Republican Supreme Court Justice: Repeal the Second Amendment

Dear god, the deplorable tears are gonna flow on this one.

Even though he's retired, they're already full meltdown mode on social media.

And that's why we have SCOTUS. Check it out.

I'm not sure what Stevens's point is here. The Second is obviously the least likely of all the amendments to ever be repealed, including the amendment that repealed an earlier amendment. He'd be less futile calling for an end to the sunset.

And why imply that only a repeal can ever bring us sanity with regard to guns?

RoryN said:

Dear god, the deplorable tears are gonna flow on this one.

Even though he's retired, they're already full meltdown mode on social media.

Click to expand...

Why?

A Justice who hates civil rights in the USA advocates shit canning them.

Typical lefty, why would anyone cry about this guy saying some irrelevant shit?

Steven's has been vehemently anti-gun all his career. This is well known.

The fact that the left feels they have to regurgitate old news shows how desperate they are to have someone on their side of the debate other than anonymous loud angry voices.

Not more desperate than Rory though, certainly not.

Lets ban the 2nd in return for the banning of the 15th and 19th

It seems that Stevens believes the only way to achive gun control is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good to know. It also appears that he believes the US v. Miller case is still in play and a factor. That could mean any prohibition of AR's would be unconstitutional if the 2nd isn't repealed. If I were a pro-gun control advocate, I'd be very very careful jumping the Stevens bandwagon.

milehighcityman said:

It seems that Stevens believes the only way to achive gun control is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good to know. It also appears that he believes the US v. Miller case is still in play and a factor. That could mean any prohibition of AR's would be unconstitutional if the 2nd isn't repealed. If I were a pro-gun control advocate, I'd be very very careful jumping the Stevens bandwagon.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Miller is a rather interesting case when contrasted against the "ban all AR's" war cry.

The rallying point behind the ban is that AR's are weapons of war, military grade, and aren't under the penumbra of the Second Amendment which only covers muzzle loading rifles anyway.

Then there's Miller. Mr. Miller was convicted of transporting a sawed off shotgun across state line in violation of several laws. He appealed on the basis of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.. The US Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment didn't apply to sawed off shotguns because the Amendment covered *ahem* weapons that were only suitable for military purposes. Of which sawed off shotguns weren't. Because if they were, the military would be using them and issuing them to the troops.

Hmm, ban AR's because they're military style firearms and not covered by the 2A YET Miller says that's exactly what the 2A DOES cover. Those are kind of opposing viewpoints wouldn't you say? If I had to pick one, I'd say Miller is the controlling position. Which means that the "ban AR's because they're military firearms" argument is a loser all things considered.

I FULLY support Steven's call to repeal Amendment II, as that is the ONLY LEGAL way to accomplish what socialist/progressive/Democrat gun controllers actually want. You know, instead of UNCONSTITUTIONALLY continuing to keep infringing on law-abiding citizen's natural, God-endowed, inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Alas, socialist/progressives/Democrat are far too pussy to openly follow Stevens lead. Which is probably the best thing they have going for them on the issue, since if they did have any nads to seriously push for such an Amendment, no socialist/progressive activist court in existence could prevent their repugnant statist asses from being completely handed to them.

Dom Raso: Truth is They Want to Ban Every Gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyI3uSk1xLw

The judge is probaly senile, right?

Ramone45 said:

The judge is probaly senile, right?

Click to expand...

Is he incorrect?

HisArpy said:

Yeah, Miller is a rather interesting case when contrasted against the "ban all AR's" war cry.

The rallying point behind the ban is that AR's are weapons of war, military grade, and aren't under the penumbra of the Second Amendment which only covers muzzle loading rifles anyway.

Then there's Miller. Mr. Miller was convicted of transporting a sawed off shotgun across state line in violation of several laws. He appealed on the basis of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.. The US Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment didn't apply to sawed off shotguns because the Amendment covered *ahem* weapons that were only suitable for military purposes. Of which sawed off shotguns weren't. Because if they were, the military would be using them and issuing them to the troops.

Hmm, ban AR's because they're military style firearms and not covered by the 2A YET Miller says that's exactly what the 2A DOES cover. Those are kind of opposing viewpoints wouldn't you say? If I had to pick one, I'd say Miller is the controlling position. Which means that the "ban AR's because they're military firearms" argument is a loser all things considered.

Click to expand...

Sure. Whatever. It could be a bazooka at this point as far as I am concerned.

Extreme vetting to get a gun is the right public policy anyway.

Repealing the Second doesn't repeal the right to bear arms. Heller correctly stated the right preexisted the Constitution. You'll have to kill several million and win another Civil War to make it happen. Sorry.

RoryN said:

Dear god, the deplorable tears are gonna flow on this one.

Even though he's retired, they're already full meltdown mode on social media.

Click to expand...

Repeal the 16th Amendment and end taxes, non profit tax dodgers and all those left wing government policies!

I'm going to have a firearm no matter the law just like the bad guys do when they kill and break the law over and over because my firearm will stop a bad guy faster than you can dial for help and wait for it to arrive.
Hell even the famous anti gunners are surrounded by armed guards cause they know the importance of firearms vs being defenseless and a dead victim!

wickedpanda said:

Repeal the 16th Amendment and end taxes, non profit tax dodgers and all those left wing government policies!

Click to expand...

Article I of the US Constitution empowers Congress to levy taxes, income taxes included. A-16 only says the income tax must be consistent. You want to kill that? Have each state levied a different federal tax? Oy.

Who gives a shit what that senile 97 year old has been says?

Rightguide said:

Who gives a shit what that senile 97 year old has been says?

Click to expand...

Not only that, but how does being appointed by a Republican make you a Republican? The SCOTUS record is full of examples of men and woman who did not turn out to be who their appointers imagined them to be once the acquired absolute power.

Rightguide said:

Who gives a shit what that senile 97 year old has been says?

Click to expand...

^^^^^ Most Ironic Post of 2018: Finalist

RoryN said:

^^^^^ Most Ironic Post of 2018: Finalist

Click to expand...

Didn't realize you were that old.

For example, consider how the Second Amendment was treated in St. George Tucker's 1803 View of the Constitution of the United States, which was the first extended analysis and commentary published about the Constitution. For generations of law students, lawyers, and judges, Tucker's View served as a go-to con-law textbook.

Tucker was a veteran of the Revolutionary War, a colleague of James Madison, and a professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He observed the debates over the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they happened. And he had no doubt that the Second Amendment secured an individual right of the "nonmilitary" type. "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty," Tucker wrote of the Second Amendment. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature." In other words, the Heller majority's view of the Second Amendment is as old and venerable as the amendment itself.

...

Stevens cast a dissent, for instance, in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the landmark case in which the Court ruled that flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment. "Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable," declared the majority opinion of Justice William Brennan. Stevens rejected that endorsement of bedrock free speech principles.

Likewise, Stevens has said that had he not retired from the Court in 2010, he would have joined Justice Samuel Alito's dissent in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the case in which the Court recognized First Amendment protections for the rights of Westboro Baptist Church members to stage offensive protests outside of military funerals. "Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt," declared the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts. Stevens rejected that endorsement of free speech principles too.

And then there is Stevens' record on the Fifth Amendment, as exemplified by his majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed a municipality to wield its eminent domain powers not for a "public use," as the Constitution requires, but for the benefit of a private developer working with the Pfizer corporation. "The Kelo majority opinion remains unpopular," Stevens acknowledged in a 2011 speech at the University of Alabama School of Law. "Recently a commentator named Damon W. Root described the decision as the 'eminent domain debacle.'" (Guilty.) How did Stevens' justify his debacle? He claimed that "Kelo adhered to the doctrine of judicial restraint, which allows state legislatures broad latitude in making economic policy decisions in their respective jurisdictions."

Click to expand...

http://reason.com/blog/2018/03/27/justice-john-paul-stevens-wrong-second-a

Here are a couple of interesting facts. Russia (who Hillary Clinton and the DNC used to try and violate our election process) has been trying to violate our free elections since the 1950's. No surprise there that liberals and so called progressives are also called leftist and have the same desires as the Russians and Chinese.

Second, under former President Obama's open border policy he allowed a terrorist army of over 10,000 (M13) to enter this country. All have guns and you can bet not one is registered to the one who is carrying it. The democratic mayors of Chicago and Los Angels, where the greatest concentration of them are, have protected these gangsters and allowed them to kill (over 4,000 deaths in Chicago in one year alone) and rob and even control many of our schools. Yet not one protest march organized (like the "school children's protest") has occurred. The right to bear arms according to the Soros Democrats and the Fake News Media belongs to drug dealers and gangsters and dirty cops like in the FBI and DOJ. (Remember Mr. Obama armed drug dealers in Mexico with guns that killed innocent Mexicans and Americans.)

Since the Soros Democrats are also the Slave Party they will want to repeal a couple or three more Amendments to the Constitution as well.

Also, originally the founders wanted three branches of government. A check and balance type of system where no one branch (like Obama tried to do with the executive branch) have absolute power. However, through many errors we have allowed the Justice Branch to be under no real control. That they make mistakes is not a surprise. Go back to the Scott decision in the mid 1800's for example. Their decisions should be able to be reviewed also under certain tight rules by the other two branches if they are out of line (just look at the District Court in Calif. for a group of judges that are out of contact with the Constitution as an example.) the decision should go before Congress and the President before being allowed to stand. Another mistake is that our founding fathers thought judges would be honest and not political. Never happened. As one person stated above, just because a person was a republican or a democrat doesn't mean they will vote that way. First they aren't suppose to, but their real colors come out when they have no one to be responsible to as their term of office is for life with no retirement age. We have actually had Supreme Court Justices fall asleep in the Halls of Congress during full state meeting. Maybe an Amendment on term limits for all three branches and for all offices in the country will go along way to prevent "petty dictatorships" as now exist in Congress and the various states.

Another is districts drawn up. Right from the beginning Gerrying has been committed and allowed to stand even though it violates the civil rights of its citizens. Some of the courts have tried to correct this, but then corrupt politicians come in and with corrupt political judges just bring back the old boy Z and S shape districts without concern for the people.

Remember people are human. And politics brings out the corruption in people more than any other type of work. I can list many Republicans who are Copperheads and many Democrats who are copperheads to their party. A person should be elected not because of "party" but because of their person, their stand, their record and double checked to see who is stuffing their wallets.

RoryN said:

^^^^^ Most Ironic Post of 2018: Finalist

Click to expand...

Rightguide said:

Didn't realize you were that old.

Click to expand...

this ^^^^^ means he was pointing at you, Vette.

Just helping you out with the netspeak, buddy.

How do you get around Gerrymandering? I see so many rail against it, but I see no viable alternatives.

WoundedKnee said:

How do you get around Gerrymandering? I see so many rail against it, but I see no viable alternatives.

Click to expand...

Independent electoral commission. Works in the UK.