Justice John Paul Stevens Dead at 99.

[donner]

Yes he flat out called for repealing the Second Amendment. He said that was the only way they could enact gun control.

to be fair, that would seem to recognize it as a right and would also seek to address the issue through the method prescribed by the founders. i disagree with his position, but respect that his approach was direct and correct and not a 'backdoor' method.

 

[CGS1]

 

[tRidiot]

to be fair, that would seem to recognize it as a right and would also seek to address the issue through the method prescribed by the founders. i disagree with his position, but respect that his approach was direct and correct and not a 'backdoor' method.

Personally I believe any repeal of any part of the Bill of Rights would nullify the Constitution, since it would never have been ratified without them.

 

[ignerntbend]

Personally I believe any repeal of any part of the Bill of Rights would nullify the Constitution, since it would never have been ratified without them.

The constitution stipulates that the document itself can be edited through amendment, and only through amendment.
This is what Stevens meant. If you want the laws changed regarding gun rights, you have to rescend the second amendment with another amendment. I doubt that he saw it happening, he was just stating the process that would be required. The process itself is way beyond politics, and should not be controversial.

 

[Cowcatcher]

The constitution stipulates that the document itself can be edited through amendment, and only through amendment.
This is what Stevens meant. If you want the laws changed regarding gun rights, you have to rescend the second amendment with another amendment. I doubt that he saw it happening, he was just stating the process that would be required. The process itself is way beyond politics, and should not be controversial.

I can stomach that. There is a difference between trying to do something and explaining how it would need done.

 

[gerhard1]

What he said was that, even though the 2A did not protect an individual right, we should repeal it just so the argument that gun-control was a violation of the 2A, could not be used to to stop what he viewed as perfectly constitutional laws.

His view was that even with the 2A in place, a total ban would be constitutional but repeal would take away the silly argument that it is not.

 

[saddlebum]

Adios dick head

 

[SoonerP226]

The constitution stipulates that the document itself can be edited through amendment, and only through amendment.
This is what Stevens meant. If you want the laws changed regarding gun rights, you have to rescend the second amendment with another amendment. I doubt that he saw it happening, he was just stating the process that would be required. The process itself is way beyond politics, and should not be controversial.

WTF? Who are you, and what have you done with Iggy?

 

[dennishoddy]

WTF? Who are you, and what have you done with Iggy?

Anyone have a phone # to check on his condition?
We have an emergency in process!

 

[Snattlerake]

See ya later..... well... maybe not.