• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment[W 403]

Bullseye said:
I think the honorable Justice has just demonstrated why he needs to retire. If he doesn't even understand the difference between "automatic" weapons and "semi-automatic" weapons he shouldn't be making decisions that can effect this country for decades.
Click to expand...

He's been retired for years-his Heller dissent proved he overstayed his welcome
 
Bullseye said:
If I recall, it takes 2/3rd of both houses to even propose repealing an amendment. And then 3/4's of the states have to approve. Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Correct, it just won't happen. I know many people like to play that fear on folks but that is one thing I am not worried about. Firearm restrictions, waiting periods, or other policies like that, yeah, maybe people can worry about that. But a full on repeal of the 2nd amendment? Not going to happen.
 
JackA said:
Doesn't protect assault weapons. Despite the many thousands that have been sold it is still untrue that assault weapons are "in common use", the phrase used. Hence, Connecticut's assault weapons ban remains in place.
Click to expand...

Ten million plus assault style rifles are common and protected.

The Connecticut gun law has nothing to do with the Supreme Court as they never ruled on the merits.

Any Supreme Court opinion that does not end with the Second Amendment does not apply to the states is flawed from the start.
 
JackA said:
Doesn't protect assault weapons. Despite the many thousands that have been sold it is still untrue that assault weapons are "in common use", the phrase used. Hence, Connecticut's assault weapons ban remains in place.
Click to expand...

you're lying. the only difference between "assault weapons" and the 60 million other semi auto rifles are a couple cosmetic features. you cannot ban one type for modern sporting rifle (like the AR 15) without banning MI carbines (I have 6 I bought from the US GOVERNMENT) Ruger 10-22 rifles etc
 
Lutherf said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html



For those who talk about "common sense" gun control, stuff like this is why SCOTUS picks are so important. It is the one and only reason I voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in that decision.

For those that can't quite place the name, Stevens was an associate justice of the SCOTUS for 35 years until his retirement and replacement by Elena Kagen.
Click to expand...

An activist Liberal Supreme Court Justice that doesn't like the Constitution as it is. Who wudda thunk it.
 
Rexedgar said:
While we are busy arguing about the 2d Amendment, we are not paying attention to the decline of our nation. There won't be much left to hunt after the nuclear winter.
Click to expand...

Start another thread. You could call it the, "Chicken Little" thread.
 
JackA said:
Doesn't protect assault weapons. Despite the more than ten million that have been sold it is still untrue that assault weapons are "in common use", the phrase used. Hence, Connecticut's assault weapons ban remains in place.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya. A good example of a post that shoots itself down.
 
Last edited:
Rucker61 said:
Interestingly, in Shew v Malloy, the very decision from the 2nd Circuit Court that upheld the Connecticut "assault weapons" ban, the majority opinion concluded:

"In Heller II, a case determining the constitutionality of a District of Columbia amendment "promulgated in effort to cure constitutional deficits that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit thought "it clear enough in the record that semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are indeed in common use.'" Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (D.C.Cir.2011).39 However, the court could not "be certain whether these weapons are commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting and therefore whether the prohibitions of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms." Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261.

The Connecticut legislation here bans firearms in common use. Millions of Americans possess the firearms banned by this act for hunting and target shooting. See Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (finding "[a]pproximately 1.6 million AR-15s alone have been manufactured since 1986, and in 2007 this one popular model accounted for 5.5 percent of all firearms, and 14.4 percent of all rifles, produced in the U.S. for the domestic market").40

Additionally, millions of Americans commonly possess firearms that have magazines which hold more than ten cartridges.41 See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261 (finding that "fully 18 percent of all firearms owned by civilians in 1994 were equipped with magazines holding more
[994 F.Supp.2d 246]
than ten rounds, and approximately 4.7 million more [of] such magazines were imported into the United States between 1995 and 2000)."42

The court concludes that the firearms and magazines at issue are "in common use" within the meaning of Heller and, presumably, used for lawful purposes."

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20140131a54
Click to expand...

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Click to expand...

Either, organize more militia, or enact more gun control measures. Only one, is declared Necessary to the security of our free States.
 
danielpalos said:
Either, organize more militia, or enact more gun control measures. Only one, is declared Necessary to the security of our free States.
Click to expand...

I would love for Congress to muster the entire militia per 10 USC 311 and the 14th Amendment (to include women). I don't know where they'd put 200 million whiny adults, but me and some friends would be more than happy to run them through a firearms familiarization course.
 
Bullseye said:
If I recall, it takes 2/3rd of both houses to even propose repealing an amendment. And then 3/4's of the states have to approve. Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Unless the SCOTUS nullifies the Amendment by allowing unconstitutional legislation. Keep in mind that SCOTUS just recently allowed the FedGov to not only mandate the individual purchase of health insurance but also allowed penalties to enforce the edict. Their basis for allowing such a patently unconstitutional law was that the FedGov has the ability to tax the citizens. That stretched the definition of "tax" like it was a rubber band.
 
Rucker61 said:
I would love for Congress to muster the entire militia per 10 USC 311 and the 14th Amendment (to include women). I don't know where they'd put 200 million whiny adults, but me and some friends would be more than happy to run them through a firearms familiarization course.
Click to expand...

However, it Must be practicable.
 
danielpalos said:
However, it Must be practicable.
Click to expand...

No, it should be practicable. It doesn't have to be. You put more faith in government decision making than I do.
 
danielpalos said:
Not for the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

Have you dealt with government bureaucracy much? Anyone put in charge of mustering the entire militia is perfectly capable of turning into a massive goatscrew with a single memo.
 
We DO NOT need to repeal the Second Amendment. All we need is claim back the amendment as it was written from the hijacking of the far right that climaxed with Heller.
 
Rucker61 said:
Have you dealt with government bureaucracy much? Anyone put in charge of mustering the entire militia is perfectly capable of turning into a massive goatscrew with a single memo.
Click to expand...

I make a motion to start with gun lovers first; whenever they should have to present themselves before the Judicature, for being "punks in our Republic", in the "trouble making punk, age range".

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!
 
danielpalos said:
I make a motion to start with gun lovers first; whenever they should have to present themselves before the Judicature, for being "punks in our Republic", in the "trouble making punk, age range".

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!
Click to expand...

There's no reason to start with "gun lovers". Start with the A's and work your way through the Z's.
 
Lutherf said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html



For those who talk about "common sense" gun control, stuff like this is why SCOTUS picks are so important. It is the one and only reason I voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in that decision.

For those that can't quite place the name, Stevens was an associate justice of the SCOTUS for 35 years until his retirement and replacement by Elena Kagen.
Click to expand...


that is some of the dumbest **** any (former) or current SCOTUS member could utter

well, obviously Stevens has outlived his usefulness; he should just go ahead & croak .............
 
Lutherf said:
Unless the SCOTUS nullifies the Amendment by allowing unconstitutional legislation. Keep in mind that SCOTUS just recently allowed the FedGov to not only mandate the individual purchase of health insurance but also allowed penalties to enforce the edict. Their basis for allowing such a patently unconstitutional law was that the FedGov has the ability to tax the citizens. That stretched the definition of "tax" like it was a rubber band.
Click to expand...
Interesting point. But, I'm sure the entire 2A could be nullified that way.
 
haymarket said:
We DO NOT need to repeal the Second Amendment. All we need is claim back the amendment as it was written from the hijacking of the far right that climaxed with Heller.
Click to expand...

The Heller decision was right in line with the founder's original intent, an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

You're just mad that someone openly stated your goal, which is a terrible strategy because if the frog realizes you're bringing the pot to a boil you'll never get him cooked. You silly incrementalist you.
 
haymarket said:
We DO NOT need to repeal the Second Amendment. All we need is claim back the amendment as it was written from the hijacking of the far right that climaxed with Heller.
Click to expand...

I agree. One or two scotus decisions can open the door to real gun control
 
TurtleDude said:
Stevens started out as a liberal RINO when picked by Ford and deteriorated into a far left hack. His dissent in Heller is one of the silliest going-one of his main arguments was that HE could not IMAGINE the founders NOT GIVING the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the power to ban guns so IT MUST EXIST

his current claim proves how dishonest he is-I will let those who are confused ponder this for a few hours: if they don't get it I will explain later
Click to expand...

He was a liberal RINO when picked by Ford? That's funny, because that isn't what I remember. He was an anti-trust attorney. Nixon put him on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. What specifically did he do as a liberal RINO pre-1975? He was also confirmed to SCOTUS with 100% approval from the Senate.

I didn't care for the man at all on SCOTUS. He claimed to be centrist but leaned too far left in the last 20 years or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom