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

domer76 said:
Looks like you’re indicating we’re the only country in the world meeting that requirement.

Still absurd logic. Had there been 9 original rights, or, if the Federalists had their way, none, your right to bears arms doesn’t exist. Same result in a repeal of the 2nd. Merely a privilege at that point.
Click to expand...

In the view of the Federalists we didn't need a Bill of Rights because the Constitution did not grant the government the power to restrict any of those rights; so, we wouldn't have a constitutional right to own a weapon but we would have the freedom to own one since Congress could not restrict that freedom.

But since those rights only restricted the federal government the states could restrict and even ban (Morton Grove, IL) weapons if they chose.
 
TTQ64 said:
This lie started by racist white men is why white people cling to their guns.
Click to expand...

Instead of just flapping your gums, how about posting some shit to back up your shit??

Unless of course, you don't and never have had anything other then just shit.
 
Flash said:
In the view of the Federalists we didn't need a Bill of Rights because the Constitution did not grant the government the power to restrict any of those rights; so, we wouldn't have a constitutional right to own a weapon but we would have the freedom to own one since Congress could not restrict that freedom.

But since those rights only restricted the federal government the states could restrict and even ban (Morton Grove, IL) weapons if they chose.
Click to expand...

Only rights not enumerated in the Constitution are delagated to the states, and then the people. So no, states should have no power to restrict second amendment rights.
 
domer76 said:
Looks like you’re indicating we’re the only country in the world meeting that requirement.

Still absurd logic. Had there been 9 original rights, or, if the Federalists had their way, none, your right to bears arms doesn’t exist. Same result in a repeal of the 2nd. Merely a privilege at that point.
Click to expand...

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt every time he jumped.
 
Flash said:
Why? They don't have anything to do with the amending process. And I don't think any of them would support such an action.
Click to expand...

They have nothing to do with the amending process, true. That is a function of congress.
But they do hold the sole ability to reinterpret the intent of the framers in constitutional questions.
I believe Stevens used the word "repeal" just to get their attention, and his intention was to wake them to the idea that the amendment is not clear in it's meaning.
 
domer76 said:
Jury nullification is bullshit. It amounts to the same thing as individuals taking the law into their own hands. This isn't "Along Came Bronson" where you have vigilantes deciding who receives "justice". Jury nullification is nothing more than a slap i the face to the rule of law and a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Juries get to decide however they want. Just like justices.
 
Nomad said:
The momentum is gaining, gun-suckers.

Tick.

Tock.
Click to expand...

Yep....the second amendment is a "simple" thing to rescind. :laugh: Suggestion: If Mexifornia can ignore federal law.....why can't every tree hugging state simply ignore federal law and take their citizens guns away...the same way Mexifornia has taken away its PEOPLES security? Do it....just do it. I'd enjoy the show.
 
29541614_1682469701820442_4461582543120359641_n.jpg
 
Flash said:
No. There was a case involving the 3rd a few years ago; it can still be a (rare) issue. The 3rd is one of the Bill of Rights which has never been made applicable to the states.

4th: I don't have anything to hide but I don't want police entering my house or car to search for any contraband (and you don't either).

5th: If government doesn't have enough evidence to convict you without your own testimony, it doesn't have much of a case.
Click to expand...

Really? The government forced someone to quarter someone in the military? Hadn’t heard


As for your remaining posts, we are told by the left that us citizens don’t need to defend ourselves from the federal gobblement because it is always virtuous and would never do anything tyrannical

Ask our resident attorney GayRod, you have nothing to fear from the gobblement. They are here to help. How can a gobblement who wants to give you free healthcare also want to accuse you of a crime you didn’t commit?

You make ludicrous and conspiratorial claims and I reject them

Repeal all the amendments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top