Stevens would have fit right in with the old Soviet Union or Third Reich.
Stevens is an old fool. He should have ran for office to write laws instead of taking a job that was supposed to interpret them narrowly. He is an excellent example of how activist judges are eroding confidence in the value of a participatory democracy.
> ustice John Paul Stevens doesn’t believe anyone has the
> right to own a gun
Would that include the jackbooted thugs of the Feral Gummint alphabet agencies?
Didn’t think so.
Stevens has proven himself to be yet another elitist, genocide-enabling moron.
Tar.
Feathers.
Why would libs bother?
A couple more wise Latino’s on the court and what the US constitution says won’t mean beans.
Does it matter to Obama what the laws says?
Living Constitution (without amendment) == bastardized rulings
Wonder if his keepers arrange play dates with Jimmy Carter.
Couple things to keep in mind here.
First, Stevens’ suggestions are an outright admission that the Constitution is indeed restrictive of Federal powers and permissive of individual rights/liberties. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a need to rewrite it, right?
Second, it’s just as easy to interpret the 2nd Amendment as requiring individual firearms ownership. Consider that the healthcare “right” in Obamacare comes with the mandate that one have coverage, or pay a tax.
Applying this same logic to firearms, ownership could be mandated under the same terms. Forcing Liberals to either own firearms, or pay a tax to help subsidize ownership by those who can’t afford to on their own ...
and other sources from the writing of the Bill of Rights that the Second Amendment secures the rights of law-abiding and peaceable adult citizens to keep and bear firearms unconnected from any type of government service. In doing so, the Court struck down a D.C. law that made it illegal to have handguns at home, among other restrictions.
The statement “the second amendment secures the rights of law abiding and peaceable adult citizens” clearly shows the author to be of like mind with the esteemed Justice Stevens with little or no understanding of the phrase “shall not be infringed”.
Elections have consequences. We are a death away from the looney left dominating the SCOTUS.
Elections have consequences. We are a death away from the looney left dominating the SCOTUS.
Dream on, you old Liberal. Your idea is a sure fire way to abolish the United States. There is no way we could agree on a new Constitution, with some wanting Big Government to rule so they could plan their Lefitst Utopia, and others wanting freedom from these central planners.
Do it Stevens’ way & soon we would have an all new Constitution,totally unrecognizable in comparison to the original,& maybe a new civil war to go with it.
Once a dope always a dope.
The best thing those of us who support original intent with respect to the second amendment could do is put the revised amendment Stevens is suggesting to a vote, with exactly the wording he has proposed. The revision to the amendment will not pass Congress (either house) with the 2/3 majority required by the Constitution. Even if it did pass Congress it would not pass 3/4 of the states as required to become part of the Constitution.
Putting the Stevens amendment through the ratification process, with the outcome being a losing vote, will be a very clear and powerful signal to the Supreme Court that the modern progressive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not shared by Congress or the people. In addition, it will force a number of Democrat Senators and Congresspeople to go on record with respect to the right to bear arms. Constituents will be screaming loudly so many progressive Democrats will have to choose between their progressive ideology or the loud voices of their constituents with respect to an issue that could easily mobilize opposition the next time they face the voters.
For too long we have allowed the progressives to amend the Constitution via Supreme Court interpretation instead of forcing them to subject their revisions to the ratification process. In this case, conservatives should be proactive and force the issue while we have the votes in Congress, and the voices of the American people, to put the issue to rest. If we don’t do it now, we’ll continue to see the courts and Congress continue to nibble away at the Amendment until the right no longer exists.
That's a truism. What else would they carry, really?