Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

    John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010. Says the 2nd Amendment should be changed to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed". Have to consider the source: "Bloomberg Business Week"
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...mpaign_id=yhoo
    TO BE UNARMED IS TO BE A VICTIM

    #2
    First he's 93, possibly going senile.
    Second they did admit most gun owners pay their taxes and are law abiding people who will not give them up.

    Lastly why doesn't he suggest changing other amendments?
    Change the first to read that the freedom of speech will not be infringed when in compliance with the government agenda?
    Change the fourth to allow for unlawful search and seizure when it is done by the will of the government.
    Change the Fifth to only apply during trial and we must cooperate with any investigation by answering all questions.

    Note... Sadly this has already happened in virtually every case.

    If you don't cooperate with a police investigation by answering questions, they charge you with obstruction.
    Unlawful search and seizure...um NSA gathering emails cell phone records etc..
    Freedom of speech / press... Yeah try speaking out at any governmental meeting. If they don't like what you have to say, they remove you. Try protesting, you get charged with trespassing, disturbing the peace or not having a government issued permit to gather...

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

      Originally posted by cgchad View Post

      If you don't cooperate with a police investigation by answering questions, they charge you with obstruction.
      Oh, really? I wasn't aware of this. This is going to make my job a LOT easier! Thanks!!!!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by John View Post
        Oh, really? I wasn't aware of this. This is going to make my job a LOT easier! Thanks!!!!
        30 years on policing - I never knew it either😳


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Retired LEO
        NRA Member

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

          Originally posted by John View Post
          Oh, really? I wasn't aware of this. This is going to make my job a LOT easier! Thanks!!!!

          John, ya gotta consider where cgchad lives.
          Think Green.......Recycle Congress

          Certified Armed Infidel

          Right Wing Extremist

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by mitchr View Post
            John, ya gotta consider where cgchad lives.
            Sadly Mitch isn't far off. They do find other charges to tack on.
            I will need to find the story from back around Thanksgiving, but the meat of it was someone used the "get a warrant" statement when they were asked "do you mind if we come in and look around".

            He was charged with obstruction, and they were accusing him of destruction of evidence.

            Illinois has a law, that has not yet been tested in court, that says you can't demonstrate in a residential area.

            It's really not a joke when people in Illinois say the constitution doesn't apply here. The politicians actually believe it doesn't, and pass laws they know will not withstand constitutional challenges and will say during floor debates "non of us are constitutional scholars, we will have to let the courts decide the matter" then pass the laws anyway.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

              I think I've read about that - didn't the police claim they smelled drugs or something, thus had RAS of a crime and therefore an excuse to enter? And if you flush the drugs down the toilet as they enter you're destroying evidence? Something like that. It's all too easy to abuse a power like that.
              Certified Armed Infidel
              كافر

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

                Originally posted by John_R View Post
                I think I've read about that - didn't the police claim they smelled drugs or something, thus had RAS of a crime and therefore an excuse to enter? And if you flush the drugs down the toilet as they enter you're destroying evidence? Something like that. It's all too easy to abuse a power like that.
                And like their masters(politicians), the police are learning how to abuse their power very well! Is a vicious cycle they have created.
                The 2nd Amendment is my license to carry

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

                  Gotta be honest I think this judge is on the right track. In fact, I think more judges and more politicians should be thinking along the same lines.

                  The 2nd amendment DOES need to be changed.. er.. at least; that's what the constitution requires!

                  What I'm saying is, laws places on the books that 'override' the constitution are bunk, they are being enforced but are not legal. You can't "override" the constitution. If folks want to get rid of guns, then they need to do it through the channels that the constitution has established. The constitution of the USA is a living document that was built to be changed. It's designed to be changed. The founding fathers new the world would be different in the years after they passed and wanted to make sure the constitution remained relevant.

                  Problem is, of course, the American people don't support that kind of an amendment nor do most of the states. That's why we have the bill of rights; so that politicians can't pass restrictive laws unless the whole of the American people want those laws. We elect representatives EXCEPT when it comes to the constitution; on those matters we vote for ourselves. So if these folks want to get rid of guns, they need to follow this judges lead. Seek a constitutional amendment; go through the channels this country is SUPPOSED to go through. Instead of passing representative-passed restrictions that violate our constitutional rights! (Naturally of course, the amendment eliminating or restricting 2A will never happen).

                  Folks need to realize how our countries laws work. We have representatives to handle the day to day, we've given them the authority to pass basic laws pertaining to a pretty broad number of things. But on the essential things, we vote on. All of us. And those essential things are outlined in the constitution!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

                    The problem with changing the Constitution is that it requires the approval of 35 states. And since the majority of the states are red that won't happen, no matter how many games they play with getting it passed. Remember the ERA? It couldn't pass in the required time so it got an extension. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about an extension?
                    Certified Armed Infidel

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

                      Originally posted by rgburrill View Post
                      The problem with changing the Constitution is that it requires the approval of 35 states. And since the majority of the states are red that won't happen, no matter how many games they play with getting it passed. Remember the ERA? It couldn't pass in the required time so it got an extension. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about an extension?
                      My point exactly. If 35 states don't unanimously want comprehensive reform or the elimination of the second amendment; then you cannot change it. You cannot pass laws restricting constitutionally-held rights, no matter how many senate votes it gets. To pass laws that have to deal with the constitution; you have to go through the appropriate channels.

                      For many, the easier solution is just to pass laws that the courts won't stand up to. What we have in the U.S. is a case where the most authoritative document says "You may", and a less authoritative document, which derives it's authority from the first document, saying "You may not". Folks don't seem to realize, on either side of the fence, that there's a fundamental issue when trying to make laws that override the constitution!

                      That's why I say this justice is on the right track. He's asking that we change the first document be changed. I disagree, but hey, this is The United States of America. I'm glad he gets to stand up and publicly criticize the very constitution of our country with NO threat of physical harm, arrest, or government persecution. That's America right there! There may be other consequences from his words, including being less popular or being criticized in the press; but nobody can arrest him for saying it, etc. But I'd much rather have justices and politicians that say "We need to modify the 2nd amendment", than justices and politicians that say "We need to pass new laws that make the 2nd amendment irrelevant".

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Former SC Justice: change 2nd Amendment?

                        Originally posted by Romans5.8 View Post
                        "We need to modify the 2nd amendment", than justices and politicians that say "We need to pass new laws that make the 2nd amendment irrelevant".
                        Unfortunately we have a President, atty general, and many judges that just ignore the constitution.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X