Republican Supreme Court Justice: Repeal the Second Amendment

[richard_daily]

I didn't say ban the 2nd Amendment. In fact, up the line I said that wasn't necessary. All we need to do is actually adhere to what it actually says.

You are trying to deflect and distract. I didn't think you could come up with a reasonable argument on what I actually posted. You're just a jerkoff sicko.

You don't understand what it actually says.

It says that the people are granted the right to bear arms. Not militias, not the standing army, the people.

And it says that right shall not be infringed.

 

[richard_daily]

I love how all these gun nuts are so patriotic and the US is the best country ever and how dare you mess with our constitution.

Same people who tremble in terror in their house scared to death of the government.

The US is the BEST. Give me a gun so I can protect myself from the US!

The US isn't the best. The US is a fucked up country, where we have extrajudicial killings in the street by law enforcement. If you think that's ok, that's on you.

One dead rancher who shot at the FBI, has people talking about revolution.

Hundreds of dead unarmed black men and not a peep from those same people.

The problem is you. The problem is them. The problem is me.

 

[HisArpy]

You don't understand what it actually says.

It says that the people are granted the right to bear arms. Not militias, not the standing army, the people.

And it says that right shall not be infringed.

A correction:

It says that the government will guarantee the pre-existing authority of the people to keep and bear arms.

And that the guarantee will not be limited through infringement.

 

[Rightguide]

I repeat that the 2nd Amendment clearly--in clear writing--applies to regulated militia

Obviously you can't read, nor do you understand the Constituion. Article I Section 8 already provides for the militia:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The Second "Amendment" being an amendment, amends the language in Article Section 8 with new language that doesn't already exist there. The first clause of the Second amendment in front of the comma merely refers to that part of the Constitution about to be amended with new language. And what is that language you ask? It's on the other side of the comma, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that people can own AR-15s. That hasn't come to the Supreme Court, and if a law were passed banning the AR-15, there's no reason to believe the Supreme Court would knock it down--it's not covered in the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

The SCOTUS through the Heller decision has stated Americans have an individual right to bear arms "in common use," the AR15 is in common use and is at present the most popular rifle in America. So it isn't going anywhere. Another thing, ex post law is unconstitutional thus Americans cannot be punished today, or sanctioned today, for anything that was legal or lawfully purchased yesterday, and property cannot be seized by government without due process and just compensation.

The right to bear arms in America predates the Constitution itself, as the Second implies and Heller states. So even after you convince two thirds of the Congress and three fourths of the states to repeal the Second you're going to have to fight another revolution you aren't up to in order to remove what the SCOTUS, that Justice Stevens sat on, declared to be a human right.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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?

Try this one. We did it already. It was called the Federal Assault Weapons ban. From Wiki:

The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the Senate, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.

Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.

Studies have shown the ban had little effect in criminal activity, although this may have been due to the ban's various loopholes. Other studies have shown small decreases in the rate of mass shootings followed by increases that began when the ban was lifted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States#Overview_of_current_regulations

Good luck getting another ban instituted simply on the basis of what a gun looks like versus how it actually operates.

Ah, just look at the sicko gun nuts running to throw up crap to support their disgusting support for killing the innocents with weapons that can mow people down efficiently and quickly. Here's for the next round of AR-15 bullets coming the way of them and those they love. Their right to own a self-possessed penis substitute does not override anyone elses right to live and to go to school, a movie, or a church service without being slaughtered. Disgusting.

I repeat that the 2nd Amendment clearly--in clear writing--applies to regulated militia in the eighteenth century (before there was a standing army and because the United States had shown to itself in the Revolutionary War that it couldn't then afford a standing army), not self-centered gun nut sickos like we have posting here in the twenty-first century, and it does not say that people can own/have access to just any old firearm they want to. The United States does limit the type of weapons civilians can own and it should limit the ownership of AR-15s because half-witted folks like the Trump Chumps posting here have shown they have neither the maturity nor the humanity to handle them responsibly. The rest of the world is looking at violent Americans mass killing each other and just shaking their heads at our insanity. (An increasing number of them are probably saying good riddance and saying something about Darwinism in action.)

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that people can own AR-15s. That hasn't come to the Supreme Court, and if a law were passed banning the AR-15, there's no reason to believe the Supreme Court would knock it down--it's not covered in the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

If you're going to form your opinion on what people can and cannot own based on what the Supreme Court has or hasn't specifically authorized or prohibited, than in order to, well....you know, be logically consistent, you had better get in line with what the Court has said with respect to your "clear" reading of the Second Amendment's application and effect to organized militias ONLY.

The Court, in Heller, categorically rejected that interpretation.

You can't have this both ways. If you want to embrace the Court's broad scope of how and which arms may be regulated then you are logically, and one could say morally, bound by WHO the Court says may or may not own those arms.

As you've posted elsewhere, your only argument against that rationale is, "I don't wanna," isn't it?

 

[Rightguide]

Try this one. We did it already. It was called the Federal Assault Weapons ban. From Wiki:



Good luck getting another ban instituted simply on the basis of what a gun looks like versus how it actually operates.

More people are killed by cars and knives and clubs than AR-15s.

 

[WoundedKnee]

More people are killed by cars and knives and clubs than AR-15s.

Add handguns to your list.

 

[RoryN]

Who Posted?

KeithD 10
Rightguide 9 jerks off to gun pictures
Hypoxia 6
HisArpy 6 jerks off to gun pictures
BotanyBoy 5 jerks off to gun pictures
BBX3 5 jerks off to gun pictures
WoundedKnee 5 jerks off to gun pictures

 

[HisArpy]

Who Posted?

KeithD 10
Rightguide 9 jerks off to gun pictures
Hypoxia 6
HisArpy 6 jerks off to gun pictures
BotanyBoy 5 jerks off to gun pictures
BBX3 5 jerks off to gun pictures
WoundedKnee 5 jerks off to gun pictures
RoryN jerk, period.

I fixed your post to reflect reality.

 

[Rightguide]

Who Posted?

KeithD 10
Rightguide 9 jerks off to gun pictures
Hypoxia 6
HisArpy 6 jerks off to gun pictures
BotanyBoy 5 jerks off to gun pictures
BBX3 5 jerks off to gun pictures
WoundedKnee 5 jerks off to gun pictures

Rory: 25 jerk offs a day to his image in the mirror.

 

[RoryN]

I fixed your post to reflect reality.

And, while doing so, you didn't change my description of you.

Interesting.

 

[HisArpy]

And, while doing so, you didn't change my description of you.

Interesting.

Why would I object to something that's true?

These are some really nice guns.

https://femuscleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/eversoncory_01.jpg?w=343&h=513

These too.

http://evolvefitness.club/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/paige2.jpg

 

[RoryN]

Why would I object to something that's true?

^^^ Gets off to weapons and killing.

#mentalhealthcheck.

 

[Rightguide]

^^^ Gets off to weapons and killing.

#mentalhealthcheck.

Rory getting off on a corrupt Justice who spent a career violating his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

 

[RoryN]

Rory getting off on a corrupt Justice who spent a career violating his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

I don't like him, and I don't want the Second Amendment to go away.

What I do like, however, is getting you deplorables in a tizzy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't like him, and I don't want the Second Amendment to go away.

What I do like, however, is getting you deplorables in a tizzy.

Why are you so angry though?

So much hate can't be good for the soul.

 

[mark_j]

I don't like him, and I don't want the Second Amendment to go away.

What I do like, however, is getting you deplorables in a tizzy.

Funny thing about Stevens, while he may have been a registered Republican when he was appointed, his voting record doesn't bear that out when one looks at his decisions. By 2003 he was considered one of the most liberal judges on the court.

Considering the dissent he wrote for Heller it doesn't surprise me that he would have the opinion he does concerning the 2A.

As to why anyone cares is beyond me. He isn't much of a going concern these days.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't like him, and I don't want the Second Amendment to go away.

What I do like, however, is getting you deplorables in a tizzy.

You've failed. I know the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, notwithstanding Steven's betrayal to oath and the left's desire to bring down the Constitution.

 

[bigkahuna9]

You are dumb fuck. Ban stupid people from posting stupid shit. Take your head out of your ass and breathe clean air shit for brains. 10x more people die from drug overdoses and knife stabbings. Both are illegal too. Teach kids to stop being morons and parents to raise their kids right. You fucking losers will let them take away all your rights if they brainwash you douchebags enough. Go fuck yourself

 

[RoryN]

You've failed.

Nope. The responses are proof this thread hit the target squarely.

You are dumb fuck. Ban stupid people from posting stupid shit. Take your head out of your ass and breathe clean air shit for brains. 10x more people die from drug overdoses and knife stabbings. Both are illegal too. Teach kids to stop being morons and parents to raise their kids right. You fucking losers will let them take away all your rights if they brainwash you douchebags enough. Go fuck yourself

Waaaaaah. Your deplorable tears are delicious, sweetie pie.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

I don't like him, and I don't want the Second Amendment to go away.

What I do like, however, is getting you deplorables in a tizzy.

^^^^The Trump Affect^^^^

 

[RoryN]

^^^^The Trump Affect^^^^

You don't know "affect" vs. "effect".

Everyone: act surprised!

 

[Captainnumnuts]

You don't know "affect" vs. "effect".

Everyone: act surprised!

The verb version was intentional. You took action.

 

[Hypoxia]

A correction:

It says that the government will guarantee the pre-existing authority of the people to keep and bear arms.

It says nothing pf pre-existing authority. The US is the only nation on Earth to give a blank check to arms, so that 'right' obviously only exists here. Yay exceptionalism! And if (or when) the 2nd is repealed because its model doesn't fit modern reality, that 'right' will go away. If you want a right, seize it, fight for it. But you can lose.

And that the guarantee will not be limited through infringement.

Except you're already 'infringed' against carrying spring stilettos, bazookas, shotguns with 16-inch barrels, and many other weapons. This 'infringement' fetish sure distracts you, hey? Think about why the fuck you want to carry in public, and why the fuck the public should restrain you.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

You don't know "affect" vs. "effect".

Everyone: act surprised!

The verb version was intentional. You took action.

*crickets*