THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2018
२८ मार्च, २०१८
How Justice Stevens leveraged Trump.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
It's pretty clear that Stevens is now going to be the poster boy for (the true statement) "they want to take away all your guns".
It's always a mistake for a Prog to publicly say what he/she really thinks. Just ask Hillary.
Good advice, from Justice Stevens. Go ahead, lefties, do what you want to do, repeal it. You want it gone; you know you want it gone; and we know you want it gone. You’re just gutless to say that aloud because of the great unwashed would soon enough realize that you really aren’t for them, that you’re on the side of government controlling the people by disarming them. You see, when we talk of freedom, we mean freedom from government and its constant tendency to suppress the people, turning them from citizens into subjects.
But still, put your money where Stevens’ mouth is. Slog through the Article V process; get a Congress to propose a repealing amendment, and if successful in getting those 290; 67 votes, then head out to the states and get 75% of them, 38 in number, to agree. As far left as this country has been taken by the anti-freedom left, you couldn’t even begin to approach that number.
But your task is even harder, even after you’ve done all that. Lefties are forgetting that if the 2A is repealed, it doesn’t mean that the right is gone; it simply means it’s no longer a listed protected right in the Bill of Rights (but it’s still has protection in the 9A & 10A). What’s more, the issue will then shift/revert back to the states. Some 40 states have the right to keep and bear arms protected in their respective state constitutions.
Lefties will then have to fight those battles. Okay, some of those states are real leftist today, so they’ll be easily rolled. A good example is Massachusetts (which given its post-WWI politics was, hard to believe, one of the original thirteen!) whose Constitution, Article 17 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, protects only, so says its highest court, a common defense, and not the individual bearing of arms. Davis, 369 Mass. 886 (1976).
Your state battles will neither be easy nor pretty. And as the 2A battle will have been played out, along with these state battles, lessons on how to play the game will be learned by the defenders of freedom from government.
Bret Stephens already had two NYT op-eds in the last couple of years calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. It's clear the NYT is trying to push the repeal as a non-partisan stance: Their token "conservative" and a Republican-appointed ex-Supreme Court justice. No one is buying it, though.
@David-2: There are plenty of Democratic posterboys. Here is just one of them:
Democrat Candidate for Sheriff Daryl Fisher Suggests Killing People to Take Their Guns - and audience applauds
https://www.facebook.com/TheNewRevolutionII/videos/vb.939298112826901/1651582551598450
I'm sort of disappointed Trump didn't tack on a derogatory nickname.
These Progs (you find them in both parties) don't just want to take away the 2A.
They want to take away free speech in the name of stopping hate speech. They're already putting the words "free speech" in quotation marks, a signal that the concept should be regarded with suspicion.
They want to limit religious freedom.
They want the authority to license journalists and use big tech to filter the news and limit opinion.
They are pretty far along on building the surveillance state.
Is there anything in the Bill of Rights they like?
Yesterday on The Five, Juan Williams kept goofily belaboring the point that Stevens was "a Republican! a Republican!", as if that offered some sort of dispensation from any criticism. Good grief.
Just remember that Australia has no Second Amendment and "confiscated' all guns a few years ago. You know what ?
Only 1/3 of the guns in Australia owned legally, were turned in.
John Paul the Repealer?
If we are going to repeal Constitutional amendments, why limit it only to the second? Get rid of all of them. Getting rid of the federal income tax and with it most of the federal government would on balance be a good thing. Putting back the Senate in the hands of State Legislatures would pretty much neuter the Left in the Senate. The Army isn't likely to quarter troops in my home and if the DoJ wants my ass, the fifth amendment won't protect me from being offered the following choice: cop a plea for X years or risk life plus forever in a Supermax prison. Freedom of speech and religion is already being undermined by Right Thinking PC advocates. So on balance getting rid of all of them may be better than merely getting rid of one amendment.
"....Democrat Candidate for Sheriff Daryl Fisher Suggests Killing People to Take Their Guns - and audience applauds...." People are fed this kind of malarkey all the time. Unfortunately, the moron Sheriff forgets to tell the audience that in try to grab guns, and "killing people", a lot of the people being killed will be the "gun grabbers". Most people in the USA won't abide by these "loud-mouthed" braggarts. Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes.
Michael K said...
Just remember that Australia has no Second Amendment and "confiscated' all guns a few years ago. You know what ?
Only 1/3 of the guns in Australia owned legally, were turned in.
I have an old 22 bolt action I got from my Grand Dad and the bolt falls out. I would probably give them that and the single pump BB gun in the garage.
I would put it out in the driveway and tell them to pick it up.
This is the Progressives in "can't lose" mode. As with Hillary and the Deplorables, they see no reason to hide the agenda. I say, let a thousand eggs be counted before they're hatched. Its all good, man.
How Justice Stevens leveraged Trump.
I'm unclear on the use of the word leveraged in this statement. I would have thought it to mean that Stevens used Trump in a way that helped Stevens. But my reading of the situation is the opposite: that Trump used Stevens' statement to advance Trump's position.
Am I misunderstanding the word leveraged, am I misunderstanding the Professor's point, or did the Professor misuse the word leveraged?
@ Ignorance is Bliss, I agree. I would say that Trump leveraged Stevens.
Justice Stevens and young master Hogg just ensured that every gun-owner in America votes this Fall. The NRA should kiss the sky.
BDNYC said...
@ Ignorance is Bliss, I agree. I would say that Trump leveraged Stevens.
Of course, the Professor could be making a contrarian point. She's been known to do that.
I only watched the first few minutes of Roseanne last night, so I don't know if anyone in the household has a gun, but it would be a good addition to the other themes.
Yeah, it seems to me that Stevens sort of gave away the game, which actually benefits the gun rights crowd far more than the gun control crowd. After all, the more "official" position of gun control advocates has always been that they respect the second amendment and no, they don't really want it repealed. All they really want is "common sense" gun control measures ("common sense" being in the eye of the beholder). And any time someone on the other side claimed that was hogwash, they would insist that the gun enthusiasts were just being paranoid whackjobs. I mean, sure, you'd have the occasional grassroots demonstrator with a repeal the second amendment sandwich board, but they didn't represent the mainstream gun controller's views, right?
Now, you have someone of influence (an ex SCJ) making an argument on a major platform (NYT) for repeal. This sort of brings that argument to the fore. It makes it more acceptable to actually ask the question of politicians running for office, "Do you support efforts to repeal the second amendment?". And given the greater voting public's attitude toward the Second Amendment, it forces them into what may be an uncomfortable answer.
I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks about the President suggesting that, "We... Republicans... must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!"
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Am I misunderstanding the word leveraged, am I misunderstanding the Professor's point, or did the Professor misuse the word leveraged?
Yes. Ann was making a joke. This is her sense of humor.
Trump is a master at using outrage to push his message. Stevens didn't mean to do that but it happened.
If there was actually even a plurality that believed in gun-control it would have worked for Stevens. As reality is that gun-control is massively unpopular it doesn't work out well for Stevens. But Stevens words are being spread far and wide because of the outrage they caused.
That is the joke Ann was pushing.
I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks about the President suggesting that We... Republicans... must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!"
Well, I really don't GAF what Stevens thinks about that. It's true, and if anyone values ANY of their freedoms, this alone should be reason enough to never allow a Dem to hold the white house again.
Chuck said...
I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks about the President suggesting that, "We... Republicans... must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!"
It means that we Republican voters have accepted the reality that you leftists have politicized the courts and that they are no longer objective arbiters.
Right now if you read the Constitution and apply the actual meaning of the words it is considered "republican" or "conservative."
Fine. We need to make sure we keep ridiculous leftist shitheads like RBG and Kagan off the court because they don't apply the constitution and just make shit up. So yeah we need to make sure "republicans" are on the court.
I take the Professora means that without Trump in the WH, NYT would not have needed or sought an OP-ED from Stevens
Next Q: Stevens is trolling the NYT and left?
Nonapod said...
Yesterday on The Five, Juan Williams kept goofily belaboring the point that Stevens was "a Republican! a Republican!", as if that offered some sort of dispensation from any criticism. Good grief.
This goes for Flake, Will, Kristol and so many others. And the obvious local troll need not be mentioned.
How many phony conservative/Republican Justices have there been? I can't think of any liberal who moved to right on the court.
BTW I agree that Trump leveraged Stevens not vice versa, unless it was Stevens goal to be called out by Trump. He might get invited to some of those dinner parties Dersh is missing.
" I can't think of any liberal who moved to right on the court."
JFK appointee Byron White?
OK Repeal it. Now who are you going to get to come and take them? certainly not anyone who wants to ban them. They're a bunch of pussies. They are going to depend on other people with guns. A good portion of which want nothing to do with this nonsense.
" Lefties are forgetting that if the 2A is repealed, it doesn’t mean that the right is gone; it simply means it’s no longer a listed protected right in the Bill of Rights (but it’s still has protection in the 9A & 10A). What’s more, the issue will then shift/revert back to the states. Some 40 states have the right to keep and bear arms protected in their respective state constitutions."
respectfully, you couldn't BE more wrong. Once there's a democrat pres (and senate), and after the requisite number of justices die in their sleep (under pillows); then viola,
the court will find in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections , a necessity to Ban all Firearms not used by the government.
Think I'm crazy?
Chuck,
Maybe "Republican" currently or soon to be active in government.
Any of those agreeing with Stephens?
gilbar said...
respectfully, you couldn't BE more wrong. Once there's a democrat pres (and senate), and after the requisite number of justices die in their sleep (under pillows); then viola,
the court will find in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections , a necessity to Ban all Firearms not used by the government.
Think I'm crazy?
But reference Rusty's post above. There just aren't that many people who actually want to disarm Americans. And the vast majority of those people are people who are scared of guns and completely unable to use them because they have been indoctrinated and are sheep anyways.
That leaves an armed federal force of ~250,000 federal agents and a dozen or so big city police departments who might have some police chiefs who want to participate but SWAT team have a lot of ex-mil people in them and would quickly be on the other side.
About 20 million people go hunting every year. Sport shooting is a big deal. Millions participate. If even half of sport shooters participate you have the largest standing army in the world.
I'm simply glad the left decided to finally drop all pretenses and come out saying exactly what they mean and what they want to do.
gilbar, even if there is found to be a "necessity to Ban all Firearms not used by the government", someone still needs to go GET those firearms from under our beds, from our barns, from our cellars, from our fishing shacks... That's when things will get interesting.
Also, not picking on your "viola" typo, because I make so many of my own, but please tell me you don't pronounce it "wal-LAH" as I hear far too often. The internet and texting practices (you've all noticed that people text 5$ instead of $5, right?) are playing havoc with language. Faster havoc than we are used to, anyway.
here just aren't that many people who actually want to disarm Americans
it will only take 5
you're saying it would be war; i'm saying they won't care
RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!
Cut retired Justice Stephens some slack. He's 97 and 97 year old men are allowed to drool in their oatmeal. And Stephens has been consistent in his views on guns. He's still bitter that his view did not prevail in a 5-4 decision made 10 or 12 years ago when he wrote a dissent--advocating what is essentially his current view of the wisdom or validity of the 2d Amendment.
Our host suggests that Stephens inadvertently "leveraged" Trump's position by his act in baldly stating the progressive view. Well, old men make mistakes. Better to keep quiet and hide your real goal from the ignorant masses.
you've all noticed that people text 5$ instead of $5, right?
That's how they do it in Québec. Don't ask me why.
wal-LAH" as I hear far too often
no i don't, but i did rely on spellcheck (i guess i should learn to pronounce it fiddle : )
i'm just glad Hillary isn't president!
Look, I am not defending the Republican-nominated Justices who swung to the left after a few years on the Court. I am not denying the phenomenon at all. I've seen it as all of you have.
"The Greenhouse Effect."
In fact I set aside my personal loathing of Trump, to cast a vote for him largely on the basis of federal judiciary nominations.
Those points aren't at issue.
What I was questioning was Trump's own peculiarly rough-edged way of talking about federal courts. I think it is always good to play hardball politics with regard to the federal judiciary. And to do it as discretely as possible. It is almost never a good idea to trashtalk about hardball politics in federal judicial matters.
This episode is a good example. It was stupid, for Stevens to talk openly about repealing the Second Amendment. Just as it is stupid, for Trump to talk about packing the federal courts with "Republicans."
>>get a Congress to propose a repealing amendment,
Agree completely. Let's get some R to start the process, and make the D's vote on it.
And as far as taking them away, as I've said before, when you come for me, don't send anybody you want back.
Let them vote to ban guns. Let them implement the strictest confiscation measures they can muster.
When the dust settles, "them" will all be dead or dying, and "us" can go on about our lives.
That is the reality "them" faces. Maybe it's a price they think they're willing to pay, but it's a price they're wholly unable to pay.
"And as far as taking them away, as I've said before, when you come for me, don't send anybody you want back."
Amen.
Send the biggest, scariest guy you've got. Doesn't matter to me.
The right to bear arms is a natural right. So is the rite to commit elective abortion. However, where the former has rational and practical justification, the latter is rationalized in the pursuit of wealth, leisure, leverage, and taxation.
Useless noise. How many Americans actually believe that the SCOTUS strictly follows a 2 party mentality? If that were so, wouldn’t Roberts have decided against Obamacare? -willie
prairie wind said...
gilbar, even if there is found to be a "necessity to Ban all Firearms not used by the government", someone still needs to go GET those firearms from under our beds, from our barns, from our cellars, from our fishing shacks... That's when things will get interesting.
But nobody actually needs to go get them. Offering a buyback will get ~1/3 off the streets. Outlaw the sale of guns and ammo. Shut down gun ranges and outlaw hunting. Remove shooting from the Boy Scouts. In a few generations the vast majority of Americans will never have fired a gun. When those people's parents die, in most cases the kids will turn in the guns they find while cleaning out under our beds, our barns, our cellars, and our fishing shacks.
The people who keep theirs will have little chance to practice, and a dwindling supply of ammo with which to practice.
If the 2nd A is repealed then in the long term the culture will change, and the guns, at least the vast majority of them, will be turned in.
gspencer said...
But still, put your money where Stevens’ mouth is. Slog through the Article V process; get a Congress to propose a repealing amendment, and if successful in getting those 290; 67 votes, then head out to the states and get 75% of them, 38 in number, to agree. As far left as this country has been taken by the anti-freedom left, you couldn’t even begin to approach that number.
By design, the amendment process is long and difficult. However, the Constitution only means what a majority of supreme court justices say it means, actual text notwithstanding. All it takes to legally gut the 2nd Amendment is for the balance to change on the court followed by a few decisions that overturn Heller and other gun-friendly rulings. That's why defeating Hillary was so important. That's much easier than amending the Constitution and it gives Democrat politicians cover.
I am not sure which side of the lever Stevens was on here.
Arguendo, I do not possess a firearm. But how do I prove that negative to the Confiscation Squad ? Will they toss my house and dig up the back yard, assuming they also repeal the 4th Amendment ?
OTOH if they only come after registered firearms, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the exercise ?
Thanks exiled: learned something.
"But nobody actually needs to go get them. Offering a buyback will get ~1/3 off the streets. Outlaw the sale of guns and ammo. Shut down gun ranges and outlaw hunting. Remove shooting from the Boy Scouts. In a few generations the vast majority of Americans will never have fired a gun. When those people's parents die, in most cases the kids will turn in the guns they find while cleaning out under our beds, our barns, our cellars, and our fishing shacks."
Buyback's don't work for shit.
Guns can be made rather easily. Even semi-auto weapons. Ammo is also easy to make. Gunpowder is easily made from common chemicals, available to the public.
Your nightmare scenario is implausible.
Comanche Voter said...Cut retired Justice Stephens some slack. He's 97 and 97 year old men are allowed to drool in their oatmeal. And Stephens has been consistent in his views on guns.
--
So...maybe not just drooling in his oatmeal.
Found on M Zuhdi Jassar's FB:
3 hrs ·
From Robert P. George “I have no idea why a retired liberal Supreme Court justice would make an in-kind campaign contribution to the Trump re-election effort in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. But life is filled with surprises.”
Good point, Ignorance. In fact, I'd say we are already seeing that culture change. More than ever, kids grow up with no exposure to guns, no education about gun safety other than to "tell an adult" if they should see a gun. That's what I've seen, anyway, but how to square that with the high gun sales since 2009?
"To the winner go the spoils" was Andrew Jackson's approach to the coveted appointments to Federal sinecures. Trump is Jackson re-incarnated. So Pack away, winner Trump, Pack away.
Chuck is truely a sly asshole. Court Packing means adding extra Justice positions to dilute the balance. It has never meant apponting Justices to empty slots.
Of course, in some cases they might come for your guns. For example, you want to raise your kids to believe in their right to own guns, so you show your kid a gun, and maybe even let him fire it. The next day he tells a friend at school, who tells the teacher, who tells the police. The police show up with a search warrant, while you are off at work, and your wife is off at the store. When your wife comes home, she and her car are searched by federal agents who have their guns drawn before she turns in the driveway. Same thing when you get home. ( No need to worry about the treatment your kids get upon arriving home, since they will be in the care of the Department of Family Services until they turn 18. )
gilbar said...
here just aren't that many people who actually want to disarm Americans
it will only take 5
you're saying it would be war; i'm saying they won't care
They would care because it would be over shortly after they started it.
Vichy Chuck: "Look, I am not defending the Republican-nominated Justices who swung to the left after a few years on the Court."
LOL
Ignorance is Bliss said...But nobody actually needs to go get them. Offering a buyback will get ~1/3... ect
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're applying the Australia (and Canadian?) model and extrapolating how things will probably go. I'm not saying your scenario wouldn't happen, I honestly don't have much certainty. But from my (purely anecdotal) understanding of the current mindset of our culture regarding guns, some of that seems a bit implausible. Though there are some very important similarities, we're not Australia. There's a very deep (and I would argue warranted) culturally ingrained distrust of big government in our country. We're kind of unique in the world in that regard. For whatever reason, the denizens of most other places on Earth seem to have more of an implicit trust that their governments will generally do the right thing.
"Bowe Bergdahl republican" Chuck: "This episode is a good example. It was stupid, for Stevens to talk openly about repealing the Second Amendment. Just as it is stupid, for Trump to talk about packing the federal courts with "Republicans."
LOL
"packing the federal courts" is not what Trump is suggesting. "court packing" refers to adding additional justices to a court to change the voting outcomes.
Good old LLR Chuck finds a way to marry up his talking points with the lefty talking points.
Again.
Unexpectedly.
This episode is a good example. It was stupid, for Stevens to talk openly about repealing the Second Amendment. Just as it is stupid, for Trump to talk about packing the federal courts with "Republicans."
Republican voters need republican leaders who are honest with them about what is going on and deal with reality as it exists.
That is the core problem with the GOPe. Their entire purpose is to mislead and betray republican voters.
Stevens is the perfect example. A "republican" that wants to repeal the second amendment. He is just as much of a traitor as Paul Ryan. Or Billy Kristol.
Of course that is why Chuck supports them. His goals are just as disingenuous.
I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks about the President suggesting that, "We... Republicans... must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!"
I wonder how he feels about every Leftists saying "Democrats must take control of the Supreme Court".
I suspect Chuck would have preferred Trump tweet something referencing "originalism" or the like.
All we need for law enforcement/people with guns is the Strozk FBI and the Broward Cowards.
Win!
I thought Justice Stevens had sworn an oath on taking office along the lines of "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Unite States", not to eviscerate it.
Gahrie: "I wonder how he feels about every Leftists saying "Democrats must take control of the Supreme Court"."
I dont know about John Roberts but an argument could easily be made that comments about dems taking the courts sends little tingles up "Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck's leg...
Even if you could get 2/3s of Congress to propose a repeal and 3/4s of the states to ratify it, such a proposal's passage would set off an armed revolt that would undue it almost instantly. You can't comfort yourself with believing that only 5% of the population would rise up violently against it- 5% would be more than enough to bring down the government into total anarchy- 1% would be more than enough. Think about the carnage two million Stephen Paddocks could inflict, and no amount of gun control would prevent it either.
So based on the discussion so far, a repealing amendment would need at least three clauses:
1. Amendment II is hereby repealed.
2. Private ownership of arms being a danger to domestic tranquillity in the modern age, the ancient right to keep and bear arms no longer exists, nonwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution. Any legal private ownership of weapons exists only as a privilege granted by Congress.
3. Congress is authorized to make any law necessary to regulate, tax, or outlaw any type of weapon or weapon-making implement.
Assuming this amendment makes it all the way through the ratification process, would it work? And I mean work legally, not practically.
JSM
5% would be more than enough to bring down the government into total anarchy- 1% would be more than enough.
Yeah. Similarly a tax revolt could be just as destructive, but less violent obviously. If 1% of tax payers suddenly decided to stop paying taxes, the result would be chaos in the imperial capital. Especially if that 1% had people like the Koch brothers in it.
Sure John. Legally prohibition worked. Practically? A spectacular failure.
The practical problem with repealing the second amendment is that there are already so many firearms in possession that for all practical purposes it will take centuries to get rid of them. That is just normal attrition. Even if the state were capable of confiscating millions a year it would still take decades.
This , of course, ignores a giant gorilla in the room. That is. If just a small percentage decided they would resist by force of arms there isn't a lot the state could do. The constitution would have to be suspended for the duration because I think the state would have to call out the armed services. Even then many of them would refuse to comply.
From a practical point of view it would be a stupid act.
Yancey Ward said...
Think about the carnage two million Stephen Paddocks could inflict, and no amount of gun control would prevent it either.
Stephen Paddock was firing indiscriminately into a crowd. Are you suggesting using that tactic? If not, then you would not inflict the carnage of two million Stephen Paddocks.
Who would you target? If you target anyone other than government officials working to confiscate weapons and elected officials who voted to repeal the 2nd Amendment then you would instantly lose any popular support you might have had. You would also lose any support you might have had within the US military.
“Useless noise. How many Americans actually believe that the SCOTUS strictly follows a 2 party mentality? If that were so, wouldn’t Roberts have decided against Obamacare? -willie”
Not necessarily. Representatives of The Stupid Party are known for descending into the lefty swamp. Take the recent Omnibus Spending Bill, for example.
"In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state."
The above is a quote from Justice Stevens that leaves me puzzled re: the proposition that 2A is for individual self-defense. Is the justice saying in the event of assault, or other felony committed on you, your recourse is to bring legal action or expect the state to do so? Like, immediately?
“The above is a quote from Justice Stevens that leaves me puzzled re: the proposition that 2A is for individual self-defense. Is the justice saying in the event of assault, or other felony committed on you, your recourse is to bring legal action or expect the state to do so? Like, immediately?”
That isn’t how I see it. What I see him saying is that self-defense is an affirmative defense in criminal law for the otherwise criminal use of force. Someone shoots at you, and your shot back and kill him, so that he can’t kill you. Or just swings at you, and you hit back, to prevent him from hurting you. That sort of thing. If they charge you, you can then (if you have a factual basis for it) assert self defense as justification, and if you have introduced enough evidence, the judge should give the jury a self-defense instruction, saying that the use of force was justified if all of the requirements were met. And, yes, that is self defense in the criminal, and even civil, justice system. That wasn’t what Scalia was talking about in the Heller majority. Rather, in order to protect yourself from someone trying to kill you, you need to have the physical ability to kill him first. And for most people, that means access to lethal weapons, initially knives, swords, and bows, and later firearms. Sure, you need the legal ability to defend yourself in court when you have used even lethal force to protect yourself (Stevens’ point), but as importantly, you need access to weapons that allow you to do so too (Scalia’s point). And, indeed, governments have long suppressed the right of self defense through deprivation of weaponry, than actually curtailing the right to assert it as an affirmative defense.
As an interesting side note here. Almost always, you have to essentially admit to a homicide, in order to claim self defense as justification. You normally can’t plead alternatives, that you didn’t kill that guy, but if you did, then it was in self defense. Rather, in order to claim self defense as justification, you need to essentially admit to having killed him. I use the limiting language, because AZ here just became the outlier, where you can indeed now plead self defense as an alternative to having not killed the guy.
Maybe to summerize a bit - Stevens pointed out that self-defense is an affirmative defense in court. Scalia countered essentially that the legal right to assert self defense is meaningless if you don’t have the physical ability to protect yourself (with access to lethal weaponry). Otherwise, you will never make it to court to raise that defense.
We should declare a moratorium on Constitutional amendments, including amendments to repeal earlier amendments. NONE of the Constitutional Amendments since the 15th (giving former slaves the right to vote) has made our country better.
prairie wind said: Also, not picking on your "viola" typo, because I make so many of my own, but please tell me you don't pronounce it "wal-LAH" as I hear far too often."
*******************************
Right. Everyone knows it's pronounced VOY la.
(guy I knew used to say "fox pus" when he meant faux pas.)
MountainMan said...
I thought Justice Stevens had sworn an oath on taking office along the lines of "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Unite States", not to eviscerate it.
******************
The Constitution itself provides mechanisms for its amendment, so Stevens isn't violating his oath by urging that they be used to repeal 2A.
(guy I knew used to say "fox pus" when he meant faux pas.)
In the old neighbourhood we served horse doovers before the meal.
Gahrie said...
I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks about the President suggesting that, "We... Republicans... must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!"
I wonder how he feels about every Leftists saying "Democrats must take control of the Supreme Court".
3/28/18, 2:33 PM
I wonder how he felt when Obama's deniable messenger said to him, "Nice family! So, what do you think about Obamacare?"
Trump was restrained and drove the ball Stevens teed up far down the middle.
Time for Dems publicly to take a side. Repeal or no? If not, then why not.
Donald Trump’s twitter feed has more readers than The NY Times. He’s turning the issue viral.
We know where Jusgice Stevens and the Parkland Dynamic Duo stand on the issue.
@Jay Elink - i agree Jay, but this is the Bill of Rights. Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 also increased our rights. It’s very disturbing that a former Justice would think this is no longer needed and should be repealed. It is obvious why the 18th should have been repealed; it was a mistake. I could make a good case for repealing 16 and 17. But tampering with the Bill of Rights?
Blogger tcrosse said...
In the old neighbourhood we served horse doovers before the meal.
--
Properly pronounced "Horz devowered"
(guy I knew used to say "fox pus" when he meant faux pas.)
I like it. I purposely mispronounce "Chipotle" just to drive my wife crazy.
I've got a tee shirt that says, "If a man is alone in the desert and there is no woman to hear, if he says something is he still wrong ?"
In the old neighbourhood we served horse doovers before the meal.
Whores devours. What whores eat.
Ignorance is Bliss wrote:
Who would you target? If you target anyone other than government officials working to confiscate weapons and elected officials who voted to repeal the 2nd Amendment
Such people would be targeted, as well as those who support them. I think it likely that there would grossly indiscriminate attacks, too, but it might not have quite the effect you think it would. History is littered with such insurgencies that don't inflame passions of wider society against them.
Let me put this way- what you would be inviting is violence from people who aren't incapacitated by mental illnesses. This should be enough to prevent such a repeal from ever happening, but some people just want to pull the tiger's tail.
Book Mumbai to Goa Cabs Online at cabs2go Car Rentals. Trust cabs2go for the Best Mumbai to Goa Taxi Services.
mumbai to goa cab
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा