Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be.

Hillary Clinton
April 16, 2008
Democratic Debate in Philadelphia
[It would appear that Ms. Clinton is of the opinion that as long as there are one or more exceptions under some circumstances then a near total ban on guns would be Constitutional in her view.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. She has explicitly said that people holding the opinion that the have the constitutional to own guns “terrorizes people” and this should not be allowed. She would be the thought police if she could.

She also thinks more people exercising their rights is something to be concerned about.

See also Hillary Clinton on Guns: Not a Big Fan.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Please don’t let her gain the power to nominate new Supreme Court Justices.—Joe]

26 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

  1. Obviously, she needs to lead by example through first disarming her security folks. I won’t hold my breath.

  2. Looking at the deterrent aspect of the second amendment, yes; it terrorizes people. That is by design, and it’s a good design. The knowledge, the mere thought, in and of itself, of a well and properly armed American populace, is going to terrorize criminals, would-be criminals, tyrants and would-be tyrants. The founders spoke of this, saying that it would keep politicians (those with designs on our liberty) “in awe”.

    Hillary is saying that she and her handlers and supporters feel terrorized. You connect the dots.

    The second amendment is an excellent litmus test. If you can find out what someone thinks of it (not just what some focus group or campaign staff tells him to say he thinks about it but that he really thinks about it) you will know for sure whether or not he ascribes to the American principles of liberty, right there. Pure and simple.

    Of course a democrat is going to be against the second amendment. They’re all Marxists now. The question remaining is whether there is a single Republican who truly favors it.

    • Quite right. How a politician views Second Amendment rights is an excellent indicator of how they view us as people. Do they see us as trustworthy, responsible citizens capable of making our own decisions; or as childish subjects in need of constant supervision?

  3. I don’t believe you paraphrased that correctly. The way I read it, she is saying that a total ban will never happen (which is a goal for some people).

    • Me too, and that further; she and her associates would like a total ban, which is why it was being discussed in the first place, see? Progressivism; the slow, incremental process of Marxist revolution.

      They know they can’t have it all at once, is what’s being said there. They have to keep reminding one another of that fact. They also know that they are close. Look, for example, at how many SCOTUS decisions have been 5 to 4, and how the Republicans have been neutered when it comes to pushing for enforcement of basic constitutional principles. All the Progressives have to do now is stay the course and be patient, keep rabble rousing, keep irritating, keep dividing people, Keep up the innuendo and insinuation that America as founded is a problem for the world, accomplish the final destruction of the white family the way they’ve done to the black family, and so on, and they have it wrapped up.

      • I’m not so sure she would, though I know some of her associates would. She’s from Pennsylvania, right? She’s probably like me: grew up in an area where guns were common and didn’t really think much one way or the other until she had to.

        She’s a politician, so she’s really adept at threading the needle. I’d put her down as “Probably more open-minded than you think she is.”

        I doubt many people who post here are planning to vote for her so the point is moot here.

        • I think you are giving her far to much benefit of a doubt. She craves POWER. Armed serfs are a contradiction in terms.

          • You don’t think Republicans and Libertarians want power? Why run for President if you don’t want power? You think they are going to let Dick Cheney run everything again? God help us if that happens!

          • If they are adhering to Libertarian principles they would run for President so they could reduce the power of government over its citizens.

            I suppose you could say they want the power of the office. But until government were restored to something approaching the original constitutional limits the primary target of that power would government itself instead of the people as it is with Republicans and Democrats.

        • She grew up in Chicago. Guns were only common in the hands of the gangs and politicians (but I repeat myself).

        • I think you have your rose colored glasses on again ubu52.

          Hillary is openly anti-gun (and anti-liberty). Speaking about private firearms ownership:

          “There needs to be a proper trade-off between safety and freedom, and things have swung too far towards the latter”
          – Hillary Clinton, 2014 –

          How can anyone who loves liberty, and loves what America stands for, ever say ANYTHING like that?

          In the past decade, the number of guns in private hands have increased, laws have been passed allowing more easily obtained legal carry of those guns in public in more and more places; all while violent crime has decreased. I fail to see how she could believe that the safety-freedom trade-off has slid too far towards freedom.

          I for one do not wish for our government to be in the position where it gets to decide what freedoms it deems are “safe enough” to be enjoyed by the people.

    • Ubu52, if you read the actual interview you will see she is talking about what would or would not be Constitutional in the context of the total ban on guns in D.C.

  4. It’s become horribly obvious that a vote for a democrat — any democrat at all — is a vote for gun bans. That’s the clear party goal, even though a few individual candidates may try to pretend they aren’t that extreme.
    It is similarly obvious that a lot of republicans are just like that, though most have learned to be not so obvious about it. Chris Christie is a particularly blatant example, but the same goes for a lot of others.
    I think I’ll tweak my standard question to candidates: “do you believe that the second amendment means Constitutional Carry is every citizen’s right in every state, whatever any state law may say to the contrary?”
    The correct answer is obvious. It will be interesting to see what I learn.

    • Democrats seem to get elected on some kind of “principle”, but tend to fall in lockstep with the Party line the second they’re sworn into office.

      And “gun control” is an official plank in the Democrat Party platform/agenda (unlike the GOP agenda, where it’s not mentioned, and thus neutral at best). It is, as you say, a “clear party goal” for the DNC.

      • The fact that it’s not mentioned as a GOP plank supports my comment on “lots of republicans” thinking likewise. It basically says that the GOP doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights. I suppose that’s better than hating it, but not by much.

        • Or you could, you know, read the thing…

          https://www.gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

          The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

          We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » Hillary Clinton on guns

  6. We are seeing that just as important, if not moreso, are the lower court judicial appointments. The carry cases the Supremes have declined were lost at the district court and appellate levels. and Richards/Prieto are at risk solely because the anti-gun judge on Peruta became Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit.

  7. Sometimes it’s helpful to look at a more extreme case.

    A Secret Service officer recently quoted a young Chelsea Clinton, as a teenager in the White House, calling him and his colleagues “pigs”. He took her to task for it, and she replied that that’s what her parents called them.

    I don’t know if this is true or not; it’s basically third-hand. But if true, it would mean that Hillary Clinton doesn’t even respect the people with guns who are pledged to protect her life with their own… which doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    Rules are for us, not for her. Would she ban guns if she could? Count on it.

    • You do realize you don’t need to create a Federal “right to privacy” out of penumbrae and emanations to ensure privacy in practice under the Constitution as written, correct?

      Invoking Privileges and Immunities? Or even actually limiting the Federal government to its explicitly enumerated powers in the first place?

    • Given what I’ve seen of justice ginsberg, no, I’m not glad about her at all. Her interest in civil rights and the Constitution is very much intermittent, at best.
      That’s true for most judges and most justices. Every once in a while you find one who cares about Constitutional principles, but it is rare enough to be a surprise when it happens.
      Any time you hear a judge talk about “balancing” a Constitutionally protected right against a “state interest” you’re hearing someone who has neither clue nor interest in the Constitution.

      • Personally, I would not want a SC that was either too conservative or too liberal. I like a nice mix of the two with some swing votes in the middle.

        • I want justices who will enforce the original intent of the constitution. That means they will ignore both conservatives and liberals as they are currently defined.

        • How about a SC that is *neither* liberal *or* conservative — one that applies the Constitution (and *valid* laws) as written with the meaning it (they) had at the time of writing.

          Add a gallon of wine to a 1000 gallons of sewage and you have 1001 gallons of sewage. Add a gallon of sewage to 1000 gallons of wine and you have 1001 gallons of sewage. Having a mix of “liberal” and “conservative” judges is just mixing two varieties of sewage — expecting to end up with wine is delusional.

        • Unfortunately, neither the courts nor other politicians have paid any real attention to the Constitution since at least 1860 or so, and essentially none at all since the reign of Teddy Roosevelt.
          For a simple exercise, open up any day’s issue of the Federal Register (about 250 pages of new “law”). Look over each item and find what part of the Constitution authorizes is to exist. Chances are the answer will come out to be “none of it”. On a good day, perhaps one or two pages will actually be constitutional.
          Actually, the simple fact that the F.R. runs to 250 pages per day is proof enough; actually reading it is really quite superfluous.

Comments are closed.