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

SmarterthanYou said:
grammar crap? really?




that all depends....but in any government issue like this it will come to killing the cops first. As for killing justices, by the time we would actually get to them, we wouldn't have to. they'd simply be arrested, tried, then hung.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leonthecat said:
The wording of the second, it has been shown, can be taken to mean contradictory intentions.

Modern justices, with attention and understanding of period wording, could see it as something entirely different from what has been seen before by past courts.
Justice Stevens has a good point, and the current court respects his views.
Click to expand...

what the constitution meant when it was ratified means the same now.
 
Micawber said:
I agree. Repeal and replace with some carefully drafted and specific language the limits magazines, ensures our cops and military have better arms than the criminals,
requires training and prohibits ownership by mental defectives. All should be registered, all parts should be traceable. Each gun should be prefired and the FEDERAL government
have its rifling thumbprint. Owners should be strictly liable for harm, including harm by private hypothecation and some later felony. Tons of things need to be done
and they should all be spelled out. The stupid militia language removed, the regulation specifically enumerated. The not infringed removed.

I 10 munutes I could save a million lives and hunters could still kill bambi. This country is filled overflowing with paranoid morons.
Click to expand...

And this would mean that other amendments need to be repealed and replaced with carefully drafted and specific language, like the 1st, the 10th, the 14th, the 16th , the 24th, and the 26th.
Do you agree?
 
Leonthecat 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...

well, people like you are allowed to have idiot opinions, so.......

as far as condoning the murder of government officials, you're damned right I do. any government official who violates the constitutional rights of the people. I don't care if you don't think it's not smart, simply because you're a statist moron to begin with.
 
Leonthecat said:
The wording of the second, it has been shown, can be taken to mean contradictory intentions.
Click to expand...

True, but those intentions are irrelevant in practice because they both allow regulation of firearms. The real issue is what regulations federal and state governments choose to impose, not the intentions of the 2nd (assuming we are talking about regulations some states already have that have public support).

The 2nd did not even apply to the states until 2010, so all 50 states went without a 2nd Amendment restricting them and none chose to impose severe restrictions (although some state constitutions have protections).
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how was it reinterpreted? be VERY specific.
Click to expand...

Basically it changed the interpretation from Miller claiming the right was tied to being in a militia to making it an individual right (not requiring militia membership). Both allowed reasonable regulations which meant not much changed except striking down D. C.'s ban of pistols and requiring rifles to be unloaded and disassembled.
 
Flash said:
Basically it changed the interpretation from Miller claiming the right was tied to being in a militia to making it an individual right (not requiring militia membership).
Click to expand...
I figured you'd use this case, especially because it doesn't mean anything like what liberals claim it does. Miller, besides being a case that the supremes should not have heard because Miller was already dead, says NOTHING about the right being tied to the militia, ONLY about the types of weapons for militia use. it was also wrong because they based their decision on the LACK of evidence, which might have been provided had a better case been able to been presented. On top of all of that, every commentary, opinion, statement by every founder during the run up to ratification states very clearly that it's an individual right. So unless there's some super secret document that madison had lying around that says HA HA FUCKED YA, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
 
Flash said:
Basically it changed the interpretation from Miller claiming the right was tied to being in a militia to making it an individual right (not requiring militia membership). Both allowed reasonable regulations which meant not much changed except striking down D. C.'s ban of pistols and requiring rifles to be unloaded and disassembled.
Click to expand...

"Well regulated"
 
Leonthecat said:
I understand it to mean a "military force'.
Click to expand...
then you understand wrong.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Leonthecat said:
Can your comrades in Russia own any gun they want to?
Will your Putin allow that?
Click to expand...
why are we discussing russia? does the 2nd Amendment apply to russia?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, people like you are allowed to have idiot opinions, so.......

as far as condoning the murder of government officials, you're damned right I do. any government official who violates the constitutional rights of the people. I don't care if you don't think it's not smart, simply because you're a statist moron to begin with.
Click to expand...

Triple negative. Your meaning is clouded by your inability to express yourself with sensical grammar.
Want to try again?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then you understand wrong.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


why are we discussing russia? does the 2nd Amendment apply to russia?
Click to expand...

We should make Red Dawn mandatory viewing for all school children.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe the founders would make a right for the government to regulate the peoples arms after they had just won independence from a government that tried to regulate their arms.
Click to expand...

Then why would they use the term in such a sparsely worded amendment?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then you understand wrong.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


why are we discussing russia? does the 2nd Amendment apply to russia?
Click to expand...

hvilleherb is a Russian operative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top