National John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

[Tony617]

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Read More

 

[notazombie]

Nope

 

[justcuz]

So you support mr stephen's commentary then?

 

[Diamondback]

Dear Injustice Stevens: Go eff yourself, you scumbag Commie POS.

 

[slimmer13]

At least they are finally being honest instead of the tired old "nobody wants to take your guns". Clearly drawn lines allow for a more effectively organized opposition.

 

[bbbass]

Hey JPS, good luck with that!!

 

[justcuz]

Shame mr Stephens' recollections on the justice's 1991 interview comments are so hazy as he grossly incorrectly and misstated in his OPED, since the esteemed jurist did not mention nor call out the NRA nor any other firearm association during his commentary!

But sorry i might be petty in pointing out specific incorrect concept and perhaps i should just follow the pack here and use vague generalizations like others seem to be doing!

 

[notazombie]

Why are you here?

 

[Stomper]

To clarify: I didn't write the following, and I neglected to insert it into quotes this morning as I was multi-tasking and also in a rush... as usual on a work day. This is a copy and paste that I saved from an article about 3-yrs ago. Sorry, I don't recall who wrote it, or what website I got from. Apologies for the oversight!

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."

It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."

 

[etrain16]

He actually says "it would be easy" with regard to repealing the 2nd amendment. Easy? You would need either 2/3 of Congress (house and senate) or 2/3 of state legislatures (through an Article 5 convention of states) to even propose it. Then 3/4 of the states (38) have to vote to ratify it. I seriously doubt you could get even 1/2, and that's being very optimistic. I think an attempt at repeal (which would actually be adding an amendment to nullify the 2nd) would be pretty unpopular in most states. I do believe, when it comes to the 2nd amendment, even those that support "common sense" gun control don't support a repeal of the 2nd. It's the hard-core anti-gun leftists that are leading this charge.

I'd almost like to see them try it - just to prove how little they actually understand the people of this country. They still believe BS like 90% of Americans want strict gun control and that Hillary had a 98% chance of beating Donald Trump.

 

[11Charlie]

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."

It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

just imagine the push for eliminating the 2nd if the democrats had won and the clinton cartel was running the country

just keep voting democrat and you guys will get your gun control for sure....couple more mass shootings and you keep voting democrat thinking it WILL NEVER HAPPEN ......and it will happen, we have never been under such an attack against the 2nd and dead children will tip the balance

keep voting democrat!

 

[nammac]

@Stomper - first great posting, agree 100%, they've finally become honest about their intentions and desires...

Second, dude you must have a serious caffeine load going on this morning

 

[Tully Mars]

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."

It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."

Try as I might I'm only allowed to "like" this once..

One of the best posts I've read on this forum to date!

 

[IOM]

So the very old senile Judge states that the 2nd Amendment has run it's course, but never explains "WHY"...!!!

Simple logic say's the Democratic/Liberal/Progressives have run thier course and come out as full blown Communist...

Excellent post Stomper...

 

[Boboclown]

Link no work.

That aside, nope. Repeal the 2nd? Lets repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendment then. If people give up freedoms thinking they'll be able to live without fear, might as well give them all up.

Not like history has shown us what may happen when a government has too much power.

 

[brenty]

 

[Slobray]

just imagine the push for eliminating the 2nd if the democrats had won and the clinton cartel was running the country

just keep voting democrat and you guys will get your gun control for sure....couple more mass shootings and you keep voting democrat thinking it WILL NEVER HAPPEN ......and it will happen, we have never been under such an attack against the 2nd and dead children will tip the balance

keep voting democrat!

The sad part is that we're double damned if we do and damned if we don't, as the Republicans aren't really on our side either..................

On the Federal level..........
Republican bill on bump stocks to be introduced Thursday in House - CNNPolitics
Republican National Committee open to raising age to purchase a gun
National - The Sound of 5 million heads exploding - Trump: "Take the Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second"

In Oregon..........
(R) Buehler, (R) Vial and (R) Parrish all vote for HB 4145
Oregon: Gov. Brown signs law stripping gun rights in more domestic situations

(R) Boquist files, champions and helps pass gun confiscation legislation: SB 719
Oregon Passes GOP Senator's Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner's Knowledge

Maybe people should ask @bolus how much of a help the republicans were is supporting a recall of democrats that voted for SB 941.............
Riley/McLain recall

The people running the Oregon Republican party are scum. They not only did not help our recall efforts last year but went out of their way to hurt our efforts. They specifically told one of our supporters who wanted to volunteer for us that if he helped they would black list him for future work. They were part of the effort to make sure signature gathering companies did not work with us.

They have their own little agenda at their little thiefdom and Im not surprised at all that republican candidates continue to fail every election.

Here in Washington........
We have republicans that pretend they support the Second Amendment:
Washington Legislature passes bump-stock ban


So, my conclusion is that we can't trust any politician, ever, as eventually most will betray us. As @rltrim46ford said "Both the republicans and the democlaps are but cheeks of the same arse". There are good and bad on both sides, but I will concede that at this particular moment in time, there are only a minuscule amount of democrats that truly support the Second Amendment and that most republicans do to some degree (at least in words).



Ray

 

[nammac]

What we need is some good ole fashioned federalist's...

 

[Caveman Jim]

@Stomper - first great posting, agree 100%, they've finally become honest about their intentions and desires...

Second, dude you must have a serious caffeine load going on this morning

I believe that was a partial quote from a story last year. Good job!!!