Firearm ownership is both an American tradition and a right we hold dear in this country but some do not agree with this and try to take away those traditions, criminals will have guns no matter what but sometimes legal gun owners are suffering the most.
Will Hillary destroy our right to bear arms? will she create harsh restrictions? will she make a new assault weapon ban? (an assault weapon is a semi-automatic weapon that looks like a military weapon) that will not sunset?
2007-01-22 04:52:21 · 9 answers · asked by GrOuNd ZeRo 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The Left doesn't recognize the 2nd Amendment - in typical Liberal fashion they take something that clearly says X and argue that it means the opposite of X. They also argue that it means X when it benefits their cause but that it means not-X when it doesn't.
They say "the people" doesn't mean individual people - though curiously they say it DOES mean individual people in the 1st and 4th Amendments..... However you define "the people" you clearly need to be consistent! For "the people" to not mean individual people for the purposes of gun ownership would require that it not mean "the people" for the purposes of free assembly or the right to be secure in your person and papers. You can't have it both ways.
Some of them argue that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a military context because of the reference to a militia - they argue that militia means national guard. Of course, the people in the national guard DON'T keep and bear their own arms, the guns they use are stored in the federal armory. The militiamen did keep and bear their own arms. And the militia fought the Indians, outlaws, and the British - at the time, our own central, national government. The first battle of the Revolution began when the British, the national government at the time, tried to disarm the Lexington militia. It's hard to argue that the Founders risked their lives to secure a right that they then 20 years later decided they didn't believe in anymore. It also makes no sense - the militia was an ad hoc citizens band formed to protect the citizens' own homes and families from threats without and within, including tyranny from the central government, and that the Founders believed that a body that performed this function was necessary to a free state. It is completely illogical to assume that a body, one function of which was to fight tyranny from the central government, if it ever came to that, should expect to receive its guns from that same central government. There's only one logical place for an ad hoc citizens band to get their guns, and that's BYOG. In other words, the reference to a militia is not limiting at all - the primary purpose of allowing individuals to keep and bear arms is to enable the people to defend themselves against tyranny from the central government itself and for which the Founders had a demonstrated distrust.
There is only one logical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that is that it means precisely what it says.
But logic never stopped Hillary.
2007-01-22 05:15:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily. Politicians run on what will get them reelected. Obviously there are people who hold the same view as you, and I doubt she would want to lose your vote (assuming you're a voter). I could definitely see more restrictions, because restrictions have proven to lower the amount of gun crimes. Why would you care about restrictions unless you're eligible to be restricted? This shouldn't be a problem if you're law-abiding, of age, etc. And you probably shouldn't refer to Hilary Clinton as "Hilary"... thats disrespectful, it doesn't matter what you think of a person, you should respect the position.
2007-01-22 05:01:52 · answer #2 · answered by Sasha 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One person can not destroy your rights (though President Bush has certainly tried). Any restrictions on firearms would come from Congress, not from the President, and overturning the second amendment would take another amendment to the Constitution, which would have to be ratified by the states.
2007-01-22 05:01:04 · answer #3 · answered by dmb 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A way left of center candidate like Hillary Clinton if elected president would not be good for our constitutional rights with a Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress.
2007-01-22 05:00:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
More GOP swiftboating - tell lies, big lies about "taking away our guns" and if told often enough, perhaps someone will believe it. I'm no fan of Senator Clinton, but I can spot a GOP disinformation plot miles away.
2007-01-22 07:38:40 · answer #5 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Hillary hates the 2nd Amendment.
And so does Obama and Edwards.
They are all just more Ted Kennedys.
2007-01-22 04:56:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I agree with LauraS and every one else whose answers know she will do every thing she can to restrict our freedoms. Wake up America!
2007-01-22 05:13:04 · answer #7 · answered by Streakin' Deacon 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
She would like nothing better than to outlaw ALL private ownership of ALL firearms. If she can't do that then she'll just try to outlaw the ammunition.
2007-01-22 05:01:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Absolutely,and everything else that's good about our country! My opinion.
2007-01-22 05:04:22 · answer #9 · answered by Laura S 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋