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

Leonthecat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the current (and past) interpretation is fairly clear. Individuals have a right to own a gun subject to government regulations. Federal and state legislative bodies determine what those regulations will be. That should satisfy everyone except those who want to ban guns or have no regulations--both representing a very small, insignificant, number of people. Even those who claim the right is limited to militia membership does not prevent others from owning firearms unless those legislative bodies outlaw that ownership which we both know they will never do.

What more do we need to know?
 
I Love America said:
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
Click to expand...

What is one conspiratorial claim I made?

3rd: Yes, the national guard was brought in to put down a riot at a state prison and housed in barracks of the prison guards. The guards sued claiming the 3rd was violated. They were wrong because all the amendments originally restricted the federal government only and this case involved state action and the 3rd had never been incorporated to apply to the states like most of the other Bill of Rights. They sued to make the 3rd applicable to the states and the court allowed the suit to continue. However, before the trial began they reached an out of court settlement and the issue became moot.
 
Flash said:
I agree. It certainly has no constitutional basis and defies the rule of law and constitutional government. Of course, we cannot force a jury to convict someone if they believe it it is an unrighteous law, but most will follow the law. Nullification is pushed by the same people who do not think we have a legal obligation to pay income taxes or that the income tax is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

nullification has been around since before the constitution, it's been used after ratification, and is indeed a natural right of the people to combat unfair use of the laws from the government. sucks that you hate it, but it will never go away. jury nullification is to be used for things like marijuana or gun possession, where these acts are RIGHTS, but have been turned in to crimes by the government through the idiot support of an apathetic and cowardly majority.
 
I Love America said:
Really? The government forced someone to quarter someone in the military? Hadn’t heard
Click to expand...
the case actually involved the police in a medium city. they had forcibly evicted the family so they could set up and conduct surveillance on their neighbor. The homeowner did not want to be involved, so he resisted their invasion and takeover. The corrupt judicial system ruled that the 3rd didn't apply because police officers are not military soldiers.
 
Superfreak said:
When the primary discussion is on mass shootings, that is what I reference. You little cocksucker.
Click to expand...

The topic is the 2nd Amendment and gun violence, bitch.

You cherry-pick, cunt, in a miserably vain attempt to make a failed point.

You’re out of your league, sonny, and got exposed for your ignorance again. Run along now.
 
domer76 said:
The topic is the 2nd Amendment and gun violence, bitch.

You cherry-pick, cunt, in a miserably vain attempt to make a failed point.

You’re out of your league, sonny, and got exposed for your ignorance again. Run along now.
Click to expand...

You poor vile little twit. Again, the media and others are up in arms (pun intended) about mass shootings. Which again is why I posted those stats. If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, then that is your problem.

Bottom line, you are as ignorant as Desh. You are simply here to spout your vile bullshit just as she does. I pity you.
 
Superfreak said:
You poor vile little twit. Again, the media and others are up in arms (pun intended) about mass shootings. Which again is why I posted those stats. If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, then that is your problem.

Bottom line, you are as ignorant as Desh. You are simply here to spout your vile bullshit just as she does. I pity you.
Click to expand...

Here's a stat, bitch. 30,000+ gun deaths a year. No numbers removed. No cherry picking bullshit. Just dead people.

Look THAT stat up and see where we compare, taintlicker.

Sad little RW fucktard.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
nullification has been around since before the constitution, it's been used after ratification, and is indeed a natural right of the people to combat unfair use of the laws from the government. sucks that you hate it, but it will never go away. jury nullification is to be used for things like marijuana or gun possession, where these acts are RIGHTS, but have been turned in to crimes by the government through the idiot support of an apathetic and cowardly majority.
Click to expand...

It is obviously seldom used and certainly has not been effective since those laws still exist regulating marijuana and guns.

How do we know which things are rights and what government can regulate? Does my right include using any drug I choose and the right of individuals to sell me those drugs? To get an abortion after 6 months? To marry a girl of 15 (I could do that in a state of nature and it was quite common earlier in our history)?

Was the OJ jury an example of nullification?
 
Flash said:
It is obviously seldom used and certainly has not been effective since those laws still exist regulating marijuana and guns.
Click to expand...
the more it gets used, the less government will prosecute those 'crimes' because it would be fruitless to do so.

Flash said:
How do we know which things are rights and what government can regulate? Does my right include using any drug I choose and the right of individuals to sell me those drugs? To get an abortion after 6 months? To marry a girl of 15 (I could do that in a state of nature and it was quite common earlier in our history)?
Click to expand...
become intelligent? read your constitution, debate minutes, commentaries. don't just follow the stupid talking points and ignore the court rulings because the courts are not the power of interpreting the constitution.

Flash said:
Was the OJ jury an example of nullification?
Click to expand...
no. the OJ trial was a clear example of a prosecutor running a very shoddy and fucked up prosecution thinking she had a slam dunk.
 
Flash said:
I think the current (and past) interpretation is fairly clear. Individuals have a right to own a gun subject to government regulations. Federal and state legislative bodies determine what those regulations will be. That should satisfy everyone except those who want to ban guns or have no regulations--both representing a very small, insignificant, number of people. Even those who claim the right is limited to militia membership does not prevent others from owning firearms unless those legislative bodies outlaw that ownership which we both know they will never do.

What more do we need to know?
Click to expand...

Where was the phrase of "subject to government regulations" included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights??
 
domer76 said:
Here's a stat, bitch. 30,000+ gun deaths a year. No numbers removed. No cherry picking bullshit. Just dead people.

Look THAT stat up and see where we compare, taintlicker.

Sad little RW fucktard.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to include the criminals who were shot while conducting the commission of a crime??

Is it because without them, your point becomes very dull??
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the more it gets used, the less government will prosecute those 'crimes' because it would be fruitless to do so.

become intelligent? read your constitution, debate minutes, commentaries. don't just follow the stupid talking points and ignore the court rulings because the courts are not the power of interpreting the constitution.

no. the OJ trial was a clear example of a prosecutor running a very shoddy and fucked up prosecution thinking she had a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

That makes my point. The government still chooses to prosecute those crimes because there are few, if any, examples of nullification. The decision to reduce prosecution of federal marijuana laws has nothing to do with nullification

I have read the Constitution and debate minutes (of which there are none really at the convention except for Madison's notes) and commentaries but none of that answers the question of whether I have the right to use and sell cocaine, heroin, or marijuana, get an abortion after 6 months, or marry a 15 year old.

You can argue the federal government has no power to regulate those matters but that does not determine state powers to regulate.

The OJ trial was also a case of choosing a jury from LA--that sounds like a type of nullification to me. If blacks think the "establishment" is trying to bring down successful black men (a charge I heard often at the time) they can nullify that action with a not guilty plea.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where was the phrase of "subject to government regulations" included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights??
Click to expand...

The same place it says government can regulate speech, press, religion, assembly, search and seizure, and other rights in the Bill of Rights. None of these rights have ever been ruled absolute so they may be regulated; for example, free speech does not protect threats if government decides to prohibit it.

If the 2nd is not subject to government regulations does that mean we cannot regulate age or past criminal activity for gun purchases? The Constitution also does not include those exceptions in its language, either.
 
Leonthecat said:
The only one who mentioned repeal was a retired republican SC judge.
Ironic ain't it.
You go ahead and knee jerk like an NFL place kicker with shit on his shoe.
It's what you do best.
LOL
Click to expand...


The only one? How many do you need? Apparently your side thinks it is safe to come out of hiding. Even you want the 2nd Amendment repealed. You just don't have the balls to come out and say it. And it scares the shit out of you that Stevens said it. It is the last thing your party needs heading into 2018 midterms. Nothing could screw up your desire of taking back the House than the democrat party being perceived as wanting to grab guns. Please, please please let them run on the Hogg Agenda

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...der-calls-for-repealing-the-second-amendment/
 
Flash said:
The same place it says government can regulate speech, press, religion, assembly, search and seizure, and other rights in the Bill of Rights. None of these rights have ever been ruled absolute so they may be regulated; for example, free speech does not protect threats if government decides to prohibit it.

If the 2nd is not subject to government regulations does that mean we cannot regulate age or past criminal activity for gun purchases? The Constitution also does not include those exceptions in its language, either.
Click to expand...

Then you won't have any problem quoting it, from your rewritten Constitution and/or Bill of Rights; because it's not in any of the originals.
 
domer76 said:
Here's a stat, bitch. 30,000+ gun deaths a year. No numbers removed. No cherry picking bullshit. Just dead people.

Look THAT stat up and see where we compare, taintlicker.

Sad little RW fucktard.
Click to expand...

So emotional you are. Even using the same stupid insults as the ignorant Desh. So sad. I pity you.
 
Superfreak said:
So emotional you are. Even using the same stupid insults as the ignorant Desh. So sad. I pity you.
Click to expand...

real functioning humans have emotions

sociopathic evil fucks like you don't


its why no one has ever truly loved you

sociopaths make people not love them
 
I'm a bleeding heart liberal remember you fucking bone headed ice heart


your memes are bumping into each other again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top