A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. – Second Amendment, The Constitution for the united States of America.
In reading the Second Amendment, there should be little doubt as to its meaning nor should there be any doubt as to the meaning of the phrase shall not be infringed. Yet, again, there are many who clearly do not understand its meaning. It's even worse when those people are in the lamestream enemedia and politics.
Enter one George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week interviewing Democratic presidential nominee candidate Hillary Clinton. George clearly wanted to talk about the Second Amendment with Ms. "I am going to confiscate firearms" Clinton. The exchange is interesting.
George asked,"Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Trump has also been out on the stump, talking about the Second Amendment, saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment. I know you reject that, but I want to ask you a specific question: 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?"
Before getting to Clinton's reply, Stephanopoulos is asking Clinton whether an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The Constitution does not grant rights to any individual. God, as the Creator, is the grantor of rights. So, the entire question is misleading from the start. The phrase, "that it's not linked to service in a militia," again, misleads the average 36 hour memory American to associate the right to bear arms with militia service. With the question asked the way it is, Stephanopoulos has indicated the right to bear arms comes from the Constitution and associated with militia service. In reality, the Constitution limits government, not the people.
Who exactly is the "militia?" The militia is made up of citizens, usually male, over the age of 18. So, the people constitute the militia, which is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is universally off limits to the federal government, the States and localities.
Here's the answer Clinton gave to the question as asked by Stephanopoulos.
"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." [emphasis mine]
"So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures, consistent with the Second Amendment. And, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners." [emphasis mine]
Look at how this woman answered. First of all, everyone "thinks" an opinion about something or someone. However, thinking it and it being true are two different things. She "thinks" for "most of our history there was a nuanced reading" of the Second Amendment. Yet, she provides no proof whatsoever, except "I think." Well, I think this woman is bat guano crazy but that doesn't make it true. And, after the founding fathers suffered through gun confiscation by the British, limiting their ability to defend themselves from tyranny, does anyone really believe there would be a "nuanced reading" giving the federal government a "right" to impose reasonable regulations?
And, take a close look at that statement where she states, "there was no argument until then (speaking of the decision by Justice Scalia) that localities and states and the federal government had a right as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations."
Now, the federal government, the State and localities are entities with "rights" according to Clinton. Did God create the federal government, the States or localities? Nope, He did not. The people created the federal government, States and localities; therefore, the people assign the parameters in which government is to operate. The government has very limited and enumerated authority, whereas the people have the unlimited, unalienable rights. God, as the Creator of man, bestowed upon the people rights. The people, as the creators of the federal government, bestow upon it the authority it is to have. If the people do not give the authority to the federal government, the federal government commits a usurpation when taking authority not given it.
Yet, the Hillary-huggers, Clinton-lovers, and outright communists/socialists supporting this criminal traitor will cheer her statements as fact.
She "believes" there can be "common sense" gun safety measures – a fancy term for gun control/confiscation. Every responsible gun owner practices gun safety measures. Does anyone really need the federal government to educate you on gun safety measures? She "believes" these measures can be consistent with the Second Amendment. Well, I believe this woman is still suffering "brain damage" from that bump on the head she received. It doesn't make it true, but that's what I believe.
Are we to accept that what Hillary thinks and believes is fact? That is what she would like. And, if there is anyone that would accept what this woman "thinks" and "believes" as fact, then, I have a nice tract of land with 60 feet of beach front in Kansas at a great price. You can contact me through Freedom Outpost.
This leads into the statistics this woman quotes. What poll has those numbers? Who conducted it and where was it taken? I conducted a poll that found that 90 percent of American citizens are against federal regulations regarding the Second Amendment as well as 100 percent of responsible gun owners. Why is her poll more reliable than mine? I think my poll numbers more accurately reflect true American sentiment and believe it to be accurate.
“So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permittable and again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.” [emphasis mine]
Here we go again, what "she" thinks is "constitutionally permittable," which she probably meant permissible. The Constitution does not permit any of this nor is it permissible for anyone or entity in the federal government to try to make out that it does. Evidently, Clinton didn't get the memo that opinions are like "bums" we all have one. Unfortunately, Clinton is again peddling the misinformation about "gun show loopholes" and "online loopholes." Since when did any criminal purchase a gun to even go through a background check? While she sits there declaring someone else spewing "fabrications," this woman is spreading disinformation, lies, and false information all over the TV waves. She believes that gun makers and sellers should be held liable for any criminal action committed when the criminal uses a gun.
Well, that's just dandy. Does Clinton want to remove from immunity car manufacturers and dealers whose vehicles result in someone being killed or the manufacturers and sellers of alcoholic beverages when an individual kills someone while driving? What about pharmaceutical companies and doctors who prescribe medication that cautions one against operating heavy machinery or an automobile, but someone is killed by an individual on that medication operating a car or machine? It's the same difference when referencing guns and firearms. No manufacturer or seller of a product or item can or should be held responsible when someone misuses said product or item or uses the product or item in the commission of a crime. But, this is how liberals operate. Those additional situations would not happen because it is not the fault of car manufacturers, care dealers, alcohol manufacturers and sellers or the pharmaceutical companies or doctors that caused the death of another individual. It was an individual using the product inappropriately. Yet, the same logic escapes these people when it comes to guns and firearms.
This is the thinking and believing of the liberal mind – hypocrisy.
She knows none of this is consistent with the Constitution; however, she does think and believe this should be done and can be done in order to further subjugate the people to the "will" of the federal government, aka the wealthy political elite and their backers and donors. She knows the federal government has no "rights" whatsoever; but, millions of gullible, stupid women and men will fall for this garbage because it is what she "thinks and believes," as if she is some expert and knows more than the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution.
But, it really gets better.
In response to Clinton, Stephanopoulos said, "And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions, but that's not what I asked, I said do you believe that their conclusion, that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?"
Again, look at how the question is phrased. Any restriction on the Second Amendment by government is a violation, whether it is federal, state or local. George did not point that out though and went on to say "do you believe" the conclusion the "individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?" He continually points to the rights to bear arms as "given" by the Constitution instead of the right to bear arms being given by God, existing prior to the Constitution and the people limiting the government from infringing on that God-given right. So, he is asking Clinton what "she believes," not what is actual law.
Clinton replied, "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. So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right, I have no objection to that, but the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory responsible actions to protect everyone else.”
So, constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulations. Did anyone catch that she did not say "I believe." She stated it as fact. Well, in truth, it is exactly how the politicians, the man in the Oval Office, the Supreme Court, and all government agencies, the States and localities are viewing the Bill of Rights – rights granted to the people by the Constitution. It is wrong thinking, plain and simple. However, the people have submitted to sexual groping by the TSA, pornographic scanning to board planes, violations of being secure in one's person through warrantless roadside strip searches, violations of the Ninth Amendment by denying an individual authority over their body regarding medical procedures, and the list goes on to forcing Christians to violate their religious beliefs or lose everything, establishing free speech zones, holding political prisoners, and being guilty until proven innocent.
Clinton accuses American citizens of "taking that decision 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." An unconstitutional law is not law and States have failed to use nullification. Clinton needs to "show the laws" going back to the beginning of our republic on firearms. Also, she needs to quit acting like the rights of the majority of citizens are more important than the rights of a few or one. It doesn't work like that, although that is the direction government is taking. Where does she get that the majority of the American public has a "right" to demand limiting the individual rights of others?
And, in all this Clinton "thinking and believing," who exactly determines what is "responsible", what is "common sense," what constitutes a "gun safety measure," and what is constitutional and consistent with the Constitution? Congress? The Supreme Court? The President? BATF?
Consider this. The colonists suffered under monarchical rule of the tyrant King George III. The fought a war to gain independence, creating a new nation whereby the people would not be "ruled" by tyrants and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why, then, would these intelligent, well-versed, educated men leave the decision as to what is constitutional or not or a right or non-right to nine black-robed individuals, one man, a few elected officials, or an agency created by the federal government it has no authority to create?
What one man may think or believe is common sense, another may not. The same goes for responsible and applying to gun safety, although gun safety is pretty universal. The Constitution defines what is consistent within it limits on the Congress, the Supreme Court and the President. Anyone reading it can understand it. The people only need to enforce it by re-establishing their authority over the federal government, holding it, the president and Supreme Court, to its constitutional tenets. This nation needs not a Clinton "thinking and believing" what is constitutional applied to the people.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.