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

Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...
no, i would not. but i'm a man of more principles than most. I'm a very firm believer in 'i might not like what you have to say, but i'll defend your right to say it with my life'. too bad most others aren't.
 
cawacko said:
Sorry junior college drop out if you can't see the bigger picture
Click to expand...

lol

I see you were so proud of #21 for USC. Sad to say pal, your piece of shit alma mater was bested by mine. Another sound defeat.

Run along now, sonny, before you make more of a fool of yourself.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

it's actually demanding a population read, learn, and understand the constitution......but i guess that's too much to ask of people so it's best just to let the government tell us what we should think and do
 
domer76 said:
lol

I see you were so proud of #21 for USC. Sad to say pal, your piece of shit alma mater was bested by mine. Another sound defeat.

Run along now, sonny, before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

No one with your tongue graduated from ND. Attending for a semester doesn't count.
 
domer76 said:
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'.
Click to expand...

That's pretty clear. Within the vernacular of the framers, "Bearing arms" was intended to mean joining the militia in a time of war. Not taking your AR on a stroll through the mall.
 
Flash said:
You are correct, but neither does the 2nd Amendment allow anybody to abuse gun ownership or prevent almost any regulation the public supports. Many states already have gun regulations that ban assault weapons, require longer waiting periods, etc. So, repealing the 2nd would accomplish nothing that cannot already be done.

I certainly don't see a march or 97 year-old justice as providing any momentum that would accomplish anything toward repeal--not even a member of Congress introducing a proposed amendment to repeal.
Click to expand...

If the second amendment hadn't been abused by gun humping assholes, I don't even think this would be an issue.

I don't know what your experience is, but I have seen gun humping assholes use the 2nd amendment to provide cover for bump stocks, high capacity ammo cartridges, military style assault rifles, and as an excuse to weaken any reasonable universal background checks.

I personally do not see it being feasible to repeal the second amendment..... but there are two things I am sure of:

One is that Rightwingers are either lying their asses off, or demonstrating their abject ignorance. when claiming that repeal of the 2nd amendment is the equivalent of a "ban on all guns".

And secondly, there are probably a lot of people who are sick of gun humpers abusing the second amendment to provide a privilege for military style weapons, weapons possessing ballistic properties only appropriate for the battlefield, and a gun culture that does precious little to keep military style weapons out of the hands of psychopaths, and delusional losers.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
no, i would not. but i'm a man of more principles than most. I'm a very firm believer in 'i might not like what you have to say, but i'll defend your right to say it with my life'. too bad most others aren't.
Click to expand...

Now you are going against your claim that the people are arbiters of the Constitution. If the people on that jury did not think free speech gives me the right to criticize the government, your system would allow that jury to convict me because the "people" made the decision.

You said you would allow the people to interpret/change the Constitution through jury nullification; so, is my example above (free speech) the way your system would work?

If not, how would my rights be preserved under your system after the jury convicted me? Under your system the courts would have no power to overturn that decision as unconstitutional. Does my conviction stand?
 
cawacko said:
No one with your tongue graduated from ND. Attending for a semester doesn't count.
Click to expand...

lol


You know so little about ND. But, then again, you know so little about everything.

You're always going to be the bridesmaid, bitch. Get used to it.

Now, where did he say he wanted to take all your guns? Be specific, now. The EXACT quote.

Or, you can just admit you are unable to and move along. But, the ignorant bitch that your are, that aint gonna happen, is it, Rufus?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's actually demanding a population read, learn, and understand the constitution......but i guess that's too much to ask of people so it's best just to let the government tell us what we should think and do
Click to expand...

We could all read and study, but that does not mean we would all agree about its meaning or how to apply that meaning to new cases. How would it be decided?

If the government has no authority over the internet, as you claim, then it could not regulate child porno on the internet. Am I correct?
 
Leonthecat said:
That's pretty clear. Within the vernacular of the framers, "Bearing arms" was intended to mean joining the militia in a time of war. Not taking your AR on a stroll through the mall.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Because there were conscientious objectors who used arms for non-military purposes, the Quakers. It's just that they chose to not bear arms. I think Madison was trying to placate that large segment. Pennsylvania was a big state.
 
Flash said:
Now you are going against your claim that the people are arbiters of the Constitution. If the people on that jury did not think free speech gives me the right to criticize the government, your system would allow that jury to convict me because the "people" made the decision.

You said you would allow the people to interpret/change the Constitution through jury nullification; so, is my example above (free speech) the way your system would work?

If not, how would my rights be preserved under your system after the jury convicted me? Under your system the courts would have no power to overturn that decision as unconstitutional. Does my conviction stand?
Click to expand...

why do you think the courts would have no power to overturn? they certainly have it now. what you're trying to do is argue one way or the other. your one way is government. fine, if you think that government is better suited to telling you how to live and deal with things than you are, which speaks more to your insecurities than mine
 
Flash said:
We could all read and study, but that does not mean we would all agree about its meaning or how to apply that meaning to new cases. How would it be decided?

If the government has no authority over the internet, as you claim, then it could not regulate child porno on the internet. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

would it be your opinion that child porn doesn't violate the rights of those in the pictures/videos?
 
Stretch said:
Somehow, some way, one day I believe the government will remove all guns from private ownership which will leave us in a police state.
Click to expand...

It will happen with a standing ovation on the floor of the house and senate, and with great fanfare.
 
hvilleherb said:
Says the bleeding heart liberal who wants to grab guns from law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Don't take to much of what he says; because him and his brother Buckly are both racists and white supremacists who try to hide their bigotry, behind the accusation of others.

:truestory:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...

Domer just provided it. Madison clearly showed that "Bearing arms" was the period vernacular for joining a militia and going to war.

"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."
Click to expand...

"person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" He is exempting people whose religious convictions prevent them from "military service", (Bearing arms).

Within the vernacular of his contemporaries Bearing arms clearly means military service, not to carry in everyday life.
This phrase shines a lot of light on what was meant in the ratified version.
 
Cypress said:
If the second amendment hadn't been abused by gun humping assholes, I don't even think this would be an issue.

I don't know what your experience is, but I have seen gun humping assholes use the 2nd amendment to provide cover for bump stocks, high capacity ammo cartridges, military style assault rifles, and as an excuse to weaken any reasonable universal background checks.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment does not "provide cover" for those items. They are legal because in most states and Congress the legislative body has chosen not to make them illegal. People are not taking advantage of anything when buying legal items. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with those legislative bodies not passing laws to regulate them because some states have done so. It is the political opinion of the voters in states that determine the laws.

You are blaming the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation but under current interpretation government can extend background checks, ban assault weapons, bump stocks, and high capacity clips. Any talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment is unrealistic--those who want more gun control should be lobbying their state legislature to pass the laws they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top