Posted on 10/20/2016 7:55:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
During Wednesday's debate, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton made a rather curious claim about the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case: D.C. was merely trying to "protect toddlers," and the Supreme Court didn't accept the "reasonable regulation."
Just one small issue: that's not at all what Heller was concerned with. Prior to the Heller decision, the District of Columbia's restrictions on handguns weren't what anyone would call "reasonable." The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was a complete and total ban on the private ownership of handguns--even by trained police officers and by people with a legitimate need for self defense. "Toddlers" had nothing to do with it. The law in D.C. also required that guns had to be stored with trigger locks or completely disassembled. The Supreme Court ruled that both of these provisions were in violation of the Second Amendment.
Even the Associated Press called out Hillary for how badly she messed that one up:
For what it's worth, crime in D.C. was not reduced even with the passage of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. About a decade after the city enacted gun laws, the total number of murders climbed from 188 to 369, making D.C. one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
Harry Truman once said that you could not get rich in politics unless you were a crook. The Clintons have amassed over $250 million during their years in politics, and want even more. Corrupt Hillary is a lying sick old crook, who accepts bribes and betrays our country. Everything she says and does, or causes to be said or done, must be viewed with the utmost suspicion. Her promises are worthless, unless they enrich her in some way. Her husband is a rapist and a pedophile whom she has actively enabled
H->! will be a gun grabber. No doubt.
But it’s OK. It’s for the toddlers.
And her claim of 33,000 gun deaths per year? I believe that to be a lie/exaggeration. The numbers I recall are more along the lines of about 16,000 for most recent years. Looking at this, from Wiki: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/846px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png
But, but, but........she repeatedly said she supports the 2nd amendment last night. You don’t believe or trust her? LOL! Someone needs to update these assclowns on the definition of “infringe”.
Also, I thought Trump should have whipped out a pocket constitution and asked her to point out exactly where in the wording it is written about a womans right to abortion. Then he should have piled on her constant human rights barking and “I’ve always been for the children.” and asked her if fetus were merely irritating tissues masses or humans. Oh well.
Just creating false talking points for her drooling sycophantic idolaters.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when the moderator asked her about her clear open borders stance and she said it was only about energy. What a lying sack.
At least she is consistent. She is constantly hammering on Americans being too dumb to decide anything for themselves and needing to have government force them to do the right thing. She is always hammering on “respecting the 2nd amendment” because of her insane illogical view that the 2nd amendment establishes the national guard. She is constantly hammering on you simply not having a right to own any gun ever at all.
What did “Heller” have to do with children? That was a complete pivot.
Herself was blasting away at the Supreme Court for even taking up the challenge to the DC gun control statute. After all, that was “settled law”, and therefore inviolate.
No matter how inept and inadequate the DC gun ordinances were in regards to actually controlling “gun violence”.
She defers to the safety of toddlers, but not if they’re just a few hours from being born.
That a woman who has been politically active, all her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bain of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government woujld rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she tottally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
I found it deeply disturbing that Hillary felt comfortable with lying as a response to almost every question. I mean, it’s not totally unexpected, it’s what she does: she’s a Clinton, so they lie pretty constantly. But last night I think she stepped it up a few notches. She was just making stuff up as fast as she could. I don’t think it ever occurred to het that any of her lies might come back and bite her. Because life never works like that for a Clinton.
For 2012:
Perfectly logical she’d put such an angle on it. It has to be for the chillun. But live by the trivial fact check, die by the trivial fact check.
OK, you can disregard my question about the 33,000 number. She was close, according to this:
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm
I wasn’t looking at the total, which is mostly suicides...but was only looking at the homicide figure. How her “reasonable gun control” approach is going to prevent suicide will be interesting to hear...
The 33000 number is about right.
It also needs qualifying.
About half are suicides.
Most of the rest are murders.
Very very few are accidents of the kind Hillary was trying to implicate; the number is so small that a fair discussion would have to seek banning pools first.
Most of the deaths involve handguns, but Hillary first wants to implicate assault weapons, which are a vanishingly small percentage of the guns used.
That’s total homicides, many of which (maybe most) are justified self defense.
She’s being a good generic liberal, saying that if we didn’t have all these guns, we wouldn’t have all these suicides.
But places where guns are far less in favor due to cultural issues don’t see reduced rates of suicide by virtue of that. The suicides tend to be by different means. They gravitate to guns here because it’s easy, not because guns are out there whispering sinister things to the mentally disturbed.
“H->! will be a gun grabber. No doubt.
The word should be “would” not “will,” she’s not going to get the chance to grab anything but Slick’s crotch in the future. Or maybe she will “grab” a jail cell, who knows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
