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

cawacko said:
Not AN international language, THE international language
Click to expand...

Nope, functional illiteracy is not a language.

Can you identify where he indicated he would take away all guns? Or do you just want to admit your lack of comprehension and move on?
 
domer76 said:
A sucker is born every minute
Click to expand...

47911_on-fashion_cwt27lvjryp4mwlo3lv6ttsd5s2ptt7hevj74cagwi5qbj2htjuq_757x567.jpg
 
SmarterthanYou said:
jury nullification, for one. the primary purpose of the courts was to ensure that the rights of the minority wouldn't be run over by the majority. so no, if the majority said only one .22, i'd laugh and tell them to make me.
Click to expand...

jury nullification is grounds for war. more domestic enemies. I been counting these enemies an I'm displeased to report that the cost for correcting the current deepstate "imbalance" would cost approximately $80,000 plus gas and lunch money: $100,000 a few good men can easily handle this.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
Nope, functional illiteracy is not a language.

Can you identify where he indicated he would take away all guns? Or do you just want to admit your lack of comprehension and move on?
Click to expand...

The international language is dick Domer. If you are a man you would know that
 
SmarterthanYou said:
jury nullification, for one. the primary purpose of the courts was to ensure that the rights of the minority wouldn't be run over by the majority. so no, if the majority said only one .22, i'd laugh and tell them to make me.
Click to expand...

If you laughed at their decision then you don't favor the right of the people to govern themselves. Juries don't make decisions about the interpretation of the Constitution so nullification doesn't answer the question about its meaning. You have created a system that does not allow courts to interpret the law but nobody else does either--does that make you basically an anarchist?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
right.....and I never marched for open carry next to black people. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you racist?
Click to expand...

You haven't liar.

Blacks know what open carry means........some unfortunate Blacks are republicans doesn't mean the party isn't racist.

Besides, it's besides the point.
 
Flash said:
If you laughed at their decision then you don't favor the right of the people to govern themselves. Juries don't make decisions about the interpretation of the Constitution so nullification doesn't answer the question about its meaning. You have created a system that does not allow courts to interpret the law but nobody else does either--does that make you basically an anarchist?
Click to expand...

you miss the point of a republic, limited government, and freedom all in one. what this tells me is that you feel YOU aren't capable of governing yourself, so you must have another entity do it, like the government.
 
TTQ64 said:
You haven't liar.

Blacks know what open carry means........some unfortunate Blacks are republicans doesn't mean the party isn't racist.

Besides, it's besides the point.
Click to expand...

wishful thinking doesn't make it true, sadly for you. the point now seems to be how stupid and ignorant you are.
 
domer76 said:
The original wording by Madison included a conscientious objector clause. For whatever reason, that was removed when sent to the Senate. There is no record why. However, with that clause, the original intent is clear.
Click to expand...

The vague wording is what was ratified.
That being said, do you have a link to the Madison version with the omitted clause?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
have you never heard of jury nullification?
Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't tell us the meaning of the Constitution. If juries in two states refuse to convict a guy for child porn pictures (because you say the government has no authority over the internet) and juries in two other states convict him, is our law then based on whatever particular jury we get? Another jury in that same state may rule differently in the next child porn case.

You don't like courts interpreting the Constitution, but you allow a jury of 12 people to change the Constitution based on their opinion at the moment. That means constitutional rights constantly change based on individual jury decisions. There is no set meaning for any right.
 
Leonthecat said:
The vague wording is what was ratified.
That being said, do you have a link to the Madison version with the omitted clause?
Click to expand...

The Amendment was made EXTREMELY clear to all who voted and ratified. that being said, do you have the super secret document that Madison wrote saying HA FUCKED YOU?
 
Flash said:
Sure, but that doesn't tell us the meaning of the Constitution. If juries in two states refuse to convict a guy for child porn pictures (because you say the government has no authority over the internet) and juries in two other states convict him, is our law then based on whatever particular jury we get? Another jury in that same state may rule differently in the next child porn case.

You don't like courts interpreting the Constitution, but you allow a jury of 12 people to change the Constitution based on their opinion at the moment. That means constitutional rights constantly change based on individual jury decisions. There is no set meaning for any right.
Click to expand...
this would go back to a constitution being suitable for a moral people....something you libs don't believe should happen. But are you really trying to say that you don't understand the constitution? that it is beyond your comprehension?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you miss the point of a republic, limited government, and freedom all in one. what this tells me is that you feel YOU aren't capable of governing yourself, so you must have another entity do it, like the government.
Click to expand...

A republic is rule by representatives, that is the government making decisions for us--so it is you who miss the point of a republic. If I criticize the government I want my right of free speech protected. You would allow a jury to convict me for my criticism if they disagreed with my views. That is worse than a government protecting my rights.

Under your system the Constitution is meaningless. You seem to want a direct democracy all (or selected) citizens vote on every issue--that is the only way for the people to decide everything.
 
Leonthecat said:
The vague wording is what was ratified.
That being said, do you have a link to the Madison version with the omitted clause?
Click to expand...

Here's one. I had the original notes of the House's deliberations with the same wording, but I can't locate them now.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...deleted-from-madisons-original-bill-of-rights

Note, the meaning of "bearing arms" was obviously in the context of the military. "Bear arms" did not mean 'pick up your gun and go shoot dinner'.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this would go back to a constitution being suitable for a moral people....something you libs don't believe should happen. But are you really trying to say that you don't understand the constitution? that it is beyond your comprehension?
Click to expand...

I am willing to accept being governed by our Constitution based on our best possible understand about its intent. If there is a difference in the interpretation of how to apply that intent to current cases there must be some method to determine the legitimate application. You would simply let a jury with absolutely no knowledge of law decide its meaning and allow every jury with similar cases make different decisions.

That is not following the Constitution and destroys the rule of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top