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

[SmarterthanYou]

Triple negative. Your meaning is clouded by your inability to express yourself with sensical grammar.
Want to try again?

yeah, blow me.

 

[Leonthecat]

Says the bleeding heart liberal who wants to grab guns from law abiding citizens.

See what I mean.
Who talks like that?

 

[hvilleherb]

it'll be civil war before that happens.

And those who failed to build bunkers and stockpile food and weapons will be SOL.

 

[Granule]

So much for the argument that no one is trying to take away all guns.

Nonad's not afraid to say what every fucking liberal is thinking.

Thank you for your honesty, camel toe!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Then why would they use the term in such a sparsely worded amendment?

i'm assuming you are referring to the term 'well regulated'? they used it because in those times, they would refer to it as properly running. they would take a clock to get regulated, etc. this isn't rocket scientist and if you'd bother to read the history, you'd know it.

 

[Leonthecat]

yeah, blow me.

I'm afraid that wouldn't make a very effective SCOTUS argument.

 

[hvilleherb]

See what I mean.
Who talks like that?

Do you or do you not want to outlaw guns that are legal today?

 

[Granule]

And those who failed to build bunkers and stockpile food and weapons will be SOL.

My wife and I have already decided that 2018 is the year to go prepper. We're working on that right now!

 

[Leonthecat]

i'm assuming you are referring to the term 'well regulated'? they used it because in those times, they would refer to it as properly running. they would take a clock to get regulated, etc. this isn't rocket scientist and if you'd bother to read the history, you'd know it.

A clock isn't regulated the same way a militia is.
The term has always had several meanings relating to context.
Even in the 18th century.

 

[hvilleherb]

My wife and I have already decided that 2018 is the year to go prepper. We're working on that right now!

Better get it done before libs start the civil war by impeaching Trump.

 

[Granule]

The demise of the 2nd Amendment is coming.

It's only a matter of time.

Nothing you can do about it.

Tick.

Tock.

Tick.

Tock.

oh, shithead, there's lots we can do. all it'll take is one of you assholes to utter one of your bullshit ideas and we'll know exactly where to aim!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A clock isn't regulated the same way a militia is.
The term has always had several meanings relating to context.
Even in the 18th century.

then i'm sure you can produce the documentation from the founders that specifically says the 2nd is only for military personnel...........right?

 

[Flash]

what the constitution meant when it was ratified means the same now.

But that meaning has no universally accepted interpretation and it has to be applied to new developments which are not easily decided---television, movies, internet, electronic surveillance, cell phones.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But that meaning has no universally accepted interpretation and it has to be applied to new developments which are not easily decided---television, movies, internet, electronic surveillance, cell phones.

no, it doesn't. this is a very common misperception by morons who think that the constitution was written to give the government control over we the people. the constitution was written to restrict the government, not empower them. thus, tv, movies, internet, cell phones, etc. all would be completely out of the governments ability to access.

 

[Flash]

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.

The point was that the court upheld the regulation of shotguns regardless of any militia argument. And that is in the past since your claim that it is an individual right is the same decision as Heller.

Because you disagree with the Supreme Court does not make them wrong. However, as I said, it doesn't really matter since all interpretations allow regulation of firearms which is really the political question today. Any argument about the role of the militia, reinterpreting the 2nd, or repealing the 2nd do not prohibit the people from owning firearms or prevent governments from regulating those firearms within limits.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The momentum is gaining, gun-suckers.

Tick.

Tock.

Soon he will be deceased, but the Constitution he spent a career trying to undermine, will still be alive and well.

 

[TTQ64]

Misinterpretation is not causing any problems.

Yes it is. They misinterpret the fact that everyone has a right to own a gun.

It's the biggest cause and the biggest problem.

 

[TTQ64]

I won't disagree, but do you think that the government will change any of that once we the people are disarmed?

The white man will never get rid of his guns.

So your question is dumb and moot.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The point was that the court upheld the regulation of shotguns regardless of any militia argument. And that is in the past since your claim that it is an individual right is the same decision as Heller.

my claim that its an individual right comes from cases way before heller.

Because you disagree with the Supreme Court does not make them wrong. However, as I said, it doesn't really matter since all interpretations allow regulation of firearms which is really the political question today. Any argument about the role of the militia, reinterpreting the 2nd, or repealing the 2nd do not prohibit the people from owning firearms or prevent governments from regulating those firearms within limits.

this is the main problem, people think that 19th century court decisions can change the constitution. jefferson warned about this. the courts are not the final arbiter, we the people are. the people that ratified the constitution were told in no uncertain terms that the federal government had no power to interfere with the arms of the people, so what allows you to accept that they now can?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The white man will never get rid of his guns.

So your question is dumb and moot.

this is why you get ignored, you want to make it about white/black racial issues, but the real issue is blue race against everyone else. but you keep on keeping on with your idiocy.