- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Living fossil John Paul Stevens thinks the 2nd Amendment should be changed
Posted on 2/20/14 at 10:40 am
Posted on 2/20/14 at 10:40 am
quote:
Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed. To support the change, he argues: “Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”
LINK
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 10:43 am
11
Posted on 2/20/14 at 10:43 am to weagle99
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 10:50 am to kingbob
quote:
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders.
This^^^
It is the way it is supposed to be done, not by "interpretation" and "re-interpretation".
I don't support his view of the issue, but I do support his view of the process.
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 11:19 am
Posted on 2/20/14 at 10:51 am to weagle99
quote:
proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands
Because more government is always the answer.
Never mind the fact that our violent crime rate has steadily dropped in the past 20 or so years.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 11:01 am to weagle99
Good luck getting 2/3 vote of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify.
But at least he acknowledges the correct process.
But at least he acknowledges the correct process.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 11:08 am to weagle99
Oh, now Stevens is an originalist.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 11:15 am to weagle99
Well that's it...the Stevens family isn't getting a Xmas card from me this year.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 11:16 am to weagle99
quote:
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders.
Agreed.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 11:24 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
His reading comprehension is poor. The words of the document as to be defined are they are written, no conjecture.
The militia and the rkba are two different entities.
The militia and the rkba are two different entities.
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 11:25 am
Posted on 2/20/14 at 11:52 am to weagle99
Who cares what the constitution says, or what this "lawmaker" says? If you want a gun, then have a gun. I'm glad of what's happening in CT. We need to stop humoring these people. They don't own us. They don't represent us.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:07 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
quote:
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders.
This^^^
It is the way it is supposed to be done, not by "interpolation" and "re-interpolation".
I don't support his view of the issue, but I do support his view of the process.
FIFY
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:08 pm to weagle99
Fortunately, it would take the consent of 38 states to edit or repeal the Second Amendment.
EDIT: I've also heard a couple of liberal pundits call for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
EDIT: I've also heard a couple of liberal pundits call for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:12 pm to weagle99
I'm sure the weasel is guarded by guys with guns at his palace.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:45 pm to kingbob
quote:
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders.
Yep, awesome. Let's see how far it gets.
I predict it will get to about here -->|
...and then everyone will just go about their business.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:46 pm to BamaFan89
quote:Lowest it has been in 40 years, if I recall correctly.
Never mind the fact that our violent crime rate has steadily dropped in the past 20 or so years.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 12:50 pm to kingbob
quote:
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders.
Yep.
For as bad as Stevens statement was, you still have to give him points for acknowledging the correct process. The very same process liberals refuse to take because it's too hard.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:04 pm to weagle99
quote:
Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons
He would be wrong.
Any drive-by history lesson into the founding father's thoughts on the 2A would debunk this theory.
The founding father's belief is quite clear...and that is private ownership of weapons is paramount to the security of the state and protection from government tyranny. Period.
Amen.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:04 pm to kingbob
Exactly
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:06 pm to kingbob
quote:
At least he's proposing amending the constitution to support his goals rather than passing it by executive order, unelected judges, U.N. treaties, or Congressional budget riders
This.
Interesting he bases this on the original intent of protecting state sovereignty, especially since he's been a leader in completely eviscerating it.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:10 pm to weagle99
I dont agree, but at least he wants to go about it honestly and the way things were designed to be changed.
Most want to just reinterpret it and and fap over the word "militia".
Most want to just reinterpret it and and fap over the word "militia".
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News