Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by AZRWinger Trying to equate a US Senator stating her desire to confiscate all guns with someone proposing ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 04-03-2018, 04:54 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,434
Thanks: 10,037
Thanked 15,160 Times in 9,192 Posts
Post Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Trying to equate a US Senator stating her desire to confiscate all guns with someone proposing the death sentence for homosexuals is nonsense.
Only because of your partisan nature...



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Feinstein repeatedly won election from the most populous state in the union, has long sponsored gun grabber legislation that was seriously considered by the Senate but she represents no more of a constituency than fringe of a fringe nut jobs espousing death for homosexuals.
She represents a constituency.
That's different from saying the constituency shares all of her opinions.

By analogy, when Obama was in office, did he represent your views?


And more to the point, your lie regarding Feinstein has already been exposed. I am not surprised you continue to repeat it.
Ted Cruz misfires on Feinstein gun claim | PolitiFact California


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The use of bold and increased front size doesn't mask the falsehood of the claim that Democrats didn't want to confiscate guns.
You calling it a "falsehood" does absolutely nothing to prove your claim.
It does absolutely nothing to address the question I raised.

At the start of Obama's presidency, we had a majority of Dems in the House and Senate in addition to the Oval Office. Would have been an opportune time to implement gun control, if that were really something gnawing at most dem / liberal minds.
But we didn't, did we...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Democrats didn't even try to reform immigration. Obama made multiple promises to pivot to jobs after addressing another issue like Obamacare. Obama and the Democrats went all in to get Obamacare. That provides no evidence Obama didn't want to confiscate guns.
Um...
Orange!
Banana!
Pineapple!

That provides no evidence that apples don't magically levitate!!!


You should be aware enough that when YOU claim that a majority of liberals want to ban guns, it's on you to prove your claim.
But you can't do that, so instead you try to shift the burden of proof to you stating (incessantly) that the evidence I provide doesn't get you to admit anything... And even more glaringly here, you try to shift the focus to "Obama" instead of the previous b.s. assessment regarding liberals in general...
If you're now backing off your previous statement, then I see that as progress. But we both know it's only an arguing ploy for you...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 04-04-2018, 09:23 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,252
Thanks: 1,444
Thanked 2,221 Times in 1,760 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited... It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a..._scalia_784746
Justice Scalia recognized that the Second Amendment addressed the general category of "arms" and not "firearms" and that it was the responsibility of the legislature to define what "arms" were to be protected and to impose regulations as necessary for the public safety related to the arms that could be possessed.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 04-04-2018, 09:33 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,618
Thanks: 233
Thanked 5,600 Times in 4,062 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Justice Scalia recognized that the Second Amendment addressed the general category of "arms" and not "firearms" and that it was the responsibility of the legislature to define what "arms" were to be protected and to impose regulations as necessary for the public safety related to the arms that could be possessed.
Then don't you think, with that in mind, that gun grabbers should focus their anal-erotic obsession on removing weapons from active psychos, and leaving the law-abiding people alone?
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 04-04-2018, 11:26 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,434
Thanks: 10,037
Thanked 15,160 Times in 9,192 Posts
Post Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Then don't you think, with that in mind, that gun grabbers should focus their anal-erotic obsession on removing weapons from active psychos, and leaving the law-abiding people alone?
If you guys could focus on the actual law and actions, you would be able to admit that is exactly what is being attempted...

The real question should be why don't the responsible gun owners JOIN US in that effort?

For example, California enacted legislation regarding mental illness and gun ownership.
California among 5 states with ?red flag? gun law
It has even been talked about on this board and repeatedly the gun enthusiasts fight against the legislation.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 04-04-2018, 01:46 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,618
Thanks: 233
Thanked 5,600 Times in 4,062 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
If you guys could focus on the actual law and actions, you would be able to admit that is exactly what is being attempted...
That is what gun grabbers want pro second amendment people to believe. I call bull on their intent. Diane Feinstein comes to mind. The Brady Bunch comes to mind. Et cetera.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 04-04-2018, 02:53 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 11,597
Thanks: 9,424
Thanked 7,607 Times in 4,884 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
If you guys could focus on the actual law and actions, you would be able to admit that is exactly what is being attempted...

The real question should be why don't the responsible gun owners JOIN US in that effort?

For example, California enacted legislation regarding mental illness and gun ownership.
California among 5 states with ?red flag? gun law
It has even been talked about on this board and repeatedly the gun enthusiasts fight against the legislation.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: The definition of 'mental illness' needs a new definition to be applicable to something that is a right.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 04-04-2018, 03:37 PM
Aide
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 237
Thanks: 107
Thanked 250 Times in 123 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Justice Scalia recognized that the Second Amendment addressed the general category of "arms" and not "firearms" and that it was the responsibility of the legislature to define what "arms" were to be protected and to impose regulations as necessary for the public safety related to the arms that could be possessed.
No he did not. Again from the opening statement of the findings' syllabus of the court's opinion, which was authored by Scalia.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

Again, it seems you just make stuff up and then argue it as established fact.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to G_Link For This Useful Post:
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2018, 12:44 AM
WallyWager's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Michigan
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,259
Thanks: 1,530
Thanked 8,664 Times in 5,502 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Polifact spin trying to cover for Feinstein letting the agenda of gun confiscation out. Polifact appropriates all reasonable interpretations of Feinsteins remarks to itself, trust a notoriously bias assessment just like we are supposed to trust the ever escalating demands for more gun control will not lead to confiscation. Years later.

Feinstein back tracked on her position out of political expediency. But hey, trust in the gun grabber to preserve your 2A rights.
No spin, just your denial. Supporting an assault weapons ban and supporting the right to home defense with firearms aren't mutually exclusive, so there isn't a good reason to believe it was out of expediency. Not only that, I though Cali was super pro-gun control? What political reason would she need to assert a position like that on guns she hypothetically doesn't have.
__________________
"He's now president for life. President for life. And he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot some day."
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2018, 06:51 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 495
Thanks: 344
Thanked 601 Times in 297 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It's funny how you stripped a "subject" from your sentence.
WHO supposedly had high hopes for Obama presidency regarding gun control?
Uhhhh, any gun control supporter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And why do you claim that considering Obama's statements during the election run were clearly counter to that?
Nobody believed him? You would first need to establish that Obama was accepted as a honest voice in the gun control "debate". His history was that there wasn't a gun control proposal too draconian for him to not support it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Are you a mind-reader now?
Don't need to be. One just needs to be able to differentiate campaign rhetoric and actual positions. IOW, watch what they do and ignore what they say . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
These invented narratives are absurd. And never ending.
As I said, when the person has a history like Obama did, it isn't difficult. The policies and laws he supported as a state senator spoke for him. In the 1998 Illinois National Political Awareness Test Obama checked SUPPORT for: “a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons;” “b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms;” . . . Google the name "Hale DeMar" and see what Obama's position was on defensive gun use in the home. He's as anti-gun as they come and no amount of campaign BS would ever convince anyone with a brain otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
No matter how many liberals / democrats say "I don't want to ban your guns", too many gun enthusiasts insist on being able to read minds to claim that is a lie.
Well, if those statements accompanied statements in opposition to all gun bans, perhaps they would be believed.You can't say that ____________ should be banned and then say "I don't want to ban your guns" or "I don't want to take your guns".

Look at the law that is being proposed in Oregon (to be enacted by ballot initiative); an assault weapons ban that gives anyone who owns one 120 days to dispose of it, turn it over to police or render it inoperative -- Initiative Petition 43. But hey, nobody wants to take your guns . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And ignoring the fundamental flaws with your claims of other people's opinions, riddle me this...
If Dems supposedly were halted in their efforts by that ruling, shouldn't that make gun ownership safe today???
Absolutely not. In the years that have passed liberal judges have misconstructed and misrepresented Scalia's words, e.g., Kolbe v. Hogan twisting Scalia's "M-16's and the like".

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
After all, that ruling still stands, correct?
And we are repeating the history of US v Miller. Just as US v Tot and Cases v US took McReynold's inartful writing and perverted Miller to insert the "state's right" and "militia right" into the federal court system in 1942, the lower federal courts are now taking Heller and standing it on its head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
But some gun enthusiasts are still dwelling on exaggerated paranoia and fear...
Given the unhinged demonization of gun rights and gun rights supporters I'm going reject any characterization that paranoia and fear is driving my reaction. Anti-gunners are screaming in my face that I am a terrorist and my rights are on borrowed time so I'm not going to apologize for taking them at their word.

.
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2018, 07:36 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 495
Thanks: 344
Thanked 601 Times in 297 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post

Quote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited... It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a..._scalia_784746
Justice Scalia recognized that the Second Amendment addressed the general category of "arms" and not "firearms" and that it was the responsibility of the legislature to define what "arms" were to be protected and to impose regulations as necessary for the public safety related to the arms that could be possessed.
I know it is a useless request but where does Heller say that "it was the responsibility of the legislature to define what "arms" were to be protected and to impose regulations as necessary for the public safety related to the arms that could be possessed"?

I have read the case many, many, many times and I don't remember anything like that. I do remember Scalia saying that:


"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"


and I remember Scalia quoting Rawle's explanation of the 2nd Amendment's restrictive clause;


"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."


I remember him warning modern judges and legislators against reassessing the value of the right to arms in modern society;


"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."


And I remember him doubling down on that theme . . . and this can only be taken as him speaking directly to "the legislature" and its power to dictate to the people what arms they are allowed to possess and use:

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

So, my question again, (that I have asked you again and again whenever you share with us your special understanding of Heller), where the Hell do you get this stuff?

.
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
amendment, john, paul, repeal, second, stevens, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0