Personally, I don't believe either Presidential Candidate understands either the Constitution or the "common man". So when they are asked to address the Second Amendment, both are thinking about their bodyguards ... they're not worried about you and me.
Gun-control groups fume over debate omission | TheHill: The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition posed a series of questions Americans voted to ask the candidates.
The most popular question: “Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales?” The second-most popular question: “How will you ensure the Second Amendment is protected?”
Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, briefly spoke about guns without being prompted by the moderators.
"I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole and we should try to save as many lives as we possibly can,” Clinton said toward the end of the debate, according to the Brady Campaign.
It's not reported here whether Ms. Hillary addressed the second-most popular question". As far as anyone can tell (and we're just guessing), she has absolutely no intention at all of protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans.
4 comments:
The constitution as written is not popular with either Hillary or Obama, and they are both lawyers.
Shannon Bream on Fox last night called the "gun show loophole" a myth. She went on to explain that universal background checks are a reality now. The only sale not subject to a background check is " a private sale between two non dealers that live in the same state." Even that requires a check in Oregon and a few other states.
True, Hillary said that without being prompted by the moderators, but she was prompted.
Trump expressed his support of the Constitution and said he would protect Americans' rights, including the Second Amendment. Hillary responded to Trump that she "respect[s] the Second Amendment, BUT..." would enact several key infringements on that very same Amendment that specifically says "shall not be infringed."
This would be the same Hillary who mused in public that The Australian Solution seemed "... worth looking into".
Which means that she is not only NOT averse to imposing draconian "solutions" to the "Gun Control Problem", but she actively plans to do exactly that, if elected. In other words, Government by Fiat.
(Not that Obama hasn't inured us to this after eight years of office.)
Post a Comment