wow -- former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says: Repeal the Second Amendment

[The Sage of Main Street]

Regarding that pesky “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment, what exactly did it mean?

You organize one in case of war.

Like the national guard?

True. The National Guard is military and already organized - and mobilized when needed.

Stormy kicked ass, Betty was totally defensive and clearly provided more evidence that Trump fills his cabinet with incompetents (likely he does not want anyone competent to show him up).

Stormy talked about people fucking.
Bet she was paid for it and paid well.....and all it did was turn CNN into Jerry Springer.
Now, explain which laws Trump broke by having sex with the porn star, assuming she's not lying her ass off for cash.

The Muzzies had Arab Spring; we have Airhead Springer.

 

[P@triot]

Once again we see the actual agenda of the left. The complete and total elimination of firearms.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues for total repeal of the Second Amendment. in an opinion piece published Tuesday by The New York Times.

Of course, this comes from a typical piece of shit progressive hypocrite who enjoyed heavily armed Secret Service protection for nearly his entire adult life and who - now at age 97 - won't be around much longer anyway. One can argue against liberty when one won't be around to suffer under the tyranny.

Former Supreme Court Justice Urges Total Repeal of Second Amendment

 

[P@triot]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

 

[konradv]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

 

[TNHarley]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

Lol
We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom.
Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned"
Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

 

[Lakhota]

Once again we see the actual agenda of the left. The complete and total elimination of firearms.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues for total repeal of the Second Amendment. in an opinion piece published Tuesday by The New York Times.

Of course, this comes from a typical piece of shit progressive hypocrite who enjoyed heavily armed Secret Service protection for nearly his entire adult life and who - now at age 97 - won't be around much longer anyway. One can argue against liberty when one won't be around to suffer under the tyranny.

Former Supreme Court Justice Urges Total Repeal of Second Amendment

Why do you keep duplicating threads with slightly altered titles?

 

[TNHarley]

Once again we see the actual agenda of the left. The complete and total elimination of firearms.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues for total repeal of the Second Amendment. in an opinion piece published Tuesday by The New York Times.

Of course, this comes from a typical piece of shit progressive hypocrite who enjoyed heavily armed Secret Service protection for nearly his entire adult life and who - now at age 97 - won't be around much longer anyway. One can argue against liberty when one won't be around to suffer under the tyranny.

Former Supreme Court Justice Urges Total Repeal of Second Amendment

Why do you keep duplicating threads with slightly altered titles?

Same thing you shills do except its with different account names but same sock.
So, whats your beef, Jake?

 

[koshergrl]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

Such a statement by a past supreme court justice should trigger a review of every ruling he ever made.

 

[Mac1958]

This Stevens piece just made the whole debate even tougher.

Well, at least it's out in the open.

 

[TNHarley]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

Such a statement by a past supreme court justice should trigger a review of every ruling he ever made.

Why? 90% of them are fucking loons who cant even read English

 

[konradv]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution, which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

 

[TNHarley]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution, which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

If he would have said that retarded shit when he was benched, i would hope he would have been impeached. Only ignorant nutters make that argument.

 

[depotoo]

Go and read what the majority opinions stated.

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution, which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

 

[jc456]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution, which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

2nd amendment baby, it's what makes this country great and don't fking forget it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Once again we see the actual agenda of the left. The complete and total elimination of firearms.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues for total repeal of the Second Amendment. in an opinion piece published Tuesday by The New York Times.

Of course, this comes from a typical piece of shit progressive hypocrite who enjoyed heavily armed Secret Service protection for nearly his entire adult life and who - now at age 97 - won't be around much longer anyway. One can argue against liberty when one won't be around to suffer under the tyranny.

Former Supreme Court Justice Urges Total Repeal of Second Amendment

Justice Stevens and the March for Our Lives bunch have handed the midterms to the Republicans. Gun rights will be the primary motivator.

 

[jc456]

Once again we see the actual agenda of the left. The complete and total elimination of firearms.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues for total repeal of the Second Amendment. in an opinion piece published Tuesday by The New York Times.

Of course, this comes from a typical piece of shit progressive hypocrite who enjoyed heavily armed Secret Service protection for nearly his entire adult life and who - now at age 97 - won't be around much longer anyway. One can argue against liberty when one won't be around to suffer under the tyranny.

Former Supreme Court Justice Urges Total Repeal of Second Amendment

Justice Stevens and the March for Our Lives bunch have handed the midterms to the Republicans. Gun rights will be the primary motivator.

they don't get it at all.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms.

You will never have the opportunity to test your theory.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution,

which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

Too funny. The question was not formally raised until the 1930s (United States v. Miller), 150 years after ratification, and finally put to rest in 2008, with Stevens writing the dissent.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

Only that which is not mandated by the Constitution as under the authority of the federal government is up to the states.

All rights so mandated are individual rights.

 

[saveliberty]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Idiots of course are going to read too much into the well regulated militia part. It is simply one of several reason people have the right to owned a gun. Given the time in which it was written, hunting and protection were completely obvious reasons to own one and most people did own them, Really, the government should require everyone over 18 to own a firearm.

 

[TNHarley]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution,

which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

Too funny. The question was not formally raised until the 1930s (United States v. Miller), 150 years after ratification, and finally put to rest in 2008, with Stevens writing the dissent.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

Only that which is not mandated by the Constitution as under the authority of the federal government is up to the states.

All rights so mandated are individual rights.

See, thats how i understand it. But people say (probably because of a SC case in the 1800s) that states can regulate guns however they see fit. Using that logic consistently, a state can tell christians to get the fuck out. A state can ban any dissent against the govt. A state can do whatever it wants.
I say BULLSHIT.