scrutiny" to determine if the regulation was reasonable.
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-05 19:57:33 Reply Private Reply
#9: buckeroo To: misterwhite (#8)
buckeroo posted on 2016-06-05 20:15:31 Reply Private Reply
#10: tpaine To: buckeroo, y'all (#9)
Our constitutionally protected right to arms can be reasonably regulated by Congress ONLY if the regulation does not infringe on the right.
The theory that gun rights can conflict with other constitutionally protected rights is one put forward by anti- gun advocates, and has no basis in reality.
tpaine posted on 2016-06-05 22:52:04 Reply Private Reply
#11: misterwhite To: buckeroo (#9)
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-06 09:26:57 Reply Private Reply
#12: Stoner To: buckeroo (#0)
Which is why Shitlery wants to be Pres. She is opposed to the 2nd Amendment, because she wants to exert such power unimpeded. And she knows that the 2nd Amendment is the US Constitution's "Reset Button"!
Stoner posted on 2016-06-06 12:00:31 Reply Private Reply