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 Jeerleader I know it is a useless request but where does Heller say that "it was the ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2018, 08:29 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,441
Thanks: 7,508
Thanked 10,446 Times in 5,910 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
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?

.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2018, 10:08 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,445
Thanks: 10,040
Thanked 15,176 Times in 9,199 Posts
Post Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
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.
I would be open to such a dialog, but the reality of how this plays out is:
step a) Republicans insist on blocking the legislation because of complaints
step b) Republicans never list what they think it should be changed to that they would accept.

Ergo, the legislation is blocked with a pretense of an interest in changing it when pragmatically the only interest was completely blocking it.
__________________
“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
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2018, 10:21 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,997
Thanks: 8,932
Thanked 9,592 Times in 5,858 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Only because of your partisan nature...




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



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...



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...
Gotta love it when you label me "partisan" when we disagree implying the Progressive Democrat dogma you spout by rote is above dirty partisan politics.

Again the highly partisan Politifact spin of Feinstein's desire to see gun confiscation relies on deconstructing the remark using the magical context beast and appropriation of any reasonable interpretation to the conclusion reached by the wizards of Polifact. The assault weapons ban Feinstein sponsored set up a backdoor registration scheme, required bureaucratic background checks for any transfer including inheritance as well as manufacturing or importing anything on an ever expanding list of guns. It's slow motion confiscation no matter how you try to dress it up. But don't worry Progressives promise to stop short of confiscation until the next crop of human shield crisis actors can be pressed forward to mask another step towards the goal of confiscation.

Justice Stevens plainly advocated banning all semi automatic weapons in his editorial advocating repeal of the 2A. Naturally there is no mention of the forced confiscation of millions of semiautomatic weapons already in private hands. Never mind the obvious outcome, focus on the levitating apples.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2018, 11:19 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,445
Thanks: 10,040
Thanked 15,176 Times in 9,199 Posts
Post Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Gotta love it when you label me "partisan" when we disagree implying the Progressive Democrat dogma you spout by rote is above dirty partisan politics.
Without surprise, your first sentence is an outright lie about what actually happened.

1) I didn't label you as partisan just because we disagree here. Quite frankly, you are one of the more partisan posters on this forum.
2) I never said nor insinuated that my "dogma" is "above ... partisan politics"
I'll freely admit that repealing the 2nd amendment is a very partisan idea. And for the record, I never said I endorsed it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Again the highly partisan Politifact spin of Feinstein's desire to see gun confiscation relies on deconstructing the remark using the magical context beast and appropriation of any reasonable interpretation to the conclusion reached by the wizards of Polifact. The assault weapons ban Feinstein sponsored set up a backdoor registration scheme, required bureaucratic background checks for any transfer including inheritance as well as manufacturing or importing anything on an ever expanding list of guns.
It's funny how you claim it's a "magical context beast" when there is nothing "magical" about it.
You are lying in claiming she said what you claimed she said.
And amusingly enough, in this post you correct your lie while trying to blame me for your previous false statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
It's slow motion confiscation no matter how you try to dress it up. But don't worry Progressives promise to stop short of confiscation until the next crop of human shield crisis actors can be pressed forward to mask another step towards the goal of confiscation.
This perpetual domino theory b.s. is boring and avoids true discussion.
Gun enthusiasts are perpetually claiming that we can't enact legal and constitutional gun control methods for fear that the next step would be an unconstitutional act.
It's a lame and boring tactic and demonstrates why some people reach towards ideas like "repeal the 2nd amendment" which is also never going to see the light of day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Justice Stevens plainly advocated banning all semi automatic weapons in his editorial advocating repeal of the 2A. Naturally there is no mention of the forced confiscation of millions of semiautomatic weapons already in private hands. Never mind the obvious outcome, focus on the levitating apples.
Of course, the possibility that Justice Stevens never mentioned it because it wasn't what he had in mind completely skips over your honest admission because you can't be forced to admit that there are people in this world who endorse banning new sales but would not confiscate existing weaponry.
__________________
“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
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:43 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,632
Thanks: 233
Thanked 5,607 Times in 4,066 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Gun enthusiasts are perpetually claiming that we can't enact legal and constitutional gun control methods for fear that the next step would be an unconstitutional act.
It's a lame and boring tactic and demonstrates why some people reach towards ideas like "repeal the 2nd amendment" which is also never going to see the light of day.
Anti-gunners and so-called "sensible gun control" people are not going to get anywhere with their asinine attempts to ban certain weapons and to therefore forbid law-abiding citizens from owning them. Their similarly stupid whining question, "Why do you need a gun that can shoot 100 bullets without reloading, or can fire 100 bullets a second?", is as meaningless as the Constitution is to them.

Put a cork in it, and go after the bad guys. You snowflakes and your feeble attempts to lower the "gun carnage" will get you exactly nowhere with the bad guys. They laugh at you trying to stop them by you going after the law-abiding people.
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2018, 07:51 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,604
Thanks: 3,189
Thanked 2,220 Times in 1,302 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
This perpetual domino theory b.s. is boring and avoids true discussion.
Gun enthusiasts are perpetually claiming that we can't enact legal and constitutional gun control methods for fear that the next step would be an unconstitutional act.
It's a lame and boring tactic and demonstrates why some people reach towards ideas like "repeal the 2nd amendment" which is also never going to see the light of day.
They said the same thing about gay marriage and look where that ended up. Progressives are not opposed to playing the long game and getting their agenda in small chunks. Most conservatives see this in their gun control proposals, so excuse us if we don't fall for it this time.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2018, 01:05 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,445
Thanks: 10,040
Thanked 15,176 Times in 9,199 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
They said the same thing about gay marriage and look where that ended up.
WHO said the same thing about gay marriage?

Your analogy is b.s.
With gay marriage, I can show you NUMEROUS EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT HISTORY where gay rights proponents explicitly acknowledged they were seeking gay marriage. Decades before gay marriage first became a reality in the U.S.
There have been numerous groups over decades explicitly stating that is exactly what we wanted.
It was no secret that when sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in 2003, that this was one of the last remaining steps to the challenge on gay marriage constitutionality.
In fact, you can see that on the "conservative" side as when sodomy laws fell conservatives immediately started enacting laws to prevent gay marriage.
Your comment on "they said the same thing about gay marriage" is absolute hogwash.

Where your analogy falls apart is I know of no major gay rights organization which was proclaiming that we were NOT seeking gay marriage.
And you have numerous liberals explicitly noting they do not want all guns taken away.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
Progressives are not opposed to playing the long game and getting their agenda in small chunks. Most conservatives see this in their gun control proposals, so excuse us if we don't fall for it this time.
The same could be said for conservatives.
It should not stop us from enacting some middle ground legislation just because some are afraid of a potential further policy change in the future.
__________________
“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
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2018, 02:01 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,632
Thanks: 233
Thanked 5,607 Times in 4,066 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It should not stop us from enacting some middle ground legislation just because some are afraid of a potential further policy change in the future.
The only middle ground is the law that makes it a crime to misuse any weapon. There is no pro-gun control person to my knowledge who is not anal retentive about trying to lower the number of people killed by firearms. He tries to do it by attempting to forbid every civilian from acquiring this or that weapon. All of them need to be ignored. Fight the bad guys, not the law-abiding citizens. Disarm the psychos. Leave the good guys alone.

Mind your own business about what weapon of choice good people have or want or need, if you don't get a boo-boo from it.


The above applies to everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2018, 03:10 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,441
Thanks: 7,508
Thanked 10,446 Times in 5,910 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
WHO It should not stop us from enacting some middle ground legislation just because some are afraid of a potential further policy change in the future.
There is no acceptable "middle ground" with the left when it involves the Bill of Rights. Only ground gained matters after which, the middle ground having been moved, the process starts all over again.
Precisely the justification for those "fears."
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 04-12-2018, 08:50 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,997
Thanks: 8,932
Thanked 9,592 Times in 5,858 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Without surprise, your first sentence is an outright lie about what actually happened.

1) I didn't label you as partisan just because we disagree here. Quite frankly, you are one of the more partisan posters on this forum.
2) I never said nor insinuated that my "dogma" is "above ... partisan politics"
I'll freely admit that repealing the 2nd amendment is a very partisan idea. And for the record, I never said I endorsed it.



It's funny how you claim it's a "magical context beast" when there is nothing "magical" about it.
You are lying in claiming she said what you claimed she said.
And amusingly enough, in this post you correct your lie while trying to blame me for your previous false statement.



This perpetual domino theory b.s. is boring and avoids true discussion.
Gun enthusiasts are perpetually claiming that we can't enact legal and constitutional gun control methods for fear that the next step would be an unconstitutional act.
It's a lame and boring tactic and demonstrates why some people reach towards ideas like "repeal the 2nd amendment" which is also never going to see the light of day.



Of course, the possibility that Justice Stevens never mentioned it because it wasn't what he had in mind completely skips over your honest admission because you can't be forced to admit that there are people in this world who endorse banning new sales but would not confiscate existing weaponry.
As usual when confronted by your own false rhetoric you resort to juvenile insults. Your tantrum about me pointing out that you too are highly partisan after you wrote that my highly partisan nature prevented me from understanding is a good example. You never examine your partisan blinders.

We know from the Clinton era assault weapons ban failure to reduce crime assault weapons bans don't work yet Feinstein proposed another more expansive gun grabbing assault weapons ban using the bodies of children murdered at Newtown as human shields. She is the leading sponsor of another ineffectual assault weapons ban but she couldn't possibly have the ultimate goal of confiscation.

In the same editorial Retired Justice Stephens advocates undertaking the arduous process of repealing the 2A as necessary to enact proper gun control laws he advocates banning semiautomatic guns. There was already an assault weapons ban on new sales and importation of proscribed semiautomatic rifles that withstood Constitutional challenge. Yet we are supposed to believe the former SCOTUS justice wants the 2A repealed so another gun ban permissible under the 2A can be enacted.

No doubt the defenestration of your unfounded claims and speculation will trigger a new wave of personal attacks. Surprise us all by engaging in rational discussion for a change.

My comment pointed out how Feinstein's bill lays the groundwork and creates the infrastructure for gun seizure but the reliably Left wing Polifact wrote that she didn't mean all guns, essentially trust us we'll respect the 2A in the morning.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
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 09:58 AM.


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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0