Just...wow

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

A Supreme Court Justice wanting to take away our rights to protect ourselves against government tyranny. You have to read the whole thing, don't just read the headline and react. It's stunning.

I don't even know what to say.



Maybe use some common sense and listen to his argument?


When the constitution was written black people were enslaved and counter as 3/5's of a person. Should we still hold up those ideals because it is what our forefathers accepted?


They were discussing muskets! Things change with time.


" Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
He is a Progressive :shrug:


That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.



this is Bull s h i t ... mass shootings and gun crime are DOWN ...
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
They were discussing muskets! Things change with time.



You really are clueless ...... by that understanding the 1st Amendment does not cover your speech with Offset presses, TV, Radio, Telephones, Computers, The Internet


Freedom of Speech is only covered when using this technology

img_0661mod.jpg

1700s-engraving-of-independence-hall-in-philadelphia-1776-BRA9B2.jpg
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

A Supreme Court Justice wanting to take away our rights to protect ourselves against government tyranny. You have to read the whole thing, don't just read the headline and react. It's stunning.

I don't even know what to say.

Actually I like this.

They're feeling bold and revealing their true intentions for the first time in decades.

Let them push and push and raise the stakes.

Meanwhile... Deplorable America will be preparing.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Yes, we know you're a little fascist who wet-dreams to visions of sitting at Hitler or Stalin's right hand. You've made it clear.

HAHAHAHAHA.

And you cry because we aren't tolerant of your bigotry and then you come up with crap like that.


You are the last gasp of hateful, bigoted , white ignorance in this country and clinging on to any glimmer of hope even someone as as morally bankrupt and politically inept as Trump.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You are the last gasp of hateful, bigoted , white ignorance in this country and clinging on to any glimmer of hope even someone as as morally bankrupt and politically inept as Trump.

And you are an ignorant little #### bag who jerks off to Holocaust footage.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

They were discussing muskets! Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

They were discussing "all the terrible instruments of war", idiot. And, in 1939 the Supreme Court was wrong, and was as political then, as it is now. No law should be subject to interpretation. A clearly written law, as is the Constitution, needs no interpretation. The use of the word "interpretation" is done by those pundits and politicians to further shove the scepter of tyranny up the asses of the people. Plus, the musket was the assault rifle of the day.
 
Top