The Second Amendment – On Shaky Ground? It Is If Hillary’s Elected

The next president will nominate Supreme Court justices who will either support the individual right to own a firearm for self-defense, or who will not. Hillary Clinton has made it clear where she stands. Americans cannot afford to elect a president who will stack the court with justices hostile to the Second Amendment!

H/T to The Crawfish

Categories: Political


5 replies

  1. OK, I got questuons:
    # Does or is it established in the constitution that the election of POTUS will determine HOW’ the Constitution shall be implemented?
    # OK, the potus gets to nominate their suggestion of scotus and the Senate gets to vote to approve or not; that still leaves SCOTUS with presumptive authority to decide determine how society shall accommodate their transactions with society so as to be everything but what they established in founding the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is that to be understood clearly w/o inserting convoluted interpretation?
    # Where, or How, in the constitution is it to be clearly understandable that we can hold any justice appointment accountable for making poor determinations and oust them?
    … and other ?’s
    # In the mean time, what I perceive is troubling Americans these days is this ominous blind trusting that whoever is in position is not going to betray their ability to conducting their daily lives w/o being shaken down for funds and/or compliance to conditions they otherwise would not accept.


  2. I’d have to say the Second Amendment is on shaky ground right now, and will get the equivalent of a death sentence if Hillary becomes POTUS. Even if Republicans hold the senate and can prevent the appointment of new justices, liberals will use the opportunity to enact gun restrictions at the state level that will be hard to overturn if the lower courts uphold them. Then they can just bide their time as people get accustomed to their new reality, as they often do (frogs in boiling water…..)


  3. The right to SELF defense is a fundamental, natural right. This means the right to possess guns is fundamental and pre-existing the Constitution. the 2nd Am. states that the People’s right to bear arms was to be un-infringed, but that the militia was to be well-regulated.

    So SELF defense is indeed sacrosanct, but organized military style units, today the National Guard, are to be regulated, trained, and properly outfitted by State governments.


  4. I don’t think that there’s any way for someone to argue the issue. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both standard-bearers of the democrat party, have made it clear that they don’t believe in the plain wording of the Second Amendment. We know that 4 of the justices are already anti-2nd Amendment votes, all it would take is another “no” vote, and we’re in a world of hurt. And we can rely on Hillary to nominate that “no” vote.


  5. One of the many problems with libs is that they think the government gave us that right and they think they have the authority to take it away. We all know the right to have guns is a right we already had before the Bill of Rights, just like prayer and free speech.

    Why is that so hard for them to understand? Instead of picking judges for their political persuasion, we should have standards for them to meet. If they don’t have a good understanding of the Constitution, they don’t get to be a judge and especially not one on the Supreme Court.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: