Retired (Republican) Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment

You people can say what you will. As an American, I will exercise my 2nd. Amendment right until my death, or I decide I no longer want to own the firearms of my choice.
I will remain proficient with said firearms for the enjoyment of the sport, to put food on my table and to protect myself, my family and my possessions if the need arises.
I have no fear whatsoever of the ignorant name calling wimps on this forum (or anyone else, for that matter) who think they can/will take my Constitutional rights away.
Just beware, I am not alone.
 
Rad Dude said:
the two issues have nothing to do with each other. stop being intellectually deficient.

This image is one of my most favorite, badass, patriotic displays in our nations history:

JwN456k.jpg


Click to expand...

In that both notions are outdated vestiges of the past, they have everything to do with each other.. That you fail to recognize that demonstrates your willful ignorance.
 
RB 60 said:
You people can say what you will. As an American, I will exercise my 2nd. Amendment right until my death, or I decide I no longer want to own the firearms of my choice.
I will remain proficient with said firearms for the enjoyment of the sport, to put food on my table and to protect myself, my family and my possessions if the need arises.
I have no fear whatsoever of the ignorant name calling wimps on this forum (or anyone else, for that matter) who think they can/will take my Constitutional rights away.
Just beware, I am not alone.
Click to expand...

Barney-Fife.jpg
 
It's clear that there's no such thing as "constructive gun control legislation". The whole idea is just a diversion from the need to explore why people yurn into mass killers. And the idea that there's an "epidemic" of gun violence in the U.S. is just more paranoia. Our current homicide rate is near a 50-year low. If gun control works, then explain why nearly every country in this hemisphere with strict gun laws has more gun violence and higher homicide rates than we do. Even Canada has provinces and territories that often have higher homicide rates than the average for the U.S.. What we need is both research into motivation, and better access to effective mental health care. Perhaps reopen some of the facilities that were shut down during the Reagan era. If you take out less than a dozen gang-infested inner-city areas, the remainder of the U.S. is just about as safe as Canada or your typical Western European country. The problem isn't guns. We need to focus on criminal gangs and on figuring out what the actual root causes of the real problems are.
 
Stevens clearly has a biased interpretation of the 2nd. The clearest interpretation that I've seen was from the clearly racist Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which stated that if blacks were considered citizens, then they'd have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went", just like white folks. That was the essential interpretation of the 2nd from the time it was incorporated into the Constitution, until after the Civil War, when blacks became citizens and the interpretation changed so their right to be armed could be restricted. Stevens' interpretation is based on that racist reinterpretation of the 2nd.
 
countryboy said:
How exactly is the amassing of weapons by law abiding citizens an "abuse" of the second amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I mean, if you and your ilk want to abolish the Second Amendment, then fine, work towards that end. But don't lie your way through it, just be honest.
Click to expand...

You need to respond to what I wrote, and not what you imagine, or wished I had wrote.
I said nothing about me personally supporting abolishing the 2nd. And I am not going to repeat here for a second time what I actually wrote.

Here is just one example of hiding behind the 2nd amendment - effectively abusing it....the NRA and their gun humping sycophants are such unrepentant assholes, they even oppose a ban on bump stocks

National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch, said the powerful gun rights advocacy organization would not support raising the age requirement to purchase a long gun from 18 to 21, and does not back a ban on bump stock modifications that turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one

https://www.salon.com/2018/02/25/da...oesnt-support-bump-stock-ban-age-limit-raise/
Click to expand...

The Second amendment is not necessary for having legal gun ownership in the country. FACT. Countries throughout the world have citizens who legally own guns without having the equivalent of a second amendment in their national constitutions. What they generally do not allow is the stockpiling of weapons that are designed with ballistic properties and ammo capacity that are only appropriate for the battle field. That is what this really comes down to, doesn't it?

There is no question my mind that an asshole gun organization, and their gun humping sycophants are abusing the second amendment because they are using it to protect bump stocks, advocating against robust universal background checks, screening, and using it as an excuse to stockpile and sell weaponry having ballistic properties only appropriate for the battlefield.
 
Leonthecat said:
The second is sparsely worded and more awkwardly phrased of all the amendments. It is unique among the other amendments that are so much clearer in their intent. So probably not.
It's as though Jefferson wanted to be purposely vague on this by choosing the phrases and putting them in the order that he did.
It seems he was successful with those vagaries, and so, the amendment remains open, and subject to interpretation.

Taking the sentence as a whole, it is apparent that what shall not be infringed, is the militia.
What appears between the first and second commas remains an unconnected set of thought and opinion.

If the amendment were only what appears after the second comma the intent would be clear. Jefferson choose not to do that . He wanted it to be vague so it could be interpreted as the rights of either the people or the militia.
Click to expand...

Please please please have your party run on repealing and replacing the 2nd Amendment. Will you support that? If they do, do you think they will sweep into office? How do you think that will work out for you and your party? Do you want to make foul mouthed Hogg the face of your party?

I really and truly hope they do. I want it
 
rjhenn said:
It's clear that there's no such thing as "constructive gun control legislation". The whole idea is just a diversion from the need to explore why people yurn into mass killers. And the idea that there's an "epidemic" of gun violence in the U.S. is just more paranoia. Our current homicide rate is near a 50-year low. If gun control works, then explain why nearly every country in this hemisphere with strict gun laws has more gun violence and higher homicide rates than we do. Even Canada has provinces and territories that often have higher homicide rates than the average for the U.S.. What we need is both research into motivation, and better access to effective mental health care. Perhaps reopen some of the facilities that were shut down during the Reagan era. If you take out less than a dozen gang-infested inner-city areas, the remainder of the U.S. is just about as safe as Canada or your typical Western European country. The problem isn't guns. We need to focus on criminal gangs and on figuring out what the actual root causes of the real problems are.
Click to expand...

That makes too much sense in this political climate lol.

And you make a good point: vast swaths of the country are basically Canada or Western Europe in terms of gun violence. Here in WV, I would have to drive hundreds of miles to be in a place where I feared being shot at with a gun.

What we have is a gun violence problem in urban areas—where guns are already restricted in most instances. And a rash of school shootings in random areas that are likely copycat. And the elephant in the room is why are so many kids turning into killers?

Getting rid of the second amendment is a political rallying point for the left. Nothing of significance would change if they did get rid of it—and it’s academic anyway, because it will never happen.
 
Flash said:
Because you said the courts should not be able to change the Constitution and said the people have the power to determine its meaning. If we have the Constitution and the government it created then that government has the power to make those decisions.

If we don't follow the constitutionally created government and instead deal with things ourselves, then we have no government. You still have not said how we determine how we will make decisions ourselves except jury nullification which solves nothing. I don't think you have worked out how your system will actually work---you seem to want to follow the Constitution but don't want a government or to follow constitutional law. You want to follow the Constitution only as long as the courts interpret it the way you want.
Click to expand...

now you're just being intentionally dense.
 
Leonthecat said:
Here ya go, again.


"person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" He is exempting people whose religious convictions prevent them from "military service", (Bearing arms).

Within the vernacular of his contemporaries Bearing arms clearly means military service, not to carry in everyday life.
This phrase shines a lot of light on what was meant in the ratified version.
Click to expand...

and as that dumbass has been told, which is why he put me on ignore for proving him wrong, this version WAS NOT RATIFIED, so has no relevance to the discussion
 
Stevens is a Republican who sees the shootings in America as a huge problem that cannot be solved by local laws. The 2nd amendment being changed or clarified would go a long way to giving power over guns to the people, instead of NRA. Gun lovers, how much time you spend on your well regulated militia?
 
Cypress said:
You need to respond to what I wrote, and not what you imagine, or wished I had wrote.
I said nothing about me personally supporting abolishing the 2nd. And I am not going to repeat here for a second time what I actually wrote.

Here is just one example of hiding behind the 2nd amendment - effectively abusing it....the NRA and their gun humping sycophants are such unrepentant assholes, they even oppose a ban on bump stocks



The Second amendment is not necessary for having legal gun ownership in the country. FACT. Countries throughout the world have citizens who legally own guns without having the equivalent of a second amendment in their national constitutions. What they generally do not allow is the stockpiling of weapons that are designed with ballistic properties and ammo capacity that are only appropriate for the battle field. That is what this really comes down to, doesn't it?

There is no question my mind that an asshole gun organization, and their gun humping sycophants are abusing the second amendment because they are using it to protect bump stocks, advocating against robust universal background checks, screening, and using it as an excuse to stockpile and sell weaponry having ballistic properties only appropriate for the battlefield.
Click to expand...

You haven't the slightest concept of ballistics, do you?
 
BucklyTard said:
Smart people usually wouldn't require correction of elementary school grammer.
Smart people usually wouldn't condone murder of government officials on a public board either.
Just an observation.
Click to expand...

You think you are smart? :rofl2: You haven't gotten anything right.....EVER. Good lord!

I guess we can expect that you will be correcting EVERYONE's grammar from now on? Of course not; because absurdity is the last refuge for ignorance and stupidity.
 
BucklyTard said:
I understand it to mean a "military force'.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know what militia actually means. No surprise coming from a mental midget like yourself.

BucklyTard said:
Can your comrades in Russia own any gun they want to?
Click to expand...

Another sign of a moron who has lost an argument; the use of strawman claims. You seldom disappoint shit-for-brains.

BucklyTard said:
Will your Putin allow that?
Click to expand...

This is not merely a sign of an argument that is lost, but a dullard who has gone full retard mode. :rofl2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top