That interpretation makes no sense, but at issue in this thread is not our interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but whether the Democrats or Hillary Clinton believe in an individual right to bear arms. They do not. And if you don’t have that right, then you can do it only if the government lets you. and a lot of governments, including possibly Clinton’s future administration, may not let you.
So, Hillary is going to come & take all the guns? Hardly. Some restrictions on some sorts of weapon have been discussed.
But thanks for letting us know The Trumpier Side; you keep trying to distance yourself from him, but he’s Your Party’s choice. Are you getting ready to apply Second Amendment Solutions?
She does not want to take your guns, because in Aug 2016, that’s not a politically tenable position to be in.
Fast foward a few years, that might change. Then she will “evolve” on the issue and take away our guns. Democrats have already done gun grabs. They have not changed. They have merely recognized political reality. For now.
Cite, please.
I do not but I can’t speak for all Democrats.
I believe that the Constitution clearly indicates an individual right to bear arms. But like Scalia said, that doesn’t mean that firearms can’t be regulated at least to some degree.
Since most Americans want “sensible gun laws” especially when it’s not well defined she should just keep pounding on sensible gun laws and not define it well.
So Hillary takes all the guns. Then what? Forces everybody to gay marry cause you don’t have your guns to prevent her from doing it?
What’s the tyranny that’s going to activate the militia? Why wasn’t Obamacare enough?
The same can be said for anything that any politician claims.
I’m not so sure. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, there was radio silence from Hillary on gun control and Bill wrote an op ed piece telling the left to be careful about how aggressively they push the gun control issue, he highlighted how many other policy objectives got derailed after they lost the house largely on the 1994 assault weapons ban vote. Hillary doesn’t believe in gun control enough to push it unless there is political advantage to pushing it. Trump on the other hand was lining up behind gun control efforts (including an assault weapons ban) in the wake of Sandy Hook.
She pushed it when she needed to get to the left of Bernie on something ANYTHING. She doesn’t really push it that much otherwise. She will certainly appoint judges that will disagree with Scalia on gun control but that will be a collateral effect of nominating liberal judges that will preserve the right to an abortion.
I suspect there will be a “leaked” photo of her hunting or something.
You realize that we have a constitution and more than 40 senators that fall on their sword over this issue.
Or pack the supreme court with enough anti-gun justices to reverse Heller. One justice wouldn’t do it. Some of the votes against Heller would flip their vote in the name of stare decisis.
Of course there is.
Gun owners know that Trump isn’t their friend on this issue. Not really. Reassure them that you won’t (or better yet, CAN’T) really do anything to curtail their basic rights, and more than a few of them will just stay home.
I for one am already inclined to believe that Hillary doesn’t really care very much about gun control. Not enough to lose an election over it and it IS a losing issue for Democrats. There are not a lot of people that would have voted for Trump that will vote for her because she comes out strong on gnu control. There are a significant number of voters in swing states that would have stayed at home that will come out to vote against her if she comes out strong on gun control.
WTF are you talking about?
The individual right to keep and bear arms has always been recognized by the courts. The distinction made in heller was that a the individual right did not have to have a nexus with the militia, it could be based purely on the natural right to self defense.
Miller implicitly recognized the defendant’s individual right to own a shotgun without being part of a militia. The court supported the restriction on short barreled shotguns by saying that there was no nexus between short barreled shotguns and a well regulated militia.
Comparing Dredd Scott to Heller seems a bit extreme to me. One upholds property rights in slaves, the other recognizes the right to effective self defense.
Hillary has made negative statements about the supreme court’s dismissal of the prefatory language in the second amendment.
Do you have a link to these statements?
Gosh, I’d like to read more about those “gun grabs.”
I don’t have any guns. At least you’ve got yours–so you’ll do as Trump suggests when the time comes…
That’s a rather obnoxious thing to say, especially since adaher is not a Trump supporter.
(my bold)
Clinton is no friend to gun rights.
You are wrong, very badly wrong. She absolutely supports a ban on assault rifles - there is no “maybe”. Universal background checks is not “all she wants”. Clinton supports a wide array of gun control schemes. You’ve characterized her support of gun control as limited where in fact her support of gun control is pervasive. It would be more accurate to say that Clinton supports more often than not any gun control measure that has a chance of passing.
Clinton has campaigned against the PLCAA - legislation enacted as a result of municipalities attempting to bankrupt gun manufacturers in the US.
Seems like an obvious rhetorical question.
Just googling Hillary Clinton and heller v dc yields a lot of results.