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

OscarLevant said:

You wrote:




Indeed, you were attempting to impose liberalism, a nonexistent concept during 18th on the 18th century.

And then you uttered some pseudo intellectual gobbledygook.

But, if you are assailing liberalism in general, I already rebutted that one, go back a few and read it.


But, none of those items have anything to do with liberalism, anyway. You're just pulling crap out of our arse.


But wait a minute, you are saying the British doing all that stuff to the colonies was "liberal"?

That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Modern liberalism policies are worse than the causes of the Revolutionary War. The names are irrelevant because it has been the same theme throughout recorded history.

Tennyson said:

The reasons for the Revolutionary War do not scratch the surface of what liberalism has done to this country. Every reason for the Revolutionary War has been magnified by ten under liberalism.

Click to expand...

What liberalism? Right wing Tax Cut Economics is the problem. Why do you believe our infrastructure needs an upgrade?

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...

We always knew the Left wants total control. It's the ONLY thing democrats really support. All issues descend based on that premise.

Tennyson said:

Modern liberalism policies are worse than the causes of the Revolutionary War. The names are irrelevant because it has been the same theme throughout recorded history.

Click to expand...

That bears repeating, Tennyson. Your point is utterly profound.

Tennyson said:

Modern liberalism policies are worse than the causes of the Revolutionary War. The names are irrelevant because it has been the same theme throughout recorded history.

Click to expand...

I guess anyone can make wild declarative assertions on the internet with nothing to back it up, congratulations!

OscarLevant said:

I guess anyone can make wild declarative assertions on the internet with nothing to back it up, congratulations!

Click to expand...

I have listed the difference. You can address that.

Modern liberalism is in constant conflict; makes them look crazy. For example, when they chose the environmentalists over unions (pipeline). It's all calculated toward the singular goal. Violence and death is always part of the game-plan, as is lying, stealing, and cheating. Glib denials and snarky phrases don't excuse what we know is true: the Left is self-serving and dangerous.

Trinnity said:

Modern liberalism is in constant conflict; makes them look crazy. For example, when they chose the environmentalists over unions (pipeline). It's all calculated toward the singular goal. Violence and death is always part of the game-plan, as is lying, stealing, and cheating. Glib denials and snarky phrases don't excuse what we know is true: the Left is self-serving and dangerous.

Click to expand...

Where'd everybody go? Isn't' there a single lib here willing to defend their side?

Seems that Justice Stevens could take a lesson from Justice Story.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, this is his commentary on the 2nd amendment.

§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.

How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.