[theBuckwheat]

Let us hope that by “constrain” he really meant “regulate”. However, the regulation of a right that shall not be infringed, is a slippery, and one-way, slope to prohibition, as ever-more stringent laws defining who is and who is not “debilitated” from exercising their Second Amendment right should tell us.

Indeed, it appears that Senator Schumer (D NY) has developed this line of thinking into an art form where he can say he “supports” the Second Amendment, while filing bills that cut away and cut away who can enjoy that right and where he can enjoy it.

Since liberalism, at its core is where a person lies to himself, we can expect the will lie to everyone else too. Anyone who has listened to the oral arguments in DC v Heller will hear the attorney for the District of Columbia tell the US Supreme Court that their total ban on handguns in the District alway included a self defense exemption!

The positions that both Obama and Clinton have elaborated in public about the Second Amendment is just like that bold lie: after I ban all guns, you can still hunt and use yours to protect your family. Who you gonna believe, what I'm telling you now, or the law that I told the gun-grabbers I want to sign?

[Be_Politically_Erect]

I winced at his use of the word "constrain" in regard to the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. From Oxford University Press: con·strain / kənˈstrān/ • v. [tr.] (often be constrained) severely restrict the scope, extent, or activity of: No thanks, Barry.