Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who says that the liberals don't want to take away guns? Now we have a retired Supreme Court Justice calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, calling it "a relic of the 18th Century".
Insidious - proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects. Treacherous; crafty.
Does that sound about right?
Insidious and Progressive are interchangeable. If they claim to not want something, they do.
It has been quite clear for decades they havn't a clue what a natural law is.
How is owning a firearm a natural right? Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Firearms were invented in the 14th century. Is owning a PlayStation a natural right too?
don't fall into the silly trap......Stevens in the 70's never made public he wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment. He never told Nixon or Ford about repealing the 2nd amendment. Nixon or Ford never made repealing the 2nd amendment into their platform.
Stevens would have never been confirmed in Congress if he ever said anything this stupid in public or made a New York Times piece about repealing the 2nd amendment. Nixon and Ford would have chosen another judge.
i never said anything of the sort though, all i said was that neither nixon or ford were conservatives.
if he had these views on the 2nd amendment all along, why didn't he made them public in 1975 during his confirmation hearings? you know damn well he would have never been confirmed to S.C. or any federal bench.
He was a Trojan horse or wolf in sheep's clothing. Lots of them out there gaining power. And this one had lots of power before he retired.
This is outrageous. The right to keep and bear arms is a god given constitutional right we have to protect our families, our property, our farms. Some of us live hours from the nearest police station. These people are out of their minds they're going to start a civil war.
Truly strict textualists would interpret the Second Amendment to include only arms available at the time the Constitution was written. Interpreting the Second Amendment to apply to weaponry that did not exist at the time is still treating the Constitution as a "living document" that evolves to apply to modern society. You're just arguing degrees of how "living" it is.
Pure B.S. Do you think the Framers believed those would forever be the only weapons available? That is pure conjecture.
Well, given it has been from the left that I see things like "ban older people from voting", I would not be surprised if many on the far left think the entire Bill of Rights is a right wing document.
Oh, there is no doubt. And some are already calling for an end to freedom of speech.
The Constitution IS a living document. It was designed to be one; that's why there is a mechanism for amending it. We could amend the Constitution to abolish Congress and make the President a monarch, if approved by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
Amendments are not the same as interpretation.
Please. Your comments are just plain stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
