Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Does Hillary respect Bill of Rights when she wants underhanded nullification of 2nd Amendment by trial lawyers?

US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wants to nullify the Second Amendment in an unscrupulous fashion by allowing trial lawyers representing murder victims to sue the gun industry out of existence. She would thereby deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to defend ourselves against criminals.We don't allow that because it is an absolute affront to justice. The responsibility for a murderer lies with the murderer himself. We don't have lawsuits against the auto industry or the alcohol industry for drunk driver fatalities. We don't have lawsuits against knife-makers when people are stabbed to death. We don't have lawsuits against chemical industries when wives poison their husbands.If you want to advocate a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, you have a right to do that. But what Hillary proposes is unjust and unethical.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

maple10

I don't think Hillary or most other democrats, for that matter, respect the bill of rights, I think they all see the constitution and the bill of rights as a hindrance rather than a protection.

kbbaldwin

I think the problem with Hillary and most other democrats is that they can read, and thus can actually see the part that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". And actually think those words mean something.

maple10

But they don't seem to be able to read the part that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They seem to have a magic dictionary that defines "the people" as the state government in the second amendment but as individuals in the first and ninth for instance.

imgreywlf

We have a well regulated Militia IT IS CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD.

maple10

You read into it whatever your imagination can conjure up , I'll stick with the Supreme Court of the USA's interpolation that individuals have the right to own and carry arms.

maple10

"Interpretation "

imgreywlf

So then why do you support the removing of that right by persons who have psychological issues or who have committed a felony. Say killing a group of people with a gun. They did not say there was to be a test to own a gun, they did not even say why someone would not be allowed to bear arms.

maple10

Same reason I support taking cars and drivers licenses from habitual drunks and drug users. That's a very long way from Hillary's and other liberals advocacy of a blanket ban of gun ownership by honest law abiding citizens.