“We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns. But there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country where we are able to protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence.” – Hillary Clinton in Hillary Clinton on guns: ‘A constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ [at twitchy.com]
Then enforce the laws on the books and leave the rest of us alone.
But, but, but, pre-crime!
I very much assure you ‘pre-crime’ (for want of a better phrase) is real, it’s here, and there’s millions of dollars and a hundred brains working on making it better every day.
Predictive algos are used on the filters that ‘see’ the entirety of the internet. If it goes over the web, it runs through an NSA port, is hoovered up, analyzed, copied, and recorded at Bluffdale. There are things that set off alarms, thankfully they aren’t very good at it yet, but they drill down a bit more every single day.
There is a time in the near future where the police will be at your door because they have been informed that they have been alerted to a ‘pattern of behavior which causes them concern’. There’s no tinfoil, this stuff is very much here and is a stated goal of many in the intel community. They see it as a tool against terrorists, one which will inevitably be used against the citizens.
BUT – BUT – BUT…
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” is in the preamble to The Declaration of Independence” and so far as I know does not appear anywhere in the text of nor the amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America.
This person has more than once in her life taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Maybe she should actually read it.
Your projection of safety ends where my rights begin chick.
Exactly. Perfect rebuttal against people pushing for mandatory vaccines using public or greater good arguments.
And your right to parade an unsecured bioweapon around in public ends at my sinuses…right?
That’s borderline troll response material, no thanks.
If my kid can’t draw a gun on a piece of paper at school, yours can’t bring a previously eradicated infectious disease.
Deal?
You do realize the both the inaccuracy of your statement as well as the your inconsistency with individual rights?
I am hoping, most feverently, that you’ve actually done research on this, and are not just doing it because it is the new “cool” thing to do, right? I’m kinda thinking that this isn’t the case, because if it were, you’d realize that immunizations only work if everyone has them – otherwise everyone is at risk, and since that is the case it is a PERFECT example of your rights ending where mine begin… get where that goes?
OK, I am not decided on this point–but how can you say immunizations work only if everybody has them? If I am immunized against a particular disease, then I , by definition, can’t get it from someone else that has it. That’s kind of the point of immunization. How is that “not working”?
I don’t think people understand herd immunity. The reason why people can get away with being a bit daft and not immunizing is because the rest of us do. The problem comes in when you get a large group of these people saying “but you all got your vaccines so I’m fine!” Well that may be true but now there are thousands of you in a small area or school district and couple that with people that forget to get vaccines and you have an epidemic waiting to happen.
Getting a vaccine is no different than carrying a gun. Yes some studies have determined that something can go wrong, but just like a gun being used against you it is highly unlikely. I’d rather have a vaccine and not need it than need it and not have it.
rip, I have done extensive amounts of research on this, have you? Judging by your question, and your statements, i suspect the answer is no. There is so much wrong in your post I’m not even sure where to begin.
“…immunizations only work if everyone has them – otherwise everyone is at risk” There is no evidence anywhere to support this opinion, and in fact, you seem to be admitting vaccines don’t even work, otherwise if you believed they did, why would one persons vaccination status affect another person? Your statement “PERFECT example of your rights ending where mine begin” needs some explanation, how does one persons rights to make their own informed medical decisions affect the rights of others? Isn’t this the same argument we frequently hear frequently against gun owners?
Your post had similarities with people who are paid to post misinformation on-line, hopefully this is not the case and you can respond factually, and not emotionally.
@IA, your assumption about people not understanding about herd immunity is incorrect, as it seems you yourself do not understand the theory of herd immunity. Herd immunity was an observation, a guess literally, based on a non-vaccinated community that appeared to gain resistance to some diseases when enough acquired NATURAL immunity from catching the disease and developing lifelong immunity. It remains a guess, and despite constant tweaking of the supposed percentage of people being vaccinated, vaccine induced herd immunity has never been scientifically validated. It is also now known that any vaccine conferred immunity is temporary at best, and that the majority of boomers and elderly have had no humoral vaccine conferred immunity for decades, yet the outbreaks that still do occur often occur in highly or fully vaccinated communities.
“Getting a vaccine is no different than carrying a gun. Yes some studies have determined that something can go wrong, but just like a gun being used against you it is highly unlikely. I’d rather have a vaccine and not need it than need it and not have it.” That statement is pure opinion and a false comparison in my opinion.
Nothing like a little logic and facts to send the paid posters running for cover.
As long as you are willing to suffer the legal and financial consequences of being a bad parent.
Is that an emo post? Where are your facts?
Assuming you tried to make a valid point, what legal and financial consequences are you referring to? And what exactly are you using to define a bad parent? Be specific or don’t waste your time.
CHICK isn’t the C word I would have used.
Criminal. Crazy. Coward. Caustic. Choleric.
And, of course, the C word that apparently must never ever be mentioned in polite society…..
Cankles.
You’re right, I do have the right to protect myself and others from senseless gun violence. It’s called the Second Amendment, and we protect from all senseless violence, and prevent it, with a gun most effectively.
Yep, what I came to say.
Protect them with what, Hilary? Your fervent belief that the world should be warm and fuzzy?
Hey Tacos, Sergio Leone is smiling upon you.
I get hungry every time he posts…
For Tacos or spaghetti (westerns)? 🙂
If there is a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if target shooting with a fully automatic weapons makes me happy and appreciate my life and protects my liberty then Clinton MUST be for repeal of the NFA. She said it herself!
Hilary’s supposed to be a well-trained Yale lawyer. (Forget about Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, etc. for a moment…)
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Elites? My ass.
And the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are two different documents.
Exactly. And she is or was an attorney, and wants to be the president yet doesn’t know the difference betwixt the two?
They must’ve covered that distinction back at Yale Law School, right? So either Hillary is pandering based on Americans’ atrocious high school civics class quality of knowledge, or she was absent the day they taught law at Law School.
Hillary knows that this isn’t the case. It’s the same thing with the president. The president is very much a constitutional scholar. He understands very well what the meaning of the constitution is and he isn’t an idiot. We often try to assign incompetence to what is clearly malice. The president is like any other lawyer. He studied the law in order to bend the law and try to get as much of what he wants out of it. One might be mistaken in the belief that his study of the law means he has an appreciation for it. Instead, it’s about what he can do with it. Let’s not forget that the president went to Harvard and graduated with honors. He’s no dummy, and neither is Hilldog. Never underestimate them.
This
“mistaken in the belief that his study of the law means he has an appreciation for it. Instead, it’s about what he can do with it.”
Slow clap followed by a hand salute. Applies to all lawyers working harder than government to redistribute wealth.
“We often try to assign incompetence to what is clearly malice.”
Incompetence is their drop-back excuse, should all else fail. Fast and Furious was not a calculated plan to get American guns into the hands of Mexican cartels, guns which would eventually be “traced” to American gun stores, providing “evidence” that “90% of the guns of the cartels come from the USA because of our lax gun laws”. It was a “botched plan” to “track” guns to higher-ups in the Mexican underworld.
I do not want to bring the crazies out, but do ask yourself, why are those transcripts sealed? Then ask yourself, how many others were placed at the head of the Harvard Law review and never authored a single article?
I don’t know that I ascribe him the intellect heft to be truly evil. Not that that’s a requirement for true evil. But if you really look at his life, it’s a never-ending series of amazing breaks, that happen for no apparent reason. He wasn’t ever Neil DeGrasse Tyson smart, but there was always a door open, with a big payday, whenever he needed one.
Where that goes, I have no idea. If we had a free press that cared still, someone would have been digging this out long ago.
“But if you really look at his life, it’s a never-ending series of amazing breaks, that happen for no apparent reason.”
Very observant. I’ll wager he’s planning on keeping on keeping on starting next year. I’ve heard he’s planning on keeping a place in DC in addition to Hawaii for the express purpose of keeping an eye on the machine he’s built.
Most US Presidents once out of office tend to keep a somewhat low profile and generally won’t criticize their successor. If Obama is replaced by a conservative, expect him to loudly scream bloody murder at the attempt to repair the wreckage he created.
His next gig after President?
I can easily see him as Sec Gen of the United Nations…
“… for the express purpose of keeping an eye on the machine he’s built.”
I think you give him too much credit. He is the public face of the machine, no doubt, but I hardly think he built it.
Geoff and Cliff, perhaps we split the difference and say that he is merely a cog of some machine, but he really still believes on some level that it’s all (or at least, mostly) about him.
To be fair, Presidents have been mindless tools, starting with Reagan and going forward. The one good thing GW has ever done is disappear now that his part in the show has been played out.
There’s no single cabal, no one backroom of cigars, hookers, and suchlike. But there are several smallish groups of individuals who have interests, and duke it out using their minions and fiefdoms to make things happen in the big picture. I don’t know exactly how it will eventually play out, but history tells me it won’t be good for the common man. It never is. The worrisome part is that the tech available today, and the power it imparts make it very difficult to make things better.
More like in exchange for keeping Hillary out of prison he gets to be her puppet master while she’s in the oval office. It’s gonna be like the Putin-Medevev arrangement except that he achieved it by blackmailing Clinton.
Exactly. Most powerful progressives understand The Constitution perfectly well, they simply disagree with it, and see it as an impediment to the implementation of their philosophy.
It’s always “gun violence”, as if “baseball bat violence” or “vehicular violence” or “defenestrative (Is that a word? By Gar, it is now!) violence” are more palatable. If they’d actually put away those who habitually conduct such violence, and do so consistently and with prejudice, there’d be much less of it.
Definition of defenestration
1: verb: a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defenestration
Sounds good to me — “defenestrative”, an adjectival form of “defenestration”, as in “defenistrative violence”.
Why not, when we have “administrative” as an adjective drawn from “administration”?
Hill is conflating natural rights expressed in the Declaration with the Bill of Rights. She knows most of her fans don’t think about that too much. And of course she is completely ignoring the fact that the right to life is embodied in the Second Amendment which also includes liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Foolish Hillary.
That’s not the right document.
President? Please no.
What number article and section of the Constitution is this right recorded?………………………………….
………Still waiting Ovary Clinton……………………………………What’s that, gun lobby, loophole automatic caliber clips……………. so you can’t cite the article and section number?
Obviously Ovary Clinton knows she’s lying, but she is intentionally doing so because low information voters won’t know the difference between the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Fifty Shades of Grey.
It makes you wonder who she paid off to pass the Bar.
Mike Ross of course.
+1!
She failed the DC bar exam. 817 took the exam, 551 passed it, Hillary didn’t. The exam must have been skewed against ovaries, vaginas, or maybe just female canines.
It’s not unusual to fail a professional bar/board examination.
Once you’ve failed it, you now know what to expect when you take it again.
There’s an entire industry built to prepare you to take it again. (And substantially lighten your wallet).
You cannot fault her for this statement.
She was clearly drunk on political power… and Vodka.
I call BS too: I have been an attorney for 35 years and taught law courses for 4 years at a university for 4 years, so I claim to be a constitutional scholar too. Remember George Soros a radical anti-gun nut and Clinton support during the 2008 election is still controlling her anti gun rhetoric. Anybody but Clinton.
I prefer my ABC mantra.
Against Bernie and Clinton.
If this were true, then all who are incarcerated could sue the government for violating their constitutional rights. After all, putting someone in prison takes away both their “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness”. In capital punishment cases, it would also take away their “life”.
Amendment V- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Hilary beats Trump, by design. The repubs will do everything to make this possible.
Doesn’t know difference between Declaration of Independence and Constitution, still thinks she’d be great president. Classic Hillary.
She steps in it when she says ” A Right to life”….. I’ll bet she never even noticed.
She is right…
There is a right to life. This is why I a pro-life.
There is right to liberty. This is why I believe in a small limited government with few enumerated powers that for the most part stays out of our lives and places the smallest tax burden upon society.
There is a right to happiness (originally the right to private property in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence) . This why I own guns. They not only protect my private property and the people I love but the mere possession and legal and safe use of them makes me happy as well.
I have no doubt this is what she meant by her comments.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that, sadly, upwards of 90% of the people who see her statement will have absolutely no clue as to the error.
Well, at least 90% of her supporters will have no clue about that. I’d guess it’s a lower percentage among those who don’t support her.
OK Mrs. Clinton. The first to disarm will be ALL OF YOUR SECURITY DETAIL FOR YOU AND ALL THOSE YOU LOVE.
“But there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country where we are able to protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence.”
Gee, Hillary, where is that right in the Constitution . . . the First Amendment, Section Two? Be careful. . . some people might confuse that with the Second Amendment. I’m going happiness pursuing . . at the shooting range. And one thing that would certainly enable us to have a safe country is if you never become President.
Yea I notice that too- here lately the antis/statist love to invoke the DOI (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) in comparison to the 2A. Aside from the fact that 2A safeguards those 3 things, DOI and Constitution are 2 different documents, one is law, one is not. They also fail to make the connection that the DOI was written in response to an over-reaching, tyrannical, central authority. Assuming we’re all law-abiding, the guns I own do not infringe on another’s life, liberty and POH. Guns can certainly become the tools of tyrants, but this day in age, tyranny is much more effectively implemented via legislation…which is what that camp attempts quite regularly.
She is mixing up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Ok – then give us the ability to protect our life with guns, allow us the liberty to keep and bear arms without infringement, and allow us the pursuit of happiness to own whatever guns we want in pursuance of that happiness.
“We often try to assign incompetence to what is clearly malice.”
Incompetence is their drop-back excuse, should all else fail. Fast and Furious was not a calculated plan to get American guns into the hands of Mexican cartels, guns which would eventually be “traced” to American gun stores, providing “evidence” that “90% of the guns of the cartels come from the USA because of our lax gun laws”. It was a “botched plan” to “track” guns to higher-ups in the Mexican underworld.
I beg to differ. ATF Agent Dodson was specifically instructed not to follow the guns by his higher-ups. Not only did the ATF not intend to track guns, they actively discouraged it.
Now, there were reports that ATF higher-ups were literally high-fiving each other when F&F enabled guns were recovered in Mexican crime scenes. So . . . take that as you will.
We do not differ.
“Incompetence is their drop-back excuse, should all else fail.”
There was no intent, nor any method attempted, to “track” those weapons. The sole purpose of F&F was to have those guns eventually “traced” back to the USA, and blame our “lax gun laws” for the deaths intentionally caused by F&F.
With exposure, they “freely admit to a mistake, a badly designed law enforcement program that went terribly awry”. Great cover for the insidious evil scheme they perpetrated in F&F.
So, is there a way to e-mail you directly, cause the paranoid crazyiness has started up in Arlington, Virginia again. I think this kind of fits here in this post, though — certainly parallel thinking going on.
https://www.arlnow.com/2016/02/26/petition-launched-against-lyon-park-gun-store/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/arlingtonians-object-again-to-a-gun-stores-plans-to-open-a-retail-shop/2016/02/25/178ca996-dbf9-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_arlguns540pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That’s 100 pounds of stupid in a 70 year old bag.
Yep. A Liberal “blivot”.
You guys are wrong. There is a constitutional right to life, liberty and happiness. It’s in Article 8, just after the right to an abortion, the right to gay marriage and Hillary’s right to talk out of her ass.
Don’t forget about the right to not be offended and the right to recieve government handouts.
The preamble to the Constitution:
“…promote the general Welfare…” Duh!
Is that the version of the constitution as-ratified by all 57 states?
That still doesn’t top Sen. “Chuckie” Schumer defining “The three branches of Government; the Senate, House of Representatives, and the Presidency”.
You protect someone or something from violence by retaining the means to respond with an equal or greater level of violence.
Maybe one day, we’ll actually get a real article from Dan Zimmerman (renowned intellectual property thief and editor of dead hooker magazine).
Comments are closed.