Retired SCOTUS Stevens: Time to repeal the 2nd amendment

[Walter]

Mar 31, 2018 16:27:27 GMT -5 bamorin said:

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

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.

To which government do you think they were referring?
What the hell do you mean by "free government"? I have never heard that term before.

[AlaCowboy]

Mar 31, 2018 22:23:16 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mar 31, 2018 16:27:27 GMT -5 bamorin said:

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.

To which government do you think they were referring?
What the hell do you mean by "free government"? I have never heard that term before.

At the time the founding Fathers were struggling with the first 10 amendments, the concern was for the individual states to be predominant, working together as a whole. The federal government was supposed to take orders from them, not give orders to the states. Maybe the FFs wanted to protect the states from an overreaching central government.

[Walter]

Mar 31, 2018 22:53:02 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Mar 31, 2018 22:23:16 GMT -5 Walter said:

To which government do you think they were referring?
What the hell do you mean by "free government"? I have never heard that term before.

At the time the founding Fathers were struggling with the first 10 amendments, the concern was for the individual states to be predominant, working together as a whole. The federal government was supposed to take orders from them, not give orders to the states. Maybe the FFs wanted to protect the states from an overreaching central government.

That is news to me. The federal supremacy clause would belie that assertion, would it not? The 10th tells us whats up with who gets to be dominant and when. The 2nd is IMO, both protecting states and protecting the federal government from both internal or external threat.

[Deleted]

Mar 31, 2018 17:21:37 GMT -5 burninbush said:

Waste of bandwidth.

Yes you are a waste of bandwidth, because you are totally INCORRECT.
Don't want to own a gun (which is your right)?  Then don't own one, but don't tell me I can't own one.

[Deleted]

Mar 31, 2018 23:05:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mar 31, 2018 22:53:02 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

At the time the founding Fathers were struggling with the first 10 amendments, the concern was for the individual states to be predominant, working together as a whole. The federal government was supposed to take orders from them, not give orders to the states. Maybe the FFs wanted to protect the states from an overreaching central government.

That is news to me. The federal supremacy clause would belie that assertion, would it not? The 10th tells us whats up with who gets to be dominant and when. The 2nd is IMO, both protecting states and protecting the federal government from both internal or external threat.

So you are claiming an individual has no right to protect himself?  Who, then, do you think is going to do it?

[Walter]

Apr 1, 2018 7:33:49 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 31, 2018 23:05:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

That is news to me. The federal supremacy clause would belie that assertion, would it not? The 10th tells us whats up with who gets to be dominant and when. The 2nd is IMO, both protecting states and protecting the federal government from both internal or external threat.

So you are claiming an individual has no right to protect himself?  Who, then, do you think is going to do it?

From where in my comment did you get that idea?

[bamorin]

Mar 31, 2018 22:23:16 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mar 31, 2018 16:27:27 GMT -5 bamorin said:

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.

To which government do you think they were referring?
What the hell do you mean by "free government"? I have never heard that term before.

well, then you didn't read BnBs post, had you, you'd have seen it (heard it) before.

[burninbush]

Apr 1, 2018 7:31:41 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 31, 2018 17:21:37 GMT -5 burninbush said:

Waste of bandwidth.

Yes you are a waste of bandwidth, because you are totally INCORRECT.
Don't want to own a gun (which is your right)?  Then don't own one, but don't tell me I can't own one.

Never said that, nor meant to imply that. What we don't want is the wide distribution of people-killing machines. You can hunt the same way that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment hunted, with single-shot rifles. You can shoot beer cans with it, if that's your goal. If you need to protect your house get a shotgun.

[oujour76]

Apr 1, 2018 11:26:27 GMT -5 burninbush said:

Apr 1, 2018 7:31:41 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Yes you are a waste of bandwidth, because you are totally INCORRECT.
Don't want to own a gun (which is your right)?  Then don't own one, but don't tell me I can't own one.

Never said that, nor meant to imply that. What we don't want is the wide distribution of people-killing machines. You can hunt the same way that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment hunted, with single-shot rifles. You can shoot beer cans with it, if that's your goal. If you need to protect your house get a shotgun.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2018 11:26:27 GMT -5 burninbush said:

Apr 1, 2018 7:31:41 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Yes you are a waste of bandwidth, because you are totally INCORRECT.
Don't want to own a gun (which is your right)?  Then don't own one, but don't tell me I can't own one.

Never said that, nor meant to imply that. What we don't want is the wide distribution of people-killing machines. You can hunt the same way that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment hunted, with single-shot rifles. You can shoot beer cans with it, if that's your goal. If you need to protect your house get a shotgun.

Every gun is a people-killing machine you dipshit. You want to ban private ownership? Yes, you do. But you're too much of a cowardly chicken shit to admit it, just like every other GDC liberal in this country. Bunch of cowards.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2018 17:29:04 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Apr 1, 2018 11:26:27 GMT -5 burninbush said:

Never said that, nor meant to imply that. What we don't want is the wide distribution of people-killing machines. You can hunt the same way that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment hunted, with single-shot rifles. You can shoot beer cans with it, if that's your goal. If you need to protect your house get a shotgun.

Every gun is a people-killing machine you dipshit. You want to ban private ownership? Yes, you do. But you're too much of a cowardly chicken shit to admit it, just like every other GDC liberal in this country. Bunch of cowards.

Says the guy who wants all the guns he can for his own "protection"

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2018 18:11:15 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Apr 1, 2018 17:29:04 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Every gun is a people-killing machine you dipshit. You want to ban private ownership? Yes, you do. But you're too much of a cowardly chicken shit to admit it, just like every other GDC liberal in this country. Bunch of cowards.

Says the guy who wants all the guns he can for his own "protection"

You're a f-in idiot. All my guns are for either fun or hunting. They can also be used as "protection" if that need ever arises but that is the least of my reasons for owning guns so f-word off you fat, stupid f-in dipshit.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2018 18:20:50 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Apr 1, 2018 18:11:15 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Says the guy who wants all the guns he can for his own "protection"

You're a f-in idiot. All my guns are for either fun or hunting. They can also be used as "protection" if that need ever arises but that is the least of my reasons for owning guns so f-word off you fat, stupid f-in dipshit.

So a machine designed to kill you consider fun ?

Interesting

Why the name calling lately?

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2018 18:25:54 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Apr 1, 2018 18:20:50 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

You're a f-in idiot. All my guns are for either fun or hunting. They can also be used as "protection" if that need ever arises but that is the least of my reasons for owning guns so f-word off you fat, stupid f-in dipshit.

So a machine designed to kill you consider fun ?

Interesting

Why the name calling lately?

A tool designed to shoot a bullet. Only an idiot like you would think the only purpose is for that bullet to kill another human being. It's a damn good thing you're afraid of, and don't own guns. It's not for everybody, especially those not of sound mind like you.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2018 18:30:43 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Apr 1, 2018 18:25:54 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

So a machine designed to kill you consider fun ?

Interesting

Why the name calling lately?

A tool designed to shoot a bullet. Only an idiot like you would think the only purpose is for that bullet to kill another human being. It's a damn good thing you're afraid of, and don't own guns. It's not for everybody, especially those not of sound mind like you.

If it's not designed to kill then why does the bullet come out so fast. Couldn't you design a gun and bullet that wont kill anything or anyone and use that for all your fun