Change the Second Amendment to permit gun control

[OLDNEWBIE]

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who served from December 19, 1975, until his retirement on June 29, 2010. He's got a new book out. It's kind of a wake up call to those that think the 2nd A is safe.



Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." Twenty first-graders and six educators were killed.
He said he was bothered by news reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.
One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/retired-justice-proposes-changes-to-constitution/

He was appointed by Ford, a conservative I guess but Stevens later sided with the Liberal wing from what I read. Maybe Ford didn't do his homework!
Our Constitution and gun rights are hanging on by a thread. If the Court ever got lopsided to the left watch out!
Every election counts, every vote counts! Well sort of......the whole Electoral College thing and the way the districts are.......anyway, VOTE, it can't hurt and it sends a message!



That is all, for now.

Read More

 

[Mark W.]

The whole concept is quite silly the only way to change the Bill of rights is if 34 states ratify the change. Ask the People backing the ERA how easy that is to do. And keep in mind there are way more women voters in the USA then men!

The Supreme Court can't change the Bill of Rights. They only get to interpret what it means as written.

 

[fd15k]

He was appointed by Ford, a conservative I guess but Stevens later sided with the Liberal wing from what I read.

I don't think that conservatives (or republicans, whichever terminology you prefer) in power give a rat's bubblegum about your guns. If you look at the 20th century probably up until 70's, you will see plenty of non-democrats supporting and/or imposing gun control. It is my theory that current GOP is a bankrupt party representing corporate welfare, supporting gun rights is only their marketing strategy since they got nothing else to sell to you.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

supporting gun rights is only their marketing strategy

I'll take the pro gun and the smaller government rhetoric over the anti-gun rhetoric any day. Whether after elected they will deliver, I'm under no illusions.
If they win big at mid-terms on gun rights and the other things, there's a small but real chance they will throw a bone to gun rights advocates.
It also just might send a message to the Dems to back off on the anti-gun rhetoric as well. They want to keep the White House after all.
As I said, at the very least, Vote, it sends a message. Send the message enough in big numbers and eventually they might listen.

 

[fd15k]

I'll take the pro gun and the smaller government rhetoric over the anti-gun rhetoric any day. Whether after elected they will deliver, I'm under no illusions.
If they win big at mid-terms on gun rights and the other things, there's a small but real chance they will throw a bone to gun rights advocates.
It also just might send a message to the Dems to back off on the anti-gun rhetoric as well. They want to keep the White House after all.
As I said, at the very least, Vote, it sends a message. Send the message enough in big numbers and eventually they might listen.

It's funny how you care about rhetoric. Whatever makes you happy though

 

[Jamie6.5]

I don't think that conservatives (or republicans, whichever terminology you prefer) in power give a rat's bubblegum about your guns. If you look at the 20th century probably up until 70's, you will see plenty of non-democrats supporting and/or imposing gun control. It is my theory that current GOP is a bankrupt party representing corporate welfare, supporting gun rights is only their marketing strategy since they got nothing else to sell to you.

Wow, you're painting an extremely wide swath with a 40+ year old brush! Political strategy(ies) on gun rights have evolved fd.
But then to go off on a tangent about who is providing corporate welfare in the current economic and political climate is beyond the pale.
The conservatives in congress have done everything in their power to block the handover of healthcare and its huge portion of the economy to insurance companies, fought for energy independence, and supported gun rights. The current admin has militarized every cabinet level agency in the country, from the Dept. of Education, to the IRS, to the BLM, to Health and Human Services.
Energy prices are skyrocketing for every American, followed closely by food prices. The only item(s) that has experienced greater price increases has been ammunition.
Meanwhile, labor participation rate is at an all-time low due to lack of jobs. Record numbers of people are on food stamps and other various forms of assistance. Hours are being cut on the jobs that are available, yet the Stock Exchanges are operating at record levels.
So tell us all again who is providing the corporate welfare?

Never in my lifetime of close to 60 years have I seen more people get poorer by a greater degree than ever, while the rich have gotten richer by greater degrees, in less time, than we have seen in the last 6 years.

I have no problem with politicians of ANY stripe running on a platform of gun rights.
The question remains however, will the current crop of leftists continue to gin-up fear of gun owners and gun rights in their efforts to win based on fear and phobias, while they continue to arm the government against the people?
Or will they side with the ACLU, the NRA and other constitutional organizations to support existing gun rights?

Charity begins at home, just like political will begins at the grassroots level. If lefty voters didn't tolerate gun-grabbing candidates while spewing the drivel about "other political issues" like you just did, they'd have more gun owners listening to them.
From what I've seen in the last 6 years, the left has lost on gun rights, In 2010 they lost on health care and Cap & Trade, and now they are about to lose on a multitude of other issues as well. Because we've seen how well their plans HAVEN'T worked.

Be different, change your party from the bottom up. Conservatives and Libertarians have in the last 40 years, which is why your argument no longer works.

 

[BigStick]

Jamie, I am assuming you meant the ACLJ, not the ACLU?

But I don't think there is any way the liberals want a Constitutional convention right not to try to change the 2A. There is even a growing movement right now in conservative/libertarian circles to push for a convention (via Mark Levin and his Liberty Ammendments).

 

[8ball]

If I was a retired liberal Justice and I wanted some free PR for my new book, I might say something controversial as well.

 

[fd15k]

Wow, you're painting an extremely wide swath with a 40+ year old brush! Political strategy(ies) on gun rights have evolved fd.

Probably one of the few things I can agree with you on is that politics always evolves, and there has been plenty of that in the last decades for sure. On the rest I will save myself typing and just post some images.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Probably one of the few things I can agree with you on is that politics always evolves, and there has been plenty of that in the last decades for sure. On the rest I will save myself typing and just post some images.

So, let me get this straight,... You believe that a program that you pay into all of your working life, and are not eligible to receive benefits from until you reach retirement age, is the equivalent of population-wide socialized medicine?
And that a democrat president implemented a limited form of socialized medicine to the U.S. in 1965?

Or that the people that have been paying into this system for 45+ years, and have yet to collect a dime, like me, have no right to complain when leftists want to take that money and give it to insurance companies to pay the healthcare premiums for people who've never worked, and are still decades from retirement?

And I suppose you think obamacare is about healthcare too don't you.
And that insurance companies are in the business due to altruism?

Nice deflection/obfuscation/misdirection fd, But what does it have to do with a liberal/progressive former SC justice wanting to alter The Constitution to suit the leftist's anti-gun agenda?

Here, lemme offer you a quote from Gunhobbit (who has forgotten more about the law than most here know, or EVER will):

"Any person, regardless of their station, that unequivocally requires me to be a potential victim, because of his personal phobias and prejudices, has lost all credibility to be any part of a serious discussion on resolving the problem."
The GunHobbit

 

[Stomper]

So, let me get this straight,... You believe that a program that you pay into all of your working life, and are not eligible to receive benefits from until you reach retirement age, is the equivalent of population-wide socialized medicine?
And that a democrat president implemented a limited form of socialized medicine to the U.S. in 1965?

Or that the people that have been paying into this system for 45+ years, and have yet to collect a dime, like me, have no right to complain when leftists want to take that money and give it to insurance companies to pay the healthcare premiums for people who've never worked, and are still decades from retirement?

And I suppose you think obamacare is about healthcare too don't you.
And that insurance companies are in the business due to altruism?

Nice deflection/obfuscation/misdirection fd, But what does it have to do with a liberal/progressive former SC justice wanting to alter The Constitution to suit the leftist's anti-gun agenda?

Here, lemme offer you a quote from Gunhobbit (who has forgotten more about the law than most here know, or EVER will):

Ok, there needs to be a "multiple likes" button one can click on... Say at least ten times?

 

[fd15k]

So, let me get this straight,... You believe

You got the message wrong. Besides, it is not a matter of beliefs in this context. Anyhow, since you "burned" me already, let's move one without me expanding any further

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

The whole concept is quite silly the only way to change the Bill of rights is if 34 states ratify the change. Ask the People backing the ERA how easy that is to do. And keep in mind there are way more women voters in the USA then men!

The Supreme Court can't change the Bill of Rights. They only get to interpret what it means as written.

And a future majority left SCOTUS would certainly interpret the 2ndA and other things in a drastically different way we are used to I'm afraid.

 

[Jamie6.5]

You got the message wrong. Besides, it is not a matter of beliefs in this context. Anyhow, since you "burned" me already, let's move one without me expanding any further

I didn't get any message wrong.
You are/were attempting to mock the people in the photos you posted without understanding why they hold the signs they do, or what medicare represents, to the people that have paid into it ALL THEIR LIVES!
So, if you don't like medicare, then you fit the mold of a Goldwater Republican. Ol' Barry nailed it as "socialized medicine for the aged" in 1964. That just makes you late, not wrong.

On the other hand, if you, like me, have had the government confiscating 2.9% of your income (1.45% from you, and 1.45% from your employer) for the last 45+ years, and now some pr!ck in WaD.C. is handing it over to his corporate donors/cronies in the medical insurance business, you're kinda pizzed.
And you should get your own sign, that says something similar to the ones you posted pictures of.
Because that's the biggest example of "corporate welfare" ever perpetrated on the American citizen. And it's one no conservative or libertarian Representative and/or Senator voted for.

When you're done with that, maybe you should try to figure out how we're supposed to fund even a portion of the medicare nightmare after Barry, Valerie, Nancy and Harry came up with the scheme to raid it, to pay off their buddies.

I love it when you guys come in here and make statements you can't support.
And do so just because your pals at the democraticunderground, or MoveOndotorg and/or MediaMatters told you to.
I know you wrote "move one" not "MoveOn," but I'll wager that's what you meant.
Funny that you chose that saying isn't it?
Naw, not really!

 

[Jamie6.5]

And a future majority left SCOTUS would certainly interpret the 2ndA and other things in a drastically different way we are used to I'm afraid.

Sotomayor has already said she thinks the SCOTUS should revisit Heller. If she gets her way, can McDonald be far behind?

Leftists/statists would leave us defenseless if they could.

 

[Stomper]

I didn't get any message wrong.
You are/were attempting to mock the people in the photos you posted without understanding why they hold the signs they do, or what medicare represents, to the people that have paid into it ALL THEIR LIVES!
So, if you don't like medicare, then you fit the mold of a Goldwater Republican. Ol' Barry nailed it as "socialized medicine for the aged" in 1964. That just makes you late, not wrong.

On the other hand, if you, like me, have had the government confiscating 2.9% of your income (1.45% from you, and 1.45% from your employer) for the last 45+ years, and now some pr!ck in WaD.C. is handing it over to his corporate donors/cronies in the medical insurance business, you're kinda pizzed. That's the biggest example of "corporate welfare" ever perpetrated on the American citizen. And it's one no conservative or libertarian representative or Senator voted for.

And you should get your own sign, that says something similar to the ones you posted pictures of.
When you're done with that, maybe you should try to figure out how we're supposed to fund even a portion of the medicare nightmare after Barry, Valerie, Nancy and Harry came up with the scheme to raid it, to pay off their buddies.

I love it when you guys come in here and make statements you can't support.
And do so just because your pals at the democraticunderground, or MoveOndotorg and/or MediaMatters told you to.
I know you wrote "move one" not "MoveOn," but I'll wager that's what you meant.
Funny that you chose that saying isn't it?
Naw, not really!

BURN!!