Westside Steve Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/22/former-supreme-court-justice-wants-to-add-5-words-to-second-amendment-102443 whether you are for it or not this man was an actual justice and this is how he thinks. Anybody think the Constitution is sacred? Infallible? Safe? I'd say irrelevant. I would imagine if Obama gets to appoint another Sonia Sotomayor to the bench... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/04/23/amending-justice-stevens-how-and-why-we-shouldnt-change-the-constitution-like-this/ and the rest. Sorry its not from The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens just as I thought, appointed by a republican (Gerald Ford) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 yep there's no guarantee when someone is appointed for life. people do change as years and decades go by. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 In a shocking discovery, everyone is focussing on his suggestion about guns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 It would be like enforcing prohibition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 In a shocking discovery, everyone is focussing on his suggestion about guns... That's because, agree or disagree, it guts the 2nd amendment, eliminates it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 He's talking about changing other amendments as well, perhaps not to the same extreme. On the actual subject, I agree with him (shock horror) about the modern interpretation of every man, woman and child being able to carry automatic weapons around with them not necessarily matching what I suspect is the original intention of having a populace able to rise up and defeat an invasion from a militant government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 He's talking about changing other amendments as well, perhaps not to the same extreme. On the actual subject, I agree with him (shock horror) about the modern interpretation of every man, woman and child being able to carry automatic weapons around with them not necessarily matching what I suspect is the original intention of having a populace able to rise up and defeat an invasion from a militant government. No one carries automatic weapons except the military and police. They are illegal for civilians to carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 No one carries automatic weapons except the military and police. They are illegal for civilians to carry. In some states. sure, you need a permit, but you need a permit to drive a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nati...-firearms.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 So...you need to register it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 So...you need to register it? Its extremely difficult and only allowed in some states, and even then not to carry. You were making it sound like everyone was carrying fully automatic sub machine guns around. It doesn't work like that. The look alike AR-15 you see people with is a semi-automatic. Just a rifle that looks like a machine gun, but isn't. They fire one round at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Its extremely difficult and only allowed in some states, and even then not to carry. You were making it sound like everyone was carrying fully automatic sub machine guns around. It doesn't work like that. The look alike AR-15 you see people with is a semi-automatic. Just a rifle that looks like a machine gun, but isn't. They fire one round at a time. Fair enough, I mis-spoke about the automatic weapons. But the point I think still stands - the original intention seems clear to me that at that time you should have been able to carry a weapon in case the british tried to invade again, or the government got too big for its boots. I don't think either of those cases are even a remote danger (in spite of what Cal thinks). 1) We're not coming over there. There's no way we'd win and no incentive for us to do so in the first place. 2) If the US government goes all Saddam Hussain on its own people you wouldn't be able to post about it before the Russians invaded, possibly assisted by the Chinese and N.Koreans, in the name of 'removing a tyrannical government' and sparking world war 3 in the process. But that's just my 2c, and it's worth less than that since it doesn't affect me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Fair enough, I mis-spoke about the automatic weapons. But the point I think still stands - the original intention seems clear to me that at that time you should have been able to carry a weapon in case the british tried to invade again, or the government got too big for its boots. I don't think either of those cases are even a remote danger (in spite of what Cal thinks). 1) We're not coming over there. There's no way we'd win and no incentive for us to do so in the first place. 2) If the US government goes all Saddam Hussain on its own people you wouldn't be able to post about it before the Russians invaded, possibly assisted by the Chinese and N.Koreans, in the name of 'removing a tyrannical government' and sparking world war 3 in the process. But that's just my 2c, and it's worth less than that since it doesn't affect me. I don't know. Look at the war of 1812....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I don't know. Look at the war of 1812....... See, I assume you're not being serious here, and it makes me think that other things you post aren't so serious as well all the time. I hope I'm laughing with you, not at you on these occasions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 "Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto Works for any other country, works for any present...and future marxist gov that tries to take away our Constitution and goes "martial law" to get and keep permanent power. It's history. A disarmed populace is an intimidated, oppressed populace in one way, or eventually, another far worse ways It's principle.Freedom isn't free. Trying to take it away won't work. By far, the majority of Americans will pay the price to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 See, I assume you're not being serious here, and it makes me think that other things you post aren't so serious as well all the time. I hope I'm laughing with you, not at you on these occasions! Of course I'm not being serious. Sarcasm is hard to do sometimes on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 It's history. A disarmed populace is an intimidated, oppressed populace in one way, or eventually, another far worse ways You're right, of course, not a day goes by where I don't get pushed around by David Cameron's 'elite task force' on my way to work. If only I had a gun I could shoot them with, then all my problems would be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Of course I'm not being serious. Sarcasm is hard to do sometimes on the internet. Well I managed to pick that one up. And then... v You're right, of course, not a day goes by where I don't get pushed around by David Cameron's 'elite task force' on my way to work. If only I had a gun I could shoot them with, then all my problems would be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah, hardy har har, Chris. You don't have to worry, you get attacked by another country, and we'll go WWII again and save you again. Let's all just calm down, dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/22/former-supreme-court-justice-wants-to-add-5-words-to-second-amendment-102443 whether you are for it or not this man was an actual justice and this is how he thinks. Anybody think the Constitution is sacred? Infallible? Safe? I'd say irrelevant. I would imagine if Obama gets to appoint another Sonia Sotomayor to the bench... WSS The Constitution is not infallible nor sacred, even the founding fathers thought that way, hence why the original amendments(bill of rights) where created and updates through history have been done. I would not mind seeing a few of them be more clean cut and less general in their intent(such as the right to bear arms and free speech) but to do so would require 2/3 of the states to agree to the change which I don't see happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah, hardy har har, Chris. You don't have to worry, you get attacked by another country, and we'll go WWII again and save you again. Let's all just calm down, dammit. Sarcasm aside, I completely refute your claim that any country where people don't carry guns is oppressed and will inevitably fall prey to a militant regime. This is the 21st century, information about that kind of thing spreads so quickly, people 'going missing' can't be hushed up like they could 50-100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Well Chris there are a lot of freedoms we could give up thereby making the country a safer place. Its just a question of human nature not wanting to give back anything. For instance we could have a 10 o'clock curfew for anyone under 21 years of age. Bring back prohibition for any intoxicating substance whatever. Require a balanced diet and exercise for every citizen. At 35 miles per hour speed limit. And yes we would probably be safer if someone took away every firearm. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Sarcasm aside, I completely refute your claim that any country where people don't carry guns is oppressed and will inevitably fall prey to a militant regime. This is the 21st century, information about that kind of thing spreads so quickly, people 'going missing' can't be hushed up like they could 50-100 years ago. I can know that people are going door to door and rounding people up. That knowledge won't help me from preventing the armed people from doing that. Give governments something to be spooked about and they would gladly turn on the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I can know that people are going door to door and rounding people up. That knowledge won't help me from preventing the armed people from doing that. Give governments something to be spooked about and they would gladly turn on the people. The knowledge isn't used by individuals, it's used by the international community, who like I've said a few times already would absolutely jump at the chance to show America up. Who polices the world police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Who polices the world police? Likely no one. Unless the people themselves make it too difficult to have a militant regime. By "make it too difficult", I don't mean shake my fist at riot cops, throw rocks, and send strongly worded emails. Which is all we would have if we were unarmed haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 But that's what the international community is for. Part of the UN's remit is basically to identify when a country is becoming militant like you're suggesting. It's then up to the key members - usually USA and us to an extent - to get involved and do something. Usually, the other major players are either too worried about repercussions (germany, france) to do anything, or don't want to upset their communist friends (russia, china). But seriously, think for a moment what would happen if America became a dictatorship - how many countries would jump at the chance to invade, set up a dummy democracy that kowtowed to its wishes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 But that's what the international community is for. Part of the UN's remit is basically to identify when a country is becoming militant like you're suggesting. It's then up to the key members - usually USA and us to an extent - to get involved and do something. Usually, the other major players are either too worried about repercussions (germany, france) to do anything, or don't want to upset their communist friends (russia, china). But seriously, think for a moment what would happen if America became a dictatorship - how many countries would jump at the chance to invade, set up a dummy democracy that kowtowed to its wishes? None haha. They would jump for joy that the U.S. went straight into the shitter and would watch from the outside. They let North Korea be because they have a few nukes. They certainly would not try to invade the U.S. Even one that is weakened by civil unrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I am sure they would talk big because that is the whole point of the UN. "Man, if that guy keeps it up...we are going to tell him to stop then give him five years to consider stopping. If he hasn't stopped, we will remind him that we told him a few years ago to stop. We will give him five years to acknowledge our reminder that we had told him to stop." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.