Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Trailrider #896

"Abolish the 2nd Amendment"

Recommended Posts

This may be "too political", but needs to be shown:  Retired SCOTUS Justice (?) John Paul Stevens told the New York Times that he believes the 2nd Amendment should be repealed!  :o  If this came from anybody besides a retired Supreme Court Justice it would be laughable.   Of course, the process by which this could be achieved is fairly tortuous, but it nevertheless shows to what extent the libs will go to subvert that sacred document!  Were the process to be successful, Heaven knows which of the other Bill of Rights would go down the tubes!  I don't know if Stevens is experiencing certain problems that sometimes go along with aging, but the problem is that there will be some that would go along with this in a heartbeat!!!  IIRC, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the 2nd Amendment protects all the others.  Obviously, some people who took the oath of office have either forgotten the oath, or lied when they promised to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  So help me, God!"

God Save and Bless the United States of America!

Share this post


Link to post

Former president Jimmy Carter was backpedaling on this today, probably because he realizes that Mr. Stevens just stirred up a hornet's nest with his remarks. The left is getting pretty smug and confident right now because they are starting to think they can push us around. Carter knows better.

Share this post


Link to post

Fortunately, the founding fathers put in place the checks and balances they did, so a single member of the SCOTUS, retired or otherwise, can't turn back the bill of rights.

Share this post


Link to post

It's a scary time.  Folks can debate all they want as to how they want to improve safety, reduce violence, etc - but adamantly suggesting that the government strip them of their rights contradicts the basic instinct of self-preservation.  Whether a person likes guns or not, or believes in the right to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to this argument; what is relevant is people are considering the idea of handing over their rights, liberty and freedom to an entity that they alternately revile and then seem to trust implicitly, depending on who is in power. . . 

 

Frank Zappa was incredibly prophetic when he said: "One of the things taken out of the curriculum was civics.  Civics was a class that used to be required before you could graduate from high school. You were taught what was in the U.S. Constitution. And after all the student rebellions in the Sixties, civics was banished from the student curriculum and was replaced by something called social studies. Here we live in a country that has a fabulous constitution and all these guarantees, a contract between the citizens and the government  nobody knows what's in it...And so, if you don't know what your rights are, how can you stand up for them? And furthermore, if you don't know what's in the document, how can you care if someone is shredding it?"

 

And those last two sentences are at the heart of the problem. 

 

Keep your powder dry, 

 

Wild Ben

Share this post


Link to post

This is also being discussed on the Team SASS wire

 

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post

You cant fix Stupid ! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post

It just ain't gonna happen.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Dantankerous said:

It just ain't gonna happen.

 

;)

 

Not for a few years and hopefully not in my kids lifetime. But eventually we'll be outnumbered.

AlthoughghI could see a point in time where the flyover states band together and form another United States.

Share this post


Link to post

The Supreme Court is composed of humans.  Humans are fallible, imperfect.  Having nine of them examining Constitutional questions is better than relying on the opinion of one all-powerful Justice.  The Supreme Court has rendered stinker decisions, (Dred Scott, separate but equal, Obamacare legality) but still serves as a valuable check on the other two branches of government.

 

Justice Stevens is entitled to his opinion.  I’m grateful his his opinion no longer counts.  He provides an example of why elections have consequences, and why I can put up with a lot of crap from  a President as long as he nominates Constitutional conservatives to fill SCOTUS vacancies.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be quite a feat.  Propsed admendment must receive 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate.  Then 3/4 of the states must consider and say yea.

At the current of 50 states then 38 would have to say yea.  With the political climates of the past decades that is basically pie in the sky.

 

The other way is Article V or what is called a constitutional convention.  To call one would require 2/3 or currently 34 states to call and then needs 38 to ratify along with said 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress. Again not very likely.

 

Just an opinion by Judge Stevens which by the grace of the 1st he is entitled to.

Share this post


Link to post

Stevens is among the fraternity of living Constitution jurist that dominated law schools in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s & 70’s.  I vividly remember 3 quarters of polysci classes on constitutional cases that stressed a living constitution.  I was too young to not see how this bogus philosophe leads to tyrany of black robes.  Fortunately Stevens was in the minority in Heller.  His decenting opinion was full of criticism of the majority.  At least he acknowledges the futility of passing laws that ban semiautomatic firearms; because of Heller.  The Heller test of impermissible arms restrictions are those in common use.  The gun banners can’t credibly articulate why AR’s are any more dangerous than another semiautomatic firearm with a removable box magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, J.D. Daily said:

 ...The gun banners can’t credibly articulate why AR’s are any more dangerous than another semiautomatic firearm with a removable box magazine.

 

The gun banners can't credibly articulate anything as far as I have seen. They display a lot of hype and fear and mumbo-jumbo nonsense but that's about as far as it goes. 

Share this post


Link to post

A few commentators, even the Washington Post, have come out and said that Stevens hurt efforts to pass even modest "gun control" legislation by his remarks, which gun owners are interpreting as an attack on their constitutional protections.

Share this post


Link to post

He spoke what others are thinking but didn't want law abiding citizens to know they were thinking so now they are going on TV and Twitter trying to put distance between them and his comments.  He let the cat out of the bag even though we already knew about the cat in the bag.  Now they can't call us paranoid when we hold the line because we can quote his remarks 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, LostVaquero said:

It would be quite a feat.  Propsed admendment must receive 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate.  Then 3/4 of the states must consider and say yea.

At the current of 50 states then 38 would have to say yea.  With the political climates of the past decades that is basically pie in the sky.

 

The other way is Article V or what is called a constitutional convention.  To call one would require 2/3 or currently 34 states to call and then needs 38 to ratify along with said 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress. Again not very likely.

 

Just an opinion by Judge Stevens which by the grace of the 1st he is entitled to.

A "Con-con" is the one thing I fear!  Should such a thing be called, the whole Bill of Rights would be up for grabs!  Fortunately, it would be extremely difficult!  God save the United States of America!

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/28/2018 at 3:35 PM, Sixgun Sheridan said:

Former president Jimmy Carter was backpedaling on this today, probably because he realizes that Mr. Stevens just stirred up a hornet's nest with his remarks. The left is getting pretty smug and confident right now because they are starting to think they can push us around. Carter knows better.

 

Actually, Stevens was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by Nixon, and nominated for the Supreme Court by Ford.  Ford's intent was to replace William O. Douglas with a "Non-Political" nominee.  At the time (1975), the Democrats held 60 Senate seats... Stevens was confirmed 98 - 0.  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/29/2018 at 8:17 AM, Dantankerous said:

 

The gun banners can't credibly articulate anything as far as I have seen. They display a lot of hype and fear and mumbo-jumbo nonsense but that's about as far as it goes. 

The question is, how many of the gullible ‘sheeple’ can they convince with their journalistic nit-wittery ???Remember-these people can and do vote.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Wild Will Bartell said:

The question is, how many of the gullible ‘sheeple’ can they convince with their journalistic nit-wittery ???Remember-these people can and do vote.

 

And the soap pod eaters are about to join the voting ranks, if they haven’t already. 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Sgt. Saywut said:

 

And the soap pod eaters are about to join the voting ranks, if they haven’t already. 

Good point.

Not sure how this would fly, but here goes... How about if you want to vote at 18, you join the Military, otherwise wait until you are 21.

Thoughts??

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wild Will Bartell said:

Good point.

Not sure how this would fly, but here goes... How about if you want to vote at 18, you join the Military, otherwise wait until you are 21.

Thoughts??

Here is the problem with that idea:

Amendment 26 

 

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

But the draft could be re-instituted requiring military service.  Might see a lot running to Canada again though......:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.