Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

[noonereal]

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for repeal of the second amendment. 

 

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

 

 

Very cool. 

[HSFBfan]

Thank god he is retired and has absolutely no say in anything

[DarterBlue]

50 minutes ago, noonereal said:

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for repeal of the second amendment. 

 

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

 

 

Very cool. 

I saw that. Food for thought. Conservatives defend the second on the grounds it provides protection against a tyrannical government. Given the US government could nuke us all to oblivion, that reasoning seems pretty lame to me. 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 hour ago, noonereal said:

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for repeal of the second amendment. 

 

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

 

 

Very cool. 

I subscribe to Nicholas Kristof's newsletter... some good, some lefty... Ny Times is pretty left of center but there's good stuff from time to time. 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

11 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

I saw that. Food for thought. Conservatives defend the second on the grounds it provides protection against a tyrannical government. Given the US government could nuke us all to oblivion, that reasoning seems pretty lame to me. 

Well at least die fighting before being incinerated.

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Well at least die fighting before being incinerated.

As young Nathan Hale stated before he was hung by the british he stated "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

[DarterBlue]

3 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Well at least die fighting before being incinerated.

Hope it never comes to that. But there is historical precedent. 

[concha]

3 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

I saw that. Food for thought. Conservatives defend the second on the grounds it provides protection against a tyrannical government. Given the US government could nuke us all to oblivion, that reasoning seems pretty lame to me. 

I fail to see the need nor reason nor logic in jumping to a statement about a government actually turning its own territory into a radioactive wasteland.

The point of the Founders, if you look into many of their works, was that the militia was made up of the people and, per Jefferson for example, that free men would not be denied ("debarred") the use of arms.  A common meaning of  word "well-regulated" back in the those days was "well-equipped". Tyrannical governments/leaders often have two "go to" objectives: limit the speech/communication of their opponents and limit their ability to defend/arm themselves.  Russia, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Cambodia...

 

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, concha said:

I fail to see the need nor reason nor logic in jumping to a statement about a government actually turning its own territory into a radioactive wasteland.

The point of the Founders, if you look into many of their works, was that the militia was made up of the people and, per Jefferson for example, that free men would not be denied ("debarred") the use of arms.  A common meaning of  word "well-regulated" back in the those days was "well-equipped". Tyrannical governments/leaders often have two "go to" objectives: limit the speech/communication of their opponents and limit their ability to defend/arm themselves.  Russia, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Cambodia...

 

In the Heller case it was already ruled on that any able citizen is part of the milita

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 hour ago, Drummer61 said:

The Times used to have a good medical portion...Not fond of Kristoff or the Times.. 

Quite the flamer ol Nicolas is.....

I would say I like 1 out 50 of his articles. So far....

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 hour ago, Drummer61 said:

George Washington said, "when the government tries to take your guns, its time to stop the government from governing"....That time is on the horizon....

Something’s gotta give, because it Sucks right now and has for a while. 

[playballintxandmi]

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for repeal of the second amendment. 

 

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

 

 

Very cool. 

JPS is one of the most intelligent men I've ever had the privilege of meeting. Interesting tidbit: He still holds the GPA record at Northwestern Law School.

[noonereal]

2 hours ago, DarterBlue said:

I saw that. Food for thought. Conservatives defend the second on the grounds it provides protection against a tyrannical government. Given the US government could nuke us all to oblivion, that reasoning seems pretty lame to me. 

I figure the guy was reading my posts. 

[noonereal]

9 minutes ago, playballintxandmi said:

JPS is one of the most intelligent men I've ever had the privilege of meeting. Interesting tidbit: He still holds the GPA record at Northwestern Law School.

No wonder he reads my column here. 

[HSFBfan]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/liberty-univeresity-gun-range-students/2018/03/27/id/850988/

 

The way it should be

[noonereal]

1 hour ago, concha said:

I fail to see the need nor reason nor logic in jumping to a statement about a government actually turning its own territory into a radioactive wasteland.

The point of the Founders, if you look into many of their works, was that the militia was made up of the people and, per Jefferson for example, that free men would not be denied ("debarred") the use of arms.  A common meaning of  word "well-regulated" back in the those days was "well-equipped". Tyrannical governments/leaders often have two "go to" objectives: limit the speech/communication of their opponents and limit their ability to defend/arm themselves.  Russia, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Cambodia...

 

we had no army at the time

You just can't argue that the second amendment is a role today.

[Horsefly]

Guns are but for a limited purpose:

1.  Personal protection

2. Hunting and collecting

3. Protection against the government

#1 and #2 are reasonable, if we are banking on #3 society and America is over as it's a lost cause.  It's not reasonable to think we need a militia for fight our wars nor to fight against the government. Warfare today is much more advanced for militias to be effective against missile or air attacks.

 

[HSFBfan]

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 2799 - 2803.

[noonereal]

6 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

You better look at every nation where people can't speak out, demonstrate or be like you and say anything you want to...In China, Iran,No.K and others, they pour gas on your ass... You better smarten up...and hope your home,family or car is never robbed or bum rushed...Get real noon...." the second amendment keeps us safe" from government tyranny...Remember what George W said...

I better smarten up? Who the F do you think you are talking to? 

This country is one big blood lust sport at this point. You smarten up. 

[Horsefly]

11 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

I have no plans of giving up any... Hope you feel the same... When you move you give those rights up.......

I'll keep them, but I'm not delusional to think I can ward off a tyrannical government...you'll be dead within 48 hrs.

if you think you need weapons for potential gov conflict, then you better argue that limiting access to ALL military graded weapons is unconstitutional and make that your primary fight bc as it stands there is a huge gulf between what civilians have and top level military weaponry.

[noonereal]

 @Drummer61 and I have had homes robbed more than once, cars stolen more than once. 

I have had guns pulled on me and a knief.

I didnt live is a protected shell like you choose. 

 

[concha]

46 minutes ago, Sportsnut said:

So regulated and equipped mean the same thing now?

Boy, stupid runs rampant on these pages.

People like you really drag down the board.

Frigging educate yourself.

My knowledge of history of the word "regulated" (and your lack of knowledge) qualifies me as stupid in your mind?

SMDH

[concha]

45 minutes ago, noonereal said:

we had no army at the time

You just can't argue that the second amendment is a role today.

"Just can't"?

Wrong.  It is easy.  Acquaint yourself with the writings of the Founders.

[TheBlockIsHot]

1 minute ago, concha said:

"Just can't"?

Wrong.  It is easy.  Acquaint yourself with the writings of the Founders.

You have no idea. You attended Trump University.  

Retard from a poor red state. 

[concha]

37 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

I'll keep them, but I'm not delusional to think I can ward off a tyrannical government...you'll be dead within 48 hrs.

if you think you need weapons for potential gov conflict, then you better argue that limiting access to ALL military graded weapons is unconstitutional and make that your primary fight bc as it stands there is a huge gulf between what civilians have and top level military weaponry.

This is simply wrong thinking.

History proves that asymmetric warfare can succeed.  A modern, high-tech military like ours requires immense technical and logistical support that would quickly disappear if a government went to war against a substantial part of its own population.  Today's helicopters and aircraft spend more time on the ground being maintained than they actually fly.  Ditto tanks.  Missiles are expensive and we don't possess them in enormous quantities.