(03-27-2018 08:42 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:53 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:06 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Charottesville. And I never said riots. People attacked at trump rallies. Signs calling for Obama’s lynching. Ignore it all you want. Does not mean it did not happen

This is what you said after getting thoroughly thrashed when the NRA ad you claimed to be a lie was proven correct word for word:

Quote:Please show how that is different then the anti Obama protest?

Obama was out of office and his legacy was being dismantled in whole when Charlottesville happened so nice try but yet another big fail from you.

You also made the claim that I say the right is innocent. Go ahead and link that up as well or retract it.

I am done. You are an idiot. The simple fact that you claim an opinion piece as fact shows what an idiot you are.

Yeah if I were you I'd tuck tail and run from my stupidity too. Especially after the fact that multiple examples of this line of thinking being brought to the mainstream of you leftists have been given in this very thread and others that you have participated in.

Oh because you posted about 10 photos that you googled but are unwilling to google the opposite. Do your own research coming from me you are just going to dismiss whatever I post. Yes there are some dumb***es out there. Only difference is I am saying they come from both sides.

So you can't back up your claim that I say the right is innocent? So noted.

For someone who claims to be a "centrist" you walk, talk, deflect, defend, and lie just like a leftist. Guess it's like Grandaddy always said.....someone who tells you they are a moderate/centrist it;s because they are too embarrassed to admit they are a dim.

And with that you go on the ignore list with the rest of the leftist liars who like to make up their own facts. Hopefully one of the mods reads this thread and actually applies the AUP for your personal attacks upon me and the namecalling. I'd suggest that you keep my name out of your lying posts in the future because next time you defame me I might not be so willing to let it slide, you ignorant, brainwashed, talking point repeating leftist sheep.

(03-27-2018 08:38 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fox News Change the 2nd Amendment

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/...ution.html

you must be ******* stupid if you dont see the difference between the two articles... and the title of the Fox News article is Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens proposes changes to Constitution, not an OpEd from the Fox News Writer... the libtards have no hope.

Permanently stupid they are. Like a sea of morons.

(03-27-2018 07:21 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:37 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems the number of hunting licenses has been dropping for some time now. As kids grow up and old timers pass away. What will the future hold for gun lovers??

http://www.outdoornews.com/2017/09/21/hu...situation/

And that IS sad news, but has NOTHING to do with the 2A.

Prob the result of license cost rising, regulations rising, etc.

Don’t worry though. Us good ‘ol country folk still buy guns and hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-27-2018 07:21 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:37 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems the number of hunting licenses has been dropping for some time now. As kids grow up and old timers pass away. What will the future hold for gun lovers??

http://www.outdoornews.com/2017/09/21/hu...situation/

And that IS sad news, but has NOTHING to do with the 2A.

Oh look it is another Red Tom demographics guy LOL. Assuming all young folks never become conservative. Hoping for a gun free Utopia.

(03-27-2018 11:52 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Why are you deliberately being dishonest? You know the paper is not calling for repeal, it's simply running an Op-Ed of one persons opinion. Has no bearing on anything done or not done in congress. You know repeal process is deliberately and rightfully onerous. It's not going to happen so relax.

Actually, I think long term there won't be any need for repeal. I think as the decades go by fewer and fewer people will buy or feel the need to have guns. Gun ownership will eventually go the way of cigarette smoking. Once peer pressure hits critical mass, people will start to cool to gun ownership. I have no evidence to back this up,but I suspect that is already happening. I suspect fewer and fewer people are buying more and more guns, stockpiling.

http://cdn.aliengearholsters.com/media/w...istics.jpg

I think we have at least two--and possibly more--different environments, where the same policy may not work in all of them. In New York City, it may not make sense to own an "assault weapon." In Idaho, or Montana, or Wyoming, or west Texas, there may be numerous occasions where an AR-15 or other gun could be a handy thing to have.

(03-27-2018 10:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think we have at least two--and possibly more--different environments, where the same policy may not work in all of them. In New York City, it may not make sense to own an "assault weapon." In Idaho, or Montana, or Wyoming, or west Texas, there may be numerous occasions where an AR-15 or other gun could be a handy thing to have.

That is not how it works. NYC residents would need an AR much more that a resident of western states especially if there was a power grid failure. But this has nothing to do with the 2nd A. It isn't about need, or living in rural areas. Dam Owl why do you cling to this rural hunting narrative IT ISN'T about that!

(03-27-2018 04:51 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:30 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

But remember...nobody is coming for your guns.

They also used to say our kids would not be harmed in school.

Who's "they"?

The government "educators"?
Perhaps.

no one else bought that crap for near 20 years. Keep drugging kids, and blaming inanimate objects.

good plan.

There will be no repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Any attempt will cause massive civil unrest.

No way in hell will you get enough public support to repeal the 2nd Amendment. To even consider it is absurd.

(03-28-2018 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No way in hell will you get enough public support to repeal the 2nd Amendment. To even consider it is absurd.

Consider it? Sure, that's fine, but any attempt to do so...yeah...absurd.

(03-28-2018 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No way in hell will you get enough public support to repeal the 2nd Amendment. To even consider it is absurd.

The worst possible result would be a squeaker of a win for a pro-repeal side.

(03-28-2018 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No way in hell will you get enough public support to repeal the 2nd Amendment. To even consider it is absurd.

But, but.... the retired lib judge said repealing it is easy.


Which, btw, is why I commented that he must now be senile or facing dementia.

If memory serves, the alt-left will now double down even harder, to the point where it gets out the vote for us in November. Only thing that would make this better is if this tweet was closer to the midterms, but I'll assume that the 4d Grandmaster-in-Chief has dozens of moves already mapped out that I simply can't yet see or comprehend.

Vox weighs in...

Quote:Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s New York Times op-ed calling to repeal the Second Amendment is an intriguing idea as gun violence in America sends schoolchildren to the streets to protest. But it’s also a strange argument on the merits.

Stevens argues that to break the National Rifle Association’s grip on the political process, we must first break the grip it obtained on the Constitution via the Second Amendment. Repeal it and the organization has little to stand on.

That’s a striking claim for a distinguished jurist, but it’s misleading on the law and background of the politics. The Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment jurisprudence allows all the gun regulation ideas that currently have any meaningful support in Congress. And putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation.

Trying to repeal the amendment simply sets up the gun control movement for failure, since the political barriers to amending the Constitution are so high. And to prioritize an amendment is in fact to cede the constitutional argument to the NRA and falsely imply that the existing text and precedents don’t allow for sensible gun control.

Let’s not repeal the 2nd Amendment

(03-27-2018 09:45 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 07:26 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  John Paul Stevens wrote the editorial. At least if you're going to quote it, give him credit. The guy is 97 years old and was a Supreme Court justice for decades. His lifetime is considerably longer than most people.

I'm all for gun regulations but I don't want the Second Amendment repealed because I'm afraid it would create another Civil War.

Senility has set in.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

Quote:“That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” Stevens said. “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

A constitutional amendment would be simple?

I'm assuming dementia must be at play given what we know about amending the Constitution.

Quote:Repealing the Second Amendment would be extraordinarily difficult for anti-gun activists to do. That would require both houses of Congress proposing the amendment with a two-thirds vote, or two thirds of state legislatures calling on Congress to hold a constitutional convention. It would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states or state legislatures.

Stevens also thought that Hillsboro Baptist Church should have their First Amendments abridged, thought that the destruction of an American flag (burning) should be subject to punishment, and supported the right of jurisdictions to take property without having a public purpose (Kelo).

I find Stevens to be one who doesnt think expansively about the rights noted under the First and Fifth Amendments, and actively supports governmental intrusion into those. Why should he support the Second?

There is a positive thing here, which is that by saying 'it should be repealed' he is implicitly acknowledging that the Second Amendment has a good deal of breadth and substance in light of intrusion by a government; something he utterly failed to do with his votes in the cases mentioned above where he seeks to limit (substantially) the breadth of rights in the Bill of Rights via judicial process and/or interpretation.

(03-28-2018 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Vox weighs in...

Quote:Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s New York Times op-ed calling to repeal the Second Amendment is an intriguing idea as gun violence in America sends schoolchildren to the streets to protest. But it’s also a strange argument on the merits.

Stevens argues that to break the National Rifle Association’s grip on the political process, we must first break the grip it obtained on the Constitution via the Second Amendment. Repeal it and the organization has little to stand on.

That’s a striking claim for a distinguished jurist, but it’s misleading on the law and background of the politics. The Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment jurisprudence allows all the gun regulation ideas that currently have any meaningful support in Congress. And putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation.

Trying to repeal the amendment simply sets up the gun control movement for failure, since the political barriers to amending the Constitution are so high. And to prioritize an amendment is in fact to cede the constitutional argument to the NRA and falsely imply that the existing text and precedents don’t allow for sensible gun control.

Let’s not repeal the 2nd Amendment

Anytime you see an argument to follow the black letter law (such as to actually repeal an amendment) leave it to the Progressives to call it "A strange idea on the merits."

Their argument, instead, is to change the 2nd amendment through judicial fiat, then use that to break the NRA power. That is, in their view "putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation."

But, that goes straight to the core of the progressive mindset of "results are far more important than the process..."

(03-28-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Vox weighs in...

Quote:Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s New York Times op-ed calling to repeal the Second Amendment is an intriguing idea as gun violence in America sends schoolchildren to the streets to protest. But it’s also a strange argument on the merits.

Stevens argues that to break the National Rifle Association’s grip on the political process, we must first break the grip it obtained on the Constitution via the Second Amendment. Repeal it and the organization has little to stand on.

That’s a striking claim for a distinguished jurist, but it’s misleading on the law and background of the politics. The Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment jurisprudence allows all the gun regulation ideas that currently have any meaningful support in Congress. And putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation.

Trying to repeal the amendment simply sets up the gun control movement for failure, since the political barriers to amending the Constitution are so high. And to prioritize an amendment is in fact to cede the constitutional argument to the NRA and falsely imply that the existing text and precedents don’t allow for sensible gun control.

Let’s not repeal the 2nd Amendment

Anytime you see an argument to follow the black letter law (such as to actually repeal an amendment) leave it to the Progressives to call it "A strange idea on the merits."

Their argument, instead, is to change the 2nd amendment through judicial fiat, then use that to break the NRA power. That is, in their view "putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation."

But, that goes straight to the core of the progressive mindset of "results are far more important than the process..."

Paging Merrick Garland.

(03-29-2018 08:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Vox weighs in...

Quote:Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s New York Times op-ed calling to repeal the Second Amendment is an intriguing idea as gun violence in America sends schoolchildren to the streets to protest. But it’s also a strange argument on the merits.

Stevens argues that to break the National Rifle Association’s grip on the political process, we must first break the grip it obtained on the Constitution via the Second Amendment. Repeal it and the organization has little to stand on.

That’s a striking claim for a distinguished jurist, but it’s misleading on the law and background of the politics. The Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment jurisprudence allows all the gun regulation ideas that currently have any meaningful support in Congress. And putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation.

Trying to repeal the amendment simply sets up the gun control movement for failure, since the political barriers to amending the Constitution are so high. And to prioritize an amendment is in fact to cede the constitutional argument to the NRA and falsely imply that the existing text and precedents don’t allow for sensible gun control.

Let’s not repeal the 2nd Amendment

Anytime you see an argument to follow the black letter law (such as to actually repeal an amendment) leave it to the Progressives to call it "A strange idea on the merits."

Their argument, instead, is to change the 2nd amendment through judicial fiat, then use that to break the NRA power. That is, in their view "putting another progressive justice or two on the bench would create even more constitutional scope for regulation."

But, that goes straight to the core of the progressive mindset of "results are far more important than the process..."

Paging Merrick Garland.

And how is that an example?

I'm still waiting on someone to point out the irony that Stevens was appointed by a Republican president (Ford), and also was put on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals by another Republican President (Nixon). He was labeled a conservative early in his judicial career.

Maybe Gorsuch follows the same path once he gets some experience on the court. :)