Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

canonian · Feb 20, 2014

Sorry if this has been posted but darn if I could find it!

Hopefully this does not happen.

Link

Brooklyn · Feb 20, 2014

Stevens is a fool. I can say that because the 1st Amendment has not yet been subjected to his tender mercies..

ShallNotInfringe · Feb 20, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Stevens is a fool. I can say that because the 1st Amendment has not yet been subjected to his tender mercies..

Yet.

http://therightscoop.com/chilling-o...to-investigate-how-they-decide-what-to-cover/

Mr H · Feb 20, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Stevens is a fool. I can say that because the 1st Amendment has not yet been subjected to his tender mercies..

More like a raving lunatic...

Mr H · Feb 20, 2014

ShallNotInfringe said:
Yet.

http://therightscoop.com/chilling-o...to-investigate-how-they-decide-what-to-cover/

The comments to that piece are quite interesting...

Boondock Saint · Feb 20, 2014

The man is clearly well educated and presumably rather intelligent as well. Seems remarkably unlikely that he could lack understanding behind the intention of the 2A and be so blindly ignorant. The more plausible explanation in my mind is that he actually knows better, but it doesn't jive with his personal opinion, so we get this blither.

Enjoy retirement, Justice Stevens. Stay far, far away from courtrooms for the rest of your days.

Brooklyn · Feb 20, 2014

Boondock Saint said:
The man is clearly well educated and presumably rather intelligent as well. Seems remarkably unlikely that he could lack understanding behind the intention of the 2A and be so blindly ignorant. The more plausible explanation in my mind is that he actually knows better, but it doesn't jive with his personal opinion, so we get this blither.

Enjoy retirement, Justice Stevens. Stay far, far away from courtrooms for the rest of your days.

No he is a fool. Educatation and intelligence do not make one wise.

The key to being a fool is the art of self deception. At that he is a master. John Locke thinks he is a fool as well. That's good enough for me.

Huckleberry · Feb 20, 2014

I think Justice Stevens should simply defer to the wisdom and judgement of James Madison and the First Congress.

Odiferous Maximus · Feb 20, 2014

If the good Justice would simply read Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code, he would know that most 18-45(-ish) males are members of the Unorganized Militia.

When he says "while serving in the militia" he really means "while serving and protecting the government."

Apply his logic to rest of the Bill of Rights...it wouldn't fit because (preaching to the choir here) the Bill of Rights list individual rights. I have an individual right to religion, free speech, etc., not a collective right only to be exercised while in some sort of defined group.

Mike

tomh · Feb 20, 2014

Boondock Saint said:
The man is clearly well educated and presumably rather intelligent as well. Seems remarkably unlikely that he could lack understanding behind the intention of the 2A and be so blindly ignorant. The more plausible explanation in my mind is that he actually knows better, but it doesn't jive with his personal opinion, so we get this blither.

Enjoy retirement, Justice Stevens. Stay far, far away from courtrooms for the rest of your days.

The man may be intelligent, but it doesn't mean he supports our current form of Government.

There are a lot of socialists and communists out there who want to do away with any protections against a tyranny.

EL1227 · Feb 20, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Stevens is a fool. I can say that because the 1st Amendment has not yet been subjected to his tender mercies..

Mr H said:
More like a raving lunatic...

Brooklyn said:
No he is a fool. Education and intelligence do not make one wise.

The key to being a fool is the art of self deception. At that he is a master. John Locke thinks he is a fool as well. That's good enough for me.

Stevens is 93yo ... So age and longevity doesn't make one wise either, but he certainly should be considered for late onset of dementia.

Besides that, it's a Bloomberg publication and when quoting Burger they neglected to point out that while sitting as Chief Justice he never heard a Second Amendment case, nor was he ever the author of a scholarly law review article on the subject. But, that didn't stop him from interpreting the Second Amendment in the popular press and on TV at the 'tender age' of 83. David Kopel, the lead attorney in the Federal civil rights gun lawsuit against the State of Colorado, who has actually researched the topic, probably would take exception to this Bloomberg hit piece ...

Warren Burger and the Second Amendment

Chief Justice Burger's view of Constitution was a narrowly personal one -- meaning that Mr. Burger interpreted the Constitution to protect only things that the Chief Justice felt personally comfortable with, and not to protect those things with which he did not care to be familiar.

His slender essay on the Second Amendment fits with the rest of his Constitutional thought. That which he thought familiar and appropriate -- hunting, fishing, old-fashioned religious lifestyles, the authority of the policeman and of the state -- are the things which he thought Constitution should protect. Things which repulse him -- a t-shirt with the motto: "**** the draft", or homosexual sodomy, or the ownership of cheap guns by minority groups -- he placed outside the boundary of Constitutional protection.

It is precisely this idiosyncratic, personalized method of analysis that judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, are supposed to avoid. Constitutional analysis ought to rigorously and logically examine the Constitution's text, history, legal cases, and principles. Such an examination was what Chief Justice Burger avoided when he found fishermen had a right to stick sharp, pointed hooks in the mouths of river animals; but poor women had no right to affordable self-defense guns.

There are countless criticisms of the 'Burger Court', and this is but one of them. Like Stevens should, Burger retired as a doddering old fool, and his utterings beyond the bench shouldn't be considered as having ANY legal precedence ...

And the liberal/progressive left took shots at Charlton Heston when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's ... Where's my stamp ?

dist1646 · Feb 20, 2014

The only change that needs to be made to the Bill of Rights is;
Congress shall make no law that does not apply equally to citizens and elected officials.

Brooklyn · Feb 20, 2014

squirrels said:
That's all that needs to be said.

I tried to close the tab I had the article open in, and it kept opening a re-popup to itself. Then it crashed my browser. Twice.

The content is equal in quality to the presentation.

Business week is dying. It was Mcgrawhil they ran it into the ground. Then bloomberg took over... it got worse..

danb · Feb 20, 2014

I guess he missed the inconvenient truth that a 1792 and 1904 law basically made everyone either in the organized militia or unorganized militia and the 1792 law required 18 yr olds to own guns & gear suitable for war.

Woodnickel · Feb 20, 2014

"For a significant minority of Americans, firearms represent individualism, independence, and self-reliance."

Seriously? A significant minority? I feel significantly dumber after reading this article.

Raylon Rules · Feb 20, 2014

Being educated and having common sense are vastly different things. Being intellectually honest is an order of magnitude from simply being intelligent. I think most liberals, greenies, etc suffer from a lack of intellectual honesty.

rambling_one · Feb 20, 2014

Boondock Saint said:
The man is clearly well educated and presumably rather intelligent as well. Seems remarkably unlikely that he could lack understanding behind the intention of the 2A and be so blindly ignorant. The more plausible explanation in my mind is that he actually knows better, but it doesn't jive with his personal opinion, so we get this blither.

Enjoy retirement, Justice Stevens. Stay far, far away from courtrooms for the rest of your days.

Chriss613 · Feb 20, 2014

Well this just proves that Justice Stevens was tying that silly-ass bow ties a bit too tight for all those years.

oldman12 · Feb 20, 2014

Should tied them tighter. :innocent0

MikeTF · Feb 20, 2014

Yet another 'anti-gun' piece from 'Bloomberg News'. No surprises there!

Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

I stand with John Locke.

Lil Firecracker

Banana'd

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

No One of Consequence

Active Member

Active Member

R.I.P.

Attachments

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

I am Groot

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics