Republican Supreme Court Justice: Repeal the Second Amendment

[RoryN]

this ^^^^^ means he was pointing at you, Vette.

Just helping you out with the netspeak, buddy.

He might not have that key on his electric typewriter.

 

[Luk]

Here are a couple of interesting facts. Russia (who Hillary Clinton and the DNC used to try and violate our election process) has been trying to violate our free elections since the 1950's. No surprise there that liberals and so called progressives are also called leftist and have the same desires as the Russians and Chinese.

Second, under former President Obama's open border policy he allowed a terrorist army of over 10,000 (M13) to enter this country. All have guns and you can bet not one is registered to the one who is carrying it. The democratic mayors of Chicago and Los Angels, where the greatest concentration of them are, have protected these gangsters and allowed them to kill (over 4,000 deaths in Chicago in one year alone) and rob and even control many of our schools. Yet not one protest march organized (like the "school children's protest") has occurred. The right to bear arms according to the Soros Democrats and the Fake News Media belongs to drug dealers and gangsters and dirty cops like in the FBI and DOJ. (Remember Mr. Obama armed drug dealers in Mexico with guns that killed innocent Mexicans and Americans.)

Since the Soros Democrats are also the Slave Party they will want to repeal a couple or three more Amendments to the Constitution as well.

Also, originally the founders wanted three branches of government. A check and balance type of system where no one branch (like Obama tried to do with the executive branch) have absolute power. However, through many errors we have allowed the Justice Branch to be under no real control. That they make mistakes is not a surprise. Go back to the Scott decision in the mid 1800's for example. Their decisions should be able to be reviewed also under certain tight rules by the other two branches if they are out of line (just look at the District Court in Calif. for a group of judges that are out of contact with the Constitution as an example.) the decision should go before Congress and the President before being allowed to stand. Another mistake is that our founding fathers thought judges would be honest and not political. Never happened. As one person stated above, just because a person was a republican or a democrat doesn't mean they will vote that way. First they aren't suppose to, but their real colors come out when they have no one to be responsible to as their term of office is for life with no retirement age. We have actually had Supreme Court Justices fall asleep in the Halls of Congress during full state meeting. Maybe an Amendment on term limits for all three branches and for all offices in the country will go along way to prevent "petty dictatorships" as now exist in Congress and the various states.

Another is districts drawn up. Right from the beginning Gerrying has been committed and allowed to stand even though it violates the civil rights of its citizens. Some of the courts have tried to correct this, but then corrupt politicians come in and with corrupt political judges just bring back the old boy Z and S shape districts without concern for the people.

Remember people are human. And politics brings out the corruption in people more than any other type of work. I can list many Republicans who are Copperheads and many Democrats who are copperheads to their party. A person should be elected not because of "party" but because of their person, their stand, their record and double checked to see who is stuffing their wallets.

Wait a minute... Did Obama have an open border policy or did he deport more illegal aliens than any other president? Which is what your side is using to defend 45's dumbass wall.

 

[lovecraft68]

I love how Rory hates all republicans until some irrelevant senile old fuck looking for attention says something he agrees with.

Libpocrisy.

 

[DickandDebbie]

2nd Amendment.

DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government.


The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

 

[Ramone45]

Is he incorrect?

Yes. In my opinion he is incorrect.

 

[nowisthetime]

He might not have that key on his electric typewriter.

His typewriter is missing a key

https://myoldtypewriter.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/erikafront.jpg

 

[Hypoxia]

DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government.

Laws can be and are amended and repealed constantly. The whole firearms question could be settled by a simple SCOTUS ruling giving Congress guidelines to enforce the 2nd amendment in its entirety. You think that can't happen? You think the legal environment won't change? Think again.

And personal arms won't fare well against a "Tyrannical Government" using modern weaponry. Yeah, I've heard the argument: Them ragheads with IEDs are standing up pretty well to US forces. But "them ragheads" aren't an existential threat to the USA. A homegrown insurrection *would* be seen and responded to as such a threat, to be crushed and exterminated.

Protect your liberty with ballots, not bullets.

 

[WoundedKnee]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/28...-gun-control-now-im-nra-member-heres-changed/

 

[HisArpy]

Laws can be and are amended and repealed constantly. The whole firearms question could be settled by a simple SCOTUS ruling giving Congress guidelines to enforce the 2nd amendment in its entirety. You think that can't happen? You think the legal environment won't change? Think again.

And personal arms won't fare well against a "Tyrannical Government" using modern weaponry. Yeah, I've heard the argument: Them ragheads with IEDs are standing up pretty well to US forces. But "them ragheads" aren't an existential threat to the USA. A homegrown insurrection *would* be seen and responded to as such a threat, to be crushed and exterminated.

Protect your liberty with ballots, not bullets.

This post illustrates where you go wrong so much of the time. You believe that "only if..." and every problem will be solved.

It won't. because the world doesn't work the way you wish it does.

Take this post for example. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. It doesn't "direct" Congress. It has no power to do either of those things and if you'd read the Constitution and/or studied civics in school you'd know this. You'd also know why most of your other posts fail for the same reason this one does.

It is the same with the way you espouse your view, as well the the view of many others, that small arms and undisciplined individuals can't defeat the US military. Thus allowing the populace keep and bear arms is meaningless and the Right worthless and should be taken away.

This is not a correct viewpoint. Here's why: The spirit living inside men of all races, creeds, and ages, and which prompts them to bear arms, indicates how free those men believe themselves to be as well as the extent they will go to protect that belief. They will not bow to tyranny. They will not allow their government to whimsically take away that which they are entitled by birthright or naturalization. They understand the concept that a government by the people for the people is not a government over the people.

Yes, if push ever came to shove, many of those who take up arms to protect their freedoms will die. Many more will be named criminals and imprisoned. Those who keep an bear arms know this is possible if that unwanted event ever comes to pass. Yet they proudly stand up anyway. When the flag is flown they stand up. When the anthem is played they stand up. When the Pledge of Allegiance is recited they say ALL of the words. They do all of this because they are free, proud of that freedom, and wiling to defend it.

It's a shame you live here and don't understand ANY of that. Worse you live here and work and play and love without restriction, and yet you fail to understand that your freedom to do all of that rests on the courage of all of those willing to die for the freedoms you take for granted.

It is true that those who take up arms against a tyrannical government may not survive doing so but that is beside the point. The point is that they refuse to live UNDER a tyrannical government and are willing to put their lives on the line for it. The 2A is what protects their ability to do so and those who believe in freedom will not yield it willingly.

 

[FGB]

Dear god, the deplorable tears are gonna flow on this one.

Even though he's retired, they're already full meltdown mode on social media.

It was good that he retired when he did. If he can't do law any better than that!

 

[Rightguide]

The NRA will probably pick up another million members as a result of Stevens' ill advised bullshit.

 

[Hypoxia]

[argument that things won't change]

You are incorrect. Change happens, probably faster than you expect, but often slower, inexorably. Slavery; Indians as non-persons; limited suffrage -- those were embedded in the Constitution, but no longer. A 1790 model for defending the nation no longer holds. The world is not stagnant. Change happens.

 

[HisArpy]

You are incorrect. Change happens, probably faster than you expect, but often slower, inexorably. Slavery; Indians as non-persons; limited suffrage -- those were embedded in the Constitution, but no longer. A 1790 model for defending the nation no longer holds. The world is not stagnant. Change happens.

What's your point here; that the Constitution still prohibits women from voting or that it still makes them "unequal"? That slavery still exists? And that Native Americans still aren't US citizens?

ALL of those things were redressed over 100 years ago (or thereabouts). Yet you're still bringing them up as examples of how outdated the Constitution is while ignoring the fact that the Constitution has the procedure for its modification and amendment built into it.

I'd think any document that from the get-go had procedures written into it so it could be amended and altered as society changes is pretty smart thinking. To say that that way of creating a controlling national document is outdated is kinda stupid.

And how does:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

get outdated? Isn't that the purpose of every government? Or are you trying to say governments should be abolished all around the world?

You need to examine your principles here because so far you've done nothing but show yourself to be illiterate on this topic.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

What's your point here; that the Constitution still prohibits women from voting or that it still makes them "unequal"? That slavery still exists? And that Native Americans still aren't US citizens?

ALL of those things were redressed over 100 years ago (or thereabouts). Yet you're still bringing them up as examples of how outdated the Constitution is while ignoring the fact that the Constitution has the procedure for its modification and amendment built into it.

I'd think any document that from the get-go had procedures written into it so it could be amended and altered as society changes is pretty smart thinking. To say that that way of creating a controlling national document is outdated is kinda stupid.

And how does:



get outdated? Isn't that the purpose of every government? Or are you trying to say governments should be abolished all around the world?

You need to examine your principles here because so far you've done nothing but show yourself to be illiterate on this topic.

Lmao. Do read what people write?

 

[HisArpy]

Do you? Or do you just post shit so that you get attention?

If that's the case, then:

Yes, we noticed you trying to get noticed. We even clapped in appreciation a little bit. In our heads. Before laughing wildly and uncontrollably. At you.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

Yes, we noticed you trying to get noticed. We even clapped in appreciation a little bit. In our heads..

I did notice the echo...

 

[KeithD]

I don't see the need to repeal the 2nd Amendment--just not to stretch its application as the slight majority of the Supreme Court did at the time they took it up and that the sicko gun nuts (well represented in the NRA and on this discussion board) have done ever since. The amendment doesn't preclude tight control over registration of guns or define--or even hint at--the type of weapons a civilian can own. Laws can restrict what can be owned and laws have done so as recently as 1986, when individual ownership of machine guns was outlawed, a law that has not been successfully stricken down by the courts. The same could happen with AR-15-type weapons without involving the 2nd Amendment at all. The NRA and sicko gun nuts are just trying to bamboozle everyone on this point.

 

[Hypoxia]

Lmao. Do read what people write?

Apparently not.

I didn't say the Constitution was obsolete. I wrote, "A 1790 model for defending the nation no longer holds." That model was: a strong Navy (including Marines); no standing army; a regulated citizen militia to be called up for nation defense and security. We now have that Navy, a huge standing Army and security apparatus, and no citizen militia. The explicit justification for civilians to freely (do what you want!) carry firearms in public no longer exists.

And I wrote that the US legal environment has changed and will continue to change. This isn't the world of 1790, though some wish to return, likely seeing themselves as white male landowners entitled to run things. Ha.

But I expect the tolls here to distort, dissemble, take out of context, and otherwise fuck with words. Propagandists practice at weaponizing language. Usually with much name-calling. I call one person here 'traitor' because he called for treason. Otherwise, I disregard the infantile.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I'm with Stevens. The 2nd Amendment is nothing but a relic from a dead era that has no relevance to today. It should be cut off and discarded like an atrophied organ.

If you want to take up gun ownership do it at the state level with MODERN laws that ALSO address gun control and regulation.

 

[dan_c00000]

Repealing the Second Amendment is a fantastic idea.

It should be noted that more gun ownership does not equal more liberty.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Heller was a fucked up decision. Get it reversed and let States Rights prevail.

ETA: Dredd Scott was the worst. Heller is starting to look like the the second worst.

 

[BBX3]

Repealing the Second Amendment is a fantastic idea.

It should be noted that more gun ownership does not equal more liberty.

lets repeal the 15th and 19th as well....ok, NIGGER Dan?

 

[KeithD]

lets repeal the 15th and 19th as well....ok, NIGGER Dan?

You don't have a responsible and reasonable answer to why AR-15-type weapons can't be (and shouldn't) be banned without any effect on the 2nd Amendment at all, can you? Machine guns were banned in 1986 and this law hasn't been knocked down by the courts under the provisions of the 2nd Amendment or anything else. The only answer you have to not banning a weapon with the sole function of murdering multiple people efficiently and quickly is a sick "I don't wanna," isn't it? Your only position is that you are an ignorant sicko, isn't it?

 

[BBX3]

You don't have a responsible and reasonable answer to why AR-15-type weapons can't be (and shouldn't) be banned without any effect on the 2nd Amendment at all, can you? Machine guns were banned in 1986 and this law hasn't been knocked down by the courts under the provisions of the 2nd Amendment or anything else. The only answer you have to not banning a weapon with the sole function of murdering multiple people efficiently and quickly is a sick "I don't wanna," isn't it? Your only position is that you are an ignorant sicko, isn't it?

I agree

Lets ban the 2nd A

as well as the

15th A

and the

19th A


OK?

 

[Rightguide]

Heller was a fucked up decision. Get it reversed and let States Rights prevail.

ETA: Dredd Scott was the worst. Heller is starting to look like the the second worst.

You're a dumb shit. Repealing the Second or reversing Heller doesn't do away with the right to bear arms which pre-exists the Constitution. The Second and Heller both simply reaffirmed that. You're going to have to bleed and die in order to reverse a free people's right to bear arms, like the fore fathers had to do to affirm it. Stupid dunce.