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.
Did she say she was going to grab guns. No she didn’t. The there for I believe she will.
Good job!
ping
Oh... and don’t leave out Stuart Varney! He’s great!
Toddlers with guns are a huge probelm
When she came up with that "law for the toddlers," crap, Trump should have laughed her off the stage, as I'm sure 95% of the rest of did.
He should have said: "DC vs. Heller was a landmark decision which affirmed that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. And no person who claims to support the Second Amendment could possibly be opposed to that ruling."
She does support the 2ndA - just not for everyone. She supports gun ownership for the govt and select groupsl. The liberal view isnt a gun free society but one in which some are armed and others arent. This makes it easier to force their agenda on an otherwise unwilling public and to erase certain undesirable groups.
Audio of Clinton: “The Supreme Court is WRONG on the Second Amendment! And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk
She was quibbling over the words `make’ and `ask’ as well.
On taxes she said she was going to “ask Americans to contribute more.”
Extrapolating from that, she will “ask” Americans to participate in an Australian-type gun buy-back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
Knowing the IRS and BATF, recently fortified with plenty of real assault weapons and ammo, the “asking” will not be voluntary, and she will sit back and grin that crocodilian smile while Americans tear one another part.
So she discloses America’s nuclear response time on national TV as well, but Trump is dangerous.
wouldn’t it have been nice to have a constitutional scholar running against her.
Not what I meant (but I didn’t say it clearly). I meant that the total (32,000) included suicides and that the previous chart I looked at was exclusively homicide figures. Thanks. I clarified it for myself. Question was retracted.
RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
Please FReepmail me to be added to or deleted from this ping list.
The stuttering purple lipped rat eared dog eater has run his last race, Cruzbot
Wel, she didn’t say she wouldn’t if she could. Besides she’d like to have others do it for her.
Some would say she deliberately "lied" about the case.
Clinton will gladly crawl over a pile of aborted babies to claim toddlers are at risk of evil guns. The bitch has no moral compass, and if she did all it would do is spin to a blur.
Yes. Discouraging to say the least.
But did you hear that Trump called her a "nasty woman"? Now, that's all that really matters.
Trump blew it.
“And her claim of 33,000 gun deaths per year? I believe that to be a lie/exaggeration.”
I think the number 33,000 was imprinted on her brain by Trump’s repeated reference to the number of emails she destroyed.
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.