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

[TurtleDude]

I'm no gun grabber. But I know how long a blade can be before I get arrested.

I spent lots of years working on knife techniques. as long as they are carried openly there is no such limit here in ohio

 

[Bark]

I spent lots of years working on knife techniques. as long as they are carried openly there is no such limit here in ohio

Texas regulates the length of bladed arms.

 

[TurtleDude]

Texas regulates the length of bladed arms.

I know, a silly law. there's no correlation between blade length and criminal misuse

 

[OscarLevant]

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.

Precisely why I voted against Trump.

Gorsuch will do more damage to this country than you realize. He's a corporate shill, and the little guy is screwed.

No "populist" would have ever appointed a judge like Gorsuch. Garland was a centrist, a far better choice.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that "republican populist" is an oxymoron, i.e., a moron who sucks up all the oxygen.

(for the humor challenged, that's called a "joke" ).


JPS article for 2A repeal, even if Hillary won, that's not going to happen.

 

[OscarLevant]

You are free to provide any historical evidence that "well regulated" meant regulations.

well, how about explaining how one achieves a well - regulated militia without regulations?

 

[OscarLevant]

I take it you cannot provide any evidence. You could try something like this:


Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 , Saturday, December 13, 1777:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.​

George Washington:

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.​

The London Gazette No. 2568/3 in 1690:

We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.​

It seems that "regulated" is being used in the sense of "organized", "disciplined", etc. eh?

 

[OscarLevant]

How many do you want?

Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.​

So "regulated" seems to mean 'disciplined', 'organized', unified of purpose, that sort of thing.

 

[OscarLevant]

Yes he's a Gerald Ford appointee and he may be Republican but he is not conservative clearly.

Ford was a moderate, but a conservative, nevertheless. If you listened to the Carter/Ford presidential debate (I'm 67), there is no question that his mindset is classic conservatism, anti-regulation, small government, etc.

 

[OscarLevant]

Not if he believed in repealing the bill of rights.

Ford was a moderate. In fact, I recall him, in an interview, supporting the ERA. No one against the bill of rights would ever be for the ERA.

 

[OscarLevant]

Natural and unalienable rights come from God. You are only explaining why atheists were excluded from most of the legal and political processes in the founding era.

You can't make an assertion with an assumed premise. You must first prove your premise, then, and only then, can you utter a complete sentence based on that premise. That many of the founding fathers were deists and Christians doesn't alter that fact.


Good luck on proving the existence of God. It cannot be done.

 

[OscarLevant]

America meant something until liberalism created a government worse than the British. Every right that was fought for in the Revolutionary War liberalism has take away.

Liberalism? Are you kidding me?


In the last 58 years, republicans have occupied 3o of them in the oval office.

I remember the standard of living when I left high school in '69. Today, the standard of living, for middle and lower classes, is worse.

A lot worse.


What changed? The biggest change was the lowering the upper tax rate of the super rich from 70% to 35%, and now 25%. Proportional to the chipping away of the progressivity in the tax code, the standard of living has decline.

In short, supply side "trickle down" economics. Reaganomics.

That is the the direction the ring wing, ie., led by Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, whose book, "free to choose" inspired by the philosophy of Ayn Rand and later the Austrian school, who influenced Reaganomics, has taken our nation, .....

Downward. So far, dems haven't reversed that course. Clinton did, but just a little, and he did manage to squeeze out a surplus.

The rich's wealth and incomes has grown way ahead of inflation, where wealth and income on middle class and the poor has remained flat.

What it did is deprive the government of the funds for roads schools, lots of things, expanded deficits which was paid for largely with fiat currency, which caused inflation, and because the poor cannot hedge, and the middle class not so much, either, where the rich can shield themselves from inflation by hedging, and, as the result, that cost was on the shoulders of the poor and the middle class, whose disposible incomes are much less today than they were in the 50s.

So, this is why Bernie wants to reverse the ship of state that Reagan set us on, to grab back a bigger piece of the pie that the rich rigged the system in their favor.

Reagan said that the government is not the solution, it is the problem.

Okay, let's take a look. in government, top tier executive one wagers are in the $200k range, and the bottom jobs pay about $15 an hour, so there is a disparity of about 7 to 1. That's about where it should be.

In corporate world, the disparity is about 300 to 1.

Seems to me that private enterprise is not the solution, it is the problem. It needs to be regulated.

I"m not calling for totalitarianism (Soviet russia ), I'm calling for a return of progressivity in the tax code,

and capitalism for wants, socialism for needs, ( police, fire, military, social services and health care).

Where does the pendulum rest? It rests dead center.

Capitalism without socialism will devour itself, and conversely,

Socialism without capitalism will wither and die.

This is why China, ruled by the communist party, is booming, they put the pendulum in the center.

I was talking to an entrepeneur who had a factory in China, he told me, if you go to China, and pitch
them a business idea, the government will fund it.

I took a walk around the UCSD campus, the student body is about 70% from China. When I was a kid, over and over and over I was told that "communism is poverty" and if that is true, how come so many chinese in a very expensive school ? ( much more so for Chinese ). Well, the truth is, totalitarianism is poverty, and China ceased being a totalitarian state, they now allow capitalism, and they are doing well.

That's what I mean by putting the pendulum in the center. They need each other for each to work.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ford was a moderate. In fact, I recall him, in an interview, supporting the ERA. No one against the bill of rights would ever be for the ERA.

I'm not talking about Ford, I'm talking about John Paul Stevens.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ford was a moderate, but a conservative, nevertheless. If you listened to the Carter/Ford presidential debate (I'm 67), there is no question that his mindset is classic conservatism, anti-regulation, small government, etc.

Ford like many corporate republicans were anti gun.

 

[Tennyson]

Liberalism? Are you kidding me?


In the last 58 years, republicans have occupied 3o of them in the oval office.

I remember the standard of living when I left high school in '69. Today, the standard of living, for middle and lower classes, is worse.

A lot worse.


What changed? The biggest change was the lowering the upper tax rate of the super rich from 70% to 35%, and now 25%. Proportional to the chipping away of the progressivity in the tax code, the standard of living has decline.

In short, supply side "trickle down" economics. Reaganomics.

That is the the direction the ring wing, ie., led by Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, whose book, "free to choose" inspired by the philosophy of Ayn Rand and later the Austrian school, who influenced Reaganomics, has taken our nation, .....

Downward. So far, dems haven't reversed that course. Clinton did, but just a little, and he did manage to squeeze out a surplus.

The rich's wealth and incomes has grown way ahead of inflation, where wealth and income on middle class and the poor has remained flat.

What it did is deprive the government of the funds for roads schools, lots of things, expanded deficits which was paid for largely with fiat currency, which caused inflation, and because the poor cannot hedge, and the middle class not so much, either, where the rich can shield themselves from inflation by hedging, and, as the result, that cost was on the shoulders of the poor and the middle class, whose disposible incomes are much less today than they were in the 50s.

So, this is why Bernie wants to reverse the ship of state that Reagan set us on, to grab back a bigger piece of the pie that the rich rigged the system in their favor.

Reagan said that the government is not the solution, it is the problem.

Okay, let's take a look. in government, top tier executive one wagers are in the $200k range, and the bottom jobs pay about $15 an hour, so there is a disparity of about 7 to 1. That's about where it should be.

In corporate world, the disparity is about 300 to 1.

Seems to me that private enterprise is not the solution, it is the problem. It needs to be regulated.

I"m not calling for totalitarianism (Soviet russia ), I'm calling for a return of progressivity in the tax code,

and capitalism for wants, socialism for needs, ( police, fire, military, social services and health care).

Where does the pendulum rest? It rests dead center.

Capitalism without socialism will devour itself, and conversely,

Socialism without capitalism will wither and die.

This is why China, ruled by the communist party, is booming, they put the pendulum in the center.

I was talking to an entrepeneur who had a factory in China, he told me, if you go to China, and pitch
them a business idea, the government will fund it.

I took a walk around the UCSD campus, the student body is about 70% from China. When I was a kid, over and over and over I was told that "communism is poverty" and if that is true, how come so many chines in a very expensive school ? ( much more so for Chinese ). Well, the truth is, totalitarianism is poverty, and China ceased being a totalitarian state, they now allow capitalism, and they are doing well.

That's what I mean by putting the pendulum in the center. They need each other for each to work.

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.

 

[OscarLevant]

Ford like many corporate republicans were anti gun.

Not true, they were moderates who, like most democrats, favored common sense gun regulations.

I've never met nor heard of an anti-corporate republican, but anti-corporatism is the mainstay of liberals.

Oh, there might be someone out there who fits that description, but they aren't the core of conservatism.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not true, they were moderates who, like most democrats, favored common sense gun regulations.

I've never met nor heard of an anti-corporate republican, but anti-corporatism is the mainstay of liberals.

Oh, there might be someone out there who fits that description, but they aren't the core of conservatism.

how do you judge common sense

1) it will decrease crime without unduly burdening honest people

2) it will burden honest people why low wattage sheeple will believe it reduces crime

its already illegal for criminals to possess firearms

thus any law that restricts what honest people can own is NOT common sense

 

[OscarLevant]

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.

Oh bull. If you poll on that one, you're going to get a strong mix of opinions, it's not that clear cut.

Was the American Revolution liberal (yes) or conservative (no) in nature? | Debate.org

In a nutshell, whether the American Revolution was liberal or conservative, depends on your political philosophy.

Moving on

Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were all republicans and the great depression happen on their watch, not dems. The crash of 2008 fell on Bush's watch, not Obamas. The victory over Nazism and Imperial Japan hegemony --www11 happened during Dems in office, not republicans, also that the end of ww1 was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. The three great presidents, Wilson, FDR, were Democrats, and Lincoln, well, lets take a closer look: During Lincoln, the concept of conservatism did not exist, so plotting him on a right or left spectrum is not that easy, so all we can do is evaluate his statements:

He said:

"So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

And "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."


I cannot find any progressive liberal that would disagree with that.

"Labour deserves much higher consideration over capital".

Find me a conservative republican that agrees with that.

Now then.

The decline of the standard of living of the last 58 years (of which repubs had the white house for 30 ) is due to the influence of Ayn Rand & Milton Friedman/ i.e., "trickle down" (supply side) economics on conservatism, the chipping away of the progressive tax system, the idea that the free market and cutting taxes on the super rich is the panacea of all of a nation's ills. All it has done is cause deficits to soar, which has caused inflation, the price of which is paid by the poor and middle class because the rich can hedge way better than the lower classes.

I'll fault dems for not reversing that policy but dems only had an effective filibuster proof majority in the senate for about 72 days, and that was during Obama noting that republicans filibustered every bill they put forth outside that 72 day window. So, the onus of that decline falls strictly on the shoulders of republicans and "conservatism".

Therefore, I big to differ with your premise, and, in fact, assert that the reverse is true.

 

[OscarLevant]

how do you judge common sense

1) it will decrease crime without unduly burdening honest people

2) it will burden honest people why low wattage sheeple will believe it reduces crime

its already illegal for criminals to possess firearms

thus any law that restricts what honest people can own is NOT common sense

So, allowing citizens to own 50 caliber fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, tanks, mortars, bombs, is common sense?

That's what you said.

Apparently common sense escapes you.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, allowing citizens to own 50 caliber fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, tanks, mortars, bombs, is common sense?

That's what you said.

Apparently common sense escapes you.

such silliness

do civilian police have those weapons? NO

 

[TurtleDude]

why is it when asked what common sense gun laws are-liberal gun banners dishonestly talk about mortars and bazookas when they intend to ban common firearms that have been around for decades

 

[Tennyson]

Oh bull. If you poll on that one, you're going to get a strong mix of opinions, it's not that clear cut.

Was the American Revolution liberal (yes) or conservative (no) in nature? | Debate.org

In a nutshell, whether the American Revolution was liberal or conservative, depends on your political philosophy.

Moving on

Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were all republicans and the great depression happen on their watch, not dems. The crash of 2008 fell on Bush's watch, not Obamas. The victory over Nazism and Imperial Japan hegemony --www11 happened during Dems in office, not republicans, also that the end of ww1 was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. The three great presidents, Wilson, FDR, were Democrats, and Lincoln, well, lets take a closer look: During Lincoln, the concept of conservatism did not exist, so plotting him on a right or left spectrum is not that easy, so all we can do is evaluate his statements:

He said:

"So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

And "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."


I cannot find any progressive liberal that would disagree with that.

"Labour deserves much higher consideration over capital".

Find me a conservative republican that agrees with that.

Now then.

The decline of the standard of living of the last 58 years (of which repubs had the white house for 30 ) is due to the influence of Ayn Rand & Milton Friedman/ i.e., "trickle down" (supply side) economics on conservatism, the chipping away of the progressive tax system, the idea that the free market and cutting taxes on the super rich is the panacea of all of a nation's ills. All it has done is cause deficits to soar, which has caused inflation, the price of which is paid by the poor and middle class because the rich can hedge way better than the lower classes.

I'll fault dems for not reversing that policy but dems only had an effective filibuster proof majority in the senate for about 72 days, and that was during Obama noting that republicans filibustered every bill they put forth outside that 72 day window. So, the onus of that decline falls strictly on the shoulders of republicans and "conservatism".

Therefore, I big to differ with your premise, and, in fact, assert that the reverse is true.

Onerous taxes, banning of guns, violating unalienable rights, violating liberties, taxation without representation, etc. are all liberal policies and all where causes of the Revolutionary War. And to further add insult to injury, liberals have destroyed the federalism doctrine of the Constitution, which is why the country is irreparably divided.

 

[OscarLevant]

Onerous taxes, banning of guns, violating unalienable rights, violating liberties, taxation without representation, etc. are all liberal policies and all where causes of the Revolutionary War. And to further add insult to injury, liberals have destroyed the federalism doctrine of the Constitution, which is why the country is irreparably divided.

THe modern concept of liberalism and conservatism didn't really exist at that time, so if you claim it is one or the other, you're just being partisan and blabbering intellectual gobbledygook.

 

[OscarLevant]

such silliness

do civilian police have those weapons? NO

I'm just going by what you wrote.

 

[Tennyson]

THe modern concept of liberalism and conservatism didn't really exist at that time, so if you claim it is one or the other, you're just being partisan and blabbering intellectual gobbledygook.

I never mentioned liberalism or conservatism in the 18th century. I mentioned 20th and 21st liberalism.

Feel free to write out a rebuttal.

 

[OscarLevant]

I never mentioned liberalism or conservatism in the 18th century. I mentioned 20th and 21st liberalism.

Feel free to write out a rebuttal.

You wrote:

nerous taxes, banning of guns, violating unalienable rights, violating liberties, taxation without representation, etc. are all liberal policies and all where causes of the Revolutionary War.

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.