Think someone oughta tell Hogg Boy?
Naaah...
Posted on 03/28/2018 5:45:09 AM PDT by rktman
President Trump said the Second Amendment will never be repealed, despite a call for this by liberal activists and most recently, former United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
“THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” the president wrote on Twitter early Monday morning.
Stevens penned an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that the level of civic engagement by young people over this issue “is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms.”
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Dementia Types | Signs, Symptoms, & Diagnosis
having been in a country which suffered a civil war, with Vietnam era weapons and very little training on how to use them, the idea of a civil war in the USA, with the weapons and the training in existence right now in the USA.
Really, our first civil war was considered epic by all who studied it, both foreign and abroad, for the deadliness of the combatants.
I am boggled by the idea of the kind of pain we would inflict on each other once CWII kicked off.
Wrong, Mr. Trump. We don’t need more Republicans in 2018. We need congressmen who have spines and don’t cave.
Exactly right, the GOPe wants US disarmed so we cannot stop them from replacing US with Spanish speaking people.
Can't repeal a right. The 2A tells government what it cannot do with regards to a God given right. We have the right to keep and bear despite what the 2A says.
Great retort to the gun grabbers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6XTVuUP0Ho&app=desktop
Maybe we should look at Bevins for POTUS, 2020
It’s interesting that Stevens wants the Second Amendment repealed, when he always voted as if it weren’t there, anyway. I guess he realizes that his is but a minority opinion, and always will be.
I’m not a lawyer either, but you make a point. The Constitution was originally ratified with the promise that the Bill of Rights would be added. Originally there were 12 amendments—10 were ratified immediately, one in 1992 and the other is still out there.
The English have it much easier. Their Constitution is partially written, partially custom, but can be changed by Parliament whenever it wants to. Prohibitions against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, mentioned in the Magna Carta can be done away with.
The English have it much easier. Their Constitution is partially written, partially custom, but can be changed by Parliament whenever it wants to.
...
And when they try to speak the truth about Muslims they’ll be thrown in jail.
For a former SCOTUS justice, Stevens seems a little unfamiliar with The Constitution.
I have a message also go buy your plot you old old fart.
PATRICK MORRISEY FOR US SENATE!!!
Come on out to WEST Virginia, Donald, and show some support for OUR NEXT SENATOR!.
MAGA!!!
Hell, I'm more worried about the phase that always happens right before a civil war: The Settling of Scores.
THAT will be a bloodbath.
Obama just told us this weekend ‘old men’ are causing alot of the problems. Stephens, Soros......etc....
I can agree with Obama on this one.
Think someone oughta tell Hogg Boy?
Naaah...
Isn’t the “Settling of Scores” a part of Festivus?
I think the following speaks to your question rather well. It's an excerpt from THE LP'S FIRST PRIORITY by L. Neil Smith. The whole thing is worth reading. I know some folks on this site freak out at anything from a libertarian, but I think those folks miss things of common interest. This was originally written in 1994.
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution arose from a deal between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists; they were specifically required as a condition on ratification of the rest of the document by those who didn't want what civics textbooks call "a strong central government" but were willing to put up with it as long as certain limitations were imposed on its centrality and strength.
Those limitations were set forth in what we've come to call the Bill of Rights, but that's a misnomer, and a dangerous one. It should be called the "Bill of Limitations", because it doesn't apply to you, as I've said, or to me, it applies only to the State. As I've said, it's the Ten Commandments of American political behavior, a laundry-list of "Thou Shalt Nots", imposed upon the Federalist blueprint, that wouldn't make any sense at all, historically or logically, if it hadn't been intended -- by both sides -- to be absolutely binding.
No Second Amendment, no Bill of Rights.
No Bill of Rights, no Constitution.
No Constitution, no government.
Getty image, sorry.
How about repeal his pension.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.