Domestic Terrorism again

[tinselwolverine]

I think you meant "threatens" - people who think the 2nd amendment protects them wouldn't want it repealed.

Nope.

I used the word I meant to use, and then you paraphrased both what I said and what I meant.

 

[TheVictors]

I don’t think the 2nd Amendment has to be repealed, I’m just tired of spineless wimps, the NRA and the gun lobby hiding behind it.

 

[Spartanmack]

Nope.

I used the word I meant to use, and then you paraphrased both what I said and what I meant.

why would people who feel protected by the second amendment want their elected officials to repeal it.


Edit: nevermind, took me a second. I think it was the "overwhelming majority" that threw me off - didn't think support for (or against) the 2A was overwhelming.

 

[byco42]

I don?t think the 2nd Amendment has to be repealed, I?m just tired of spineless wimps, the NRA and the gun lobby hiding behind it.

Okay. I figured since you alluded to the 14th, 15th, 18th and the 20th, and "organic" in direct association to the 2nd, that that was your inference.

 

[TheVictors]

Okay. I figured since you alluded to the 14th, 15th, 18th and the 20th, and "organic" in direct association to the 2nd, that that was your inference.

I wouldn?t oppose repealing it ...but I understand the constitutional principle and logistical challenges in ever doing so.

I think it?s outdated, misapplied and hypocritically asserted in the face of the reality of today. Perhaps my son and his generation living under these circumstances will be brave enough to act.

 

[Michchamp]

Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens:

A retired Supreme Court justice believes the March for Our Lives protesters are aiming too low by asking lawmakers simply to reform the nation?s gun laws.

?The demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,? John Paul Stevens wrote in a New York Times op-ed published on Tuesday. ?They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.?​

Stevens explained his reasoning further, along with a summary of 2nd amendment jurisprudence in this Op ed for the Washington Post, which is worth a read...

... Unless you're spartanmackk and already know for a fact that John Paul Stevens is just "a stupid dummy."

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't think he's dumb, but I definitely disagree with him - still disagree with him. I remember reading this piece in 2014. The fact that a liberal activist supreme court justice makes a well articulated but wrong argument you support, doesn't validate your point. If you read his op-ed you posted, he's in the minority of Justices in both the cases he sited. So it's not just me, there are 5 people who are also Supreme Court Justices, his peers, who disagree with him. He was wrong in his dissention in both the 2009 and 2010 cases - at least partially. I agree gun policies should be decided by the voters' elected representatives but federal judges strike down state an municipal laws that violate the constitution ALL THE TIME. The majorities in those cases didn't decide public policy re: gun control, they struck down unconstitutional gun bans.

The next major disagreement I have with him is the point about "assault weapons." The overwhelming majority of guns in America are semi-automatic. The "military" look of the AR-15 and rifles from other manufacturers like it operate no differently than the much, much, much larger number of legally owned semi-automatic pistols. Of course pistols, many of them not legally owned account for many, many, many times more shootings and deaths. Calling AR-15 style weapons "assault rifles" to make them seem more scary is just a tactic of the gun grabbers to mislead the public about the threat they pose.

Assault weapons (fully automatic rifles) are already illegal, and I'm all for that. I'm also on board with universal background checks, mental health checks and banning bump stocks. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on high capacity magazines. But if we're talking about banning weapons that won't make a difference just to please misinformed "spineless wimps" and idiots who buy into it because they are insecure and scoring cut-and-paste debate points in "culture wars" makes them feel better about themselves (e.g. you), I'm totally against that. I'm also against a federal registry and things like public disclosure of private gun ownership (gun maps).

 

[byco42]

Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens:

A retired Supreme Court justice believes the March for Our Lives protesters are aiming too low by asking lawmakers simply to reform the nation?s gun laws.

?The demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,? John Paul Stevens wrote in a New York Times op-ed published on Tuesday. ?They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.?​

Stevens explained his reasoning further, along with a summary of 2nd amendment jurisprudence in this Op ed for the Washington Post, which is worth a read...

... Unless you're spartanmackk and already know for a fact that John Paul Stevens is just "a stupid dummy."

"When serving in the militia" ... The founding fathers considered every able man as the militia. Judge Stevens does not, leaving the interpretation of "militia" as suitably vague.

How well-regulated is it is another issue.

George Washington: ?A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.?

Stevens: Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters? elected representatives, not by federal judges.

He does not hold the same opinion in regards to abortion. It's the exact converse. My point that his concern for "state sovereignty" in McDonald does not apply to Roe, which indicates to me a strikingly similar outcome: leaving the defenseless vulerable to attack.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens:

A retired Supreme Court justice believes the March for Our Lives protesters are aiming too low by asking lawmakers simply to reform the nation?s gun laws.

?The demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,? John Paul Stevens wrote in a New York Times op-ed published on Tuesday. ?They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.?​

Stevens explained his reasoning further, along with a summary of 2nd amendment jurisprudence in this Op ed for the Washington Post, which is worth a read...

Usually when I try to click onto a Washington Post article, I just got an offer to subscribe online.

That said, anyone can say that anybody else should demand anything they want.

That doesn?t change the reality of the passage/ratification arithmetic of the passage of any such constitutional amendment.

 

[Polish-Hammer]

Polish-Hammer made the post about the British, post #16.

It seems like it?s a joke, but assuming that, it went over my head.

Allow me to clarify.


The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the US had a supply of armed/trained men in firearms in case of another war with the British. The underlying cause was at that time the young nation did not have sufficient wealth to maintain a large standing army.


Considering that the US has the most powerful military in the world, the second amendment is no longer applicable for its intended purpose.



You could even say, OBSOLETE.



Hence the point of the joke. As the British are not coming, nor is anyone else.

 

[tinselwolverine]

why would people who feel protected by the second amendment want their elected officials to repeal it.


Edit: nevermind, took me a second. I think it was the "overwhelming majority" that threw me off - didn't think support for (or against) the 2A was overwhelming.

I think in smaller, mostly rural states support for the Second Amendment is fairly significant among voters for both parties and also voters inclined not to be affiliated with either party.

Most small state/rural people like their guns. They feel their guns protect their persons and their property and yes-they do feel that their guns would be useful to protect them from an oppressive authoritarian government.

I don?t think it?s much of an overstatement to say that support amongst those people for the second amendment is overwhelming.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think in smaller, mostly rural states support for the Second Amendment is fairly significant among voters for both parties and also voters inclined not to be affiliated with either party.

Most small state/rural people like their guns. They feel their guns protect their persons and their property and yes-they do feel that their guns would be useful to protect them from an oppressive authoritarian government.

I don?t think it?s much of an overstatement to say that support amongst those people for the second amendment is overwhelming.

it's definitely not an overstatement. A friend of mine that lived on several secluded acres in rural Oregon then rural northern Cali (like but not in Humboldt County aka Murder Mountain) said he never answered the door without his shot gun and he's a total lefty hypocrite - but a fun guy, not a douche like a lot of lefty hypocrites.

What's not clear is how that looks nationally after it's diluted by all the coastal and major urban center populations. I'm sure that data exists somewhere but that would require research and I like to rely on champ for that.

 

[Spartanmack]

Allow me to clarify.

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the US had a supply of armed/trained men in firearms in case of another war with the British. The underlying cause was at that time the young nation did not have sufficient wealth to maintain a large standing army.

Considering that the US has the most powerful military in the world, the second amendment is no longer applicable for its intended purpose.

You could even say, OBSOLETE.

Hence the point of the joke. As the British are not coming, nor is anyone else.

further point of clarification, as Byco points out here, the motivation behind the 2nd Amendment, as indicated by George Washington was not exclusively for defense against foreign invaders but also against potential tyranny of their own government.

"When serving in the militia" ... The founding fathers considered every able man as the militia. Judge Stevens does not, leaving the interpretation of "militia" as suitably vague.

How well-regulated is it is another issue.

George Washington: ?A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.?

 

[Michchamp]

further point of clarification, as Byco points out here, the motivation behind the 2nd Amendment, as indicated by George Washington was not exclusively for defense against foreign invaders but also against potential tyranny of their own government.

So everyone should have their own nuclear arsenal then, right? idiot.

 

[Gulo Blue]

"When serving in the militia" ... The founding fathers considered every able man as the militia. Judge Stevens does not, leaving the interpretation of "militia" as suitably vague.

How well-regulated is it is another issue.

George Washington: ?A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.?

This has been an unreasonable expectation since the Civil War.

 

[tinselwolverine]

So everyone should have their own nuclear arsenal then, right?

Nope.

Just me.

I don?t If you remember what you posted on the board about meeting me for the first time at the world famous Hollywood and Highland Mall when we first met, but it was ?I felt like I was walking into the lair of a Bond villain??.

 

[Polish-Hammer]

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies.

Note this is the transcript of the address from a University based organization.
https://millercenter.org/the-presid.../january-8-1790-first-annual-message-congress

George Washington: ?A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.?

What is the source of this quotation Byco?

I should also note that the Fred Smith Library for the studies of George Washington states the quote you provided is inaccurate.

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

 

[Michchamp]

True, Washington was a Federalist, not a "state's rights" guy.

Didn't he advocate forming an army to crush the Whiskey Rebellion? Hardly a guy you'd expect to go around spouting slogans coined by late 20th century lobbyists for the gun industry...

 

[Michchamp]

...
Didn't he advocate forming an army to crush the Whiskey Rebellion? ...

I checked... not only did he form an army to crush the Whiskey Tax protestors, he personnally lead it.

George Washington was a Tyrant!!!!1111

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think he's dumb, but I definitely disagree with him - still disagree with him. I remember reading this piece in 2014. The fact that a liberal activist supreme court justice ....

A "liberal activist supreme court justice" first appointed to the federal bench by noted bleeding heart liberal President Richard M. Nixon, and later nominated for the Supreme Court by libtard faggot President Gerald Ford... right?