Retired SCOTUS Stevens: Time to repeal the 2nd amendment

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:23:01 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:15:28 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

No I didn't.  I proved you are an idiot.
The 2nd Amendment also gives us the right to own firearms for self-defense against nutcase taxi drivers and other criminals.   We have the right to own firearms for hunting, shooting recreation, and other reasons as well.

You don't deny people their rights just because you don't like it. 

So much irony

Which of your rights do I want to deny?

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:31:13 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:23:01 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

So much irony

Which of your rights do I want to deny?

Not me. But there's many groups of people that you would be happy to take away their rights.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:34:49 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:31:13 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Which of your rights do I want to deny?

Not me. But there's many groups of people that you would be happy to take away their rights.

Name one.    Just ONE.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:38:40 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:34:49 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Not me. But there's many groups of people that you would be happy to take away their rights.

Name one.    Just ONE.

Muslims.

And you've said many times it should be ok for businesses to refuse service to gays

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 11:42:26 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:38:40 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Name one.    Just ONE.

Muslims.

And you've said many times it should be ok for businesses to refuse service to gays

As long as muslimes behave, I have no problem with them.
Nope.  I said let the bakers make homo wedding cakes and package them in containers with Bible verses that show homosexuality is a sin.  Everyone's rights are protected like that.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 11:49:56 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 28, 2018 11:42:26 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Muslims.

And you've said many times it should be ok for businesses to refuse service to gays

As long as muslimes behave, I have no problem with them.
Nope.  I said let the bakers make homo wedding cakes and package them in containers with Bible verses that show homosexuality is a sin.  Everyone's rights are protected like that.

Fair enough. I can accept that

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 19:09:04 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 11:49:56 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

As long as muslimes behave, I have no problem with them.
Nope.  I said let the bakers make homo wedding cakes and package them in containers with Bible verses that show homosexuality is a sin.  Everyone's rights are protected like that.

Fair enough. I can accept that

We're making progress.   I personally don't care what anyone else does, except for murdering unborn babies, as long as what they do does not harm me or mine physically, financially, or infringes on OUR rights.
Believe it or not, I SUPPORT your right to think as you want to.  The 1A is important and must stay that way.  I would love to change your ideas and have you become a reasonable member of society, but I can't force you to, and I would never try to force you.   You can't make a slave love his master.

Just like with Christianity .......  I can't force you to believe; all I can do is explain to you why you SHOULD, and pray you eventually see the light.

[Walter]

Mar 28, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 28, 2018 9:58:44 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly think a group of regular us citizens, even armed with every AR 15 or guns they could find could fight and defeat the entire might of the US military

Because according to Bam the answer is yes and easy

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

That is only true if you believe that elections do not matter. There is an established mechanism to stop the government.
Until legal mechanisms are exhausted, this is nothing more than treason by citizens who, by defintion, seek to overthrow The Constitution.

[oujour76]

Mar 28, 2018 22:52:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

That is only true if you believe that elections do not matter. There is an established mechanism to stop the government.
Until legal mechanisms are exhausted, this is nothing more than treason by citizens who, by defintion, seek to overthrow The Constitution.

Tell ya what, let's hope neither of our beliefs is ever tested.

[Walter]

Mar 28, 2018 23:58:27 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 28, 2018 22:52:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

That is only true if you believe that elections do not matter. There is an established mechanism to stop the government.
Until legal mechanisms are exhausted, this is nothing more than treason by citizens who, by defintion, seek to overthrow The Constitution.

Tell ya what, let's hope neither of our beliefs is ever tested.

That's what was said in 1861.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 22:52:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

That is only true if you believe that elections do not matter. There is an established mechanism to stop the government.
Until legal mechanisms are exhausted, this is nothing more than treason by citizens who, by defintion, seek to overthrow The Constitution.

How did the most recent election in Russia work out, Walt?
It was your boy Obama who violated the Constitution.  Why hasn't he been arrested for treason?

No one wants to overthrow the Constitution.  You have it ass backwards (gee, what a surprise!).  It is the CITIZENS' RIGHT to stop an unconstitutional government.

[daleko]

Mar 28, 2018 22:52:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

That is only true if you believe that elections do not matter. There is an established mechanism to stop the government.
Until legal mechanisms are exhausted, this is nothing more than treason by citizens who, by defintion, seek to overthrow The Constitution.

I'm guessing Ol Mexico wishes they had a better system in 1848 when Cali had their Los Osos, with a flag they still proudly wave in the state today. Wait Mexico had a representative democracy and their Constitution of 1824, that created a federal system, was modeled on the U.S. Constitution. Hmmmmmmm ol Cali is a funny place. Cali folks don't like something they forcefully change the game. 

[burninbush]

Mar 28, 2018 10:31:13 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:23:01 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

So much irony

Which of your rights do I want to deny?

Wrong, not what the 2nd amendment says. Probably a waste of bandwidth to discuss it here, but ...

"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."

It's only there for one reason, to give citizens a way to protect the government. There's no way to spin it to mean anything else.   It's archaic, means zippo in today's world. 

[bamorin]

Mar 31, 2018 14:09:23 GMT -5 burninbush said:

Mar 28, 2018 10:31:13 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Which of your rights do I want to deny?

Wrong, not what the 2nd amendment says. Probably a waste of bandwidth to discuss it here, but ...

"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."

It's only there for one reason, to give citizens a way to protect the government. There's no way to spin it to mean anything else.   It's archaic, means zippo in today's world. 

then it would have said security of a free Government, but it doesn't.

and.......here's another one that doesn't understand a preclusion. which are the two front parts. The back two parts, are the conclusion. And the conclusion is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms ........notice it says "people", not a collective, as in a militia or a state, "shall not be infringed" the last part was pretty definitive.

[burninbush]

Waste of bandwidth.