Clinton: Government Has ‘A Right’ To Regulate 2nd Amendment

[mmckee1952]

Hillary Clinton: Government Has ‘A Right’ To Regulate 2nd Amendment

By AWR Hawkins

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.”

Video: https://youtu.be/mCCnR4fes-Q

Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... itutional/

My Thoughts:

Stephanopoulos should recuse himself from any interview with Hillary; he’s been a very pro-Clinton water carrier for many years and has given over $75,000 to Hillary’s presidential campaign and was Bills spokesman while he was in office. So I would say if you want an unbiased interview, you’re not going to get it from him.

[louisaguns]

The hypocrisy astounds me. Government can regulate one segment of the Bill of Rights but has no right to regulate any other part of it.

[mmckee1952]

This here is the critical statement by Hillary, "If it is a constitutional right" that everyone should be worried about.

[SHMIV]

If a right can be regulated, it's not a right, it's a privilege.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

The only time the government has the right to regulate the exercise of a constitutional right is if the exercise of that right impinges upon some constitutional right of another. So, if in the exercise of your right to free speech you yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a riot that endangers or perhaps even causes the loss of the lives of others, the government has a compelling state interest in discouraging that behavior by imposing a criminal sanction on it. But it still must await an actual act that contravenes that law; it may not engage in what is called prior restraint.

As has been pointed out on this thread in different words, the “progressives” engage in the monumental hypocrisy of affording great deference to those rights that they need to have protected to advance their agenda, but are unwilling to acknowledge the equal dignity of rights that they find inconvenient.

And the fly in the ointment is concepts like “reasonable” and “common sense” they use to justify interfering with the rights they don’t want you to exercise. Once they are allowed to “regulate” those rights, the inherent subjectivity of those and other qualifiers will eventually be used to completely eliminate those freedoms and rights that do not serve their purpose. That’s as sure as death and taxes.