Hillary told George Stephanopoulos that Trump is lying about her wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment. Trump, she said is “making outright fabrication” on guns “accusing me of something that Is absolutely untrue”. At the same time, she would not answer the question of whether she thought the Second Amendment was a constitutional right and she would not answer when asked about levying an extremely high gun tax.
The left has tried to eliminate our Second Amendment by redefining the meaning of the word “militia”.
The Second Amendment legally reads: “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.”
The Heller decision of 2008 defined a militia as every single American. When Hillary was asked about it, she refused to say if Americans have the right to bear arms. To quote her, she said ““If it is a constitutional right…”
She wouldn’t answer the question which must leave one to believe she is suggesting it is not a right.
Obviously, she will see Heller reversed if she can when she appoints the two to the five leftist justices if she becomes president. That is how easy it would be to eliminate the Second Amendment – simply define militia as organizations operating with permission of the government not individuals and it changes the entire meaning of the Amendment.
“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 — 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?”
“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 regulation.
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.
So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible. And once 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 loopholes, 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.’”
He asked again,
“And the ‘Heller’ decision also does say there can be some restrictions. But that’s what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”
“If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. 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 regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.”
If that doesn’t work for some reason, she will go with an outrageous gun tax. At other times, she’s talked about Australian-style gun confiscation and suing gun manufactures and dealers out of existence.
Hillary will not say whether she will put a 25% tax on handguns.
She won’t commit to a proposal when asked about her advocacy of such a tax in the 1990s. From what she told Stephanopoulos, it’s obvious she still agrees with it. She just doesn’t know the percentage.
“What I was saying back then was that we have a lot of public health costs that taxpayers end up paying for through Medicaid, Medicare, through uncompensated care, because that was in the context of the push for health care reform and that we needed some way to try to defray those costs. And I’m not going to commit to any specific proposal.
I was speaking personally then. I would have to consider any proposal in light of how it interacted with all the others that we want to continue to advocate for, particularly, as I said, comprehensive background checks. But that was in the context of health care.
When you have mass shootings, you not only have the terrible deaths, you have people who are injured. You know, I was just in San Bernardino yesterday. And I met some of the survivors.
One woman who was shot twice, who’s had a series of surgeries. Two other women who were cowering in abject terror by the terrorists’ unbelievable assault on their co-workers.
What they talked to me about is where do they get the financial support to deal with both the physical and the emotional trauma? You know, is it workman’s comp support, which is one of the arguments? Is it private insurance? Is it because they work for the county, something the county should pay for? There are real costs that people incur because of the terrible gun violence epidemic.
And we have to deal with it. And I’m going to be looking for ways to deal with it. I’m not committed to anything other than what I’ve said in this campaign. But I do want people to ask themselves, can’t we do better than have 33,000 people killed every year by guns and many thousands more injured? And I take we can.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/05/hillary-refuses-to-say-whether-the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-constitutional-right-video/#ixzz4AjlMBcUv