John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

[Yamcha]

So what Grasping At . . .    - Mobsters mainly killed mobsters and thats it. 

Black mainly kill blacks.

[Dos Equis]

True colors.

More Democrats Should Be Calling for the Repeal of the Second Amendment
They have to drag the middle of the conversation back to the middle.
BY JACK HOLMES
MAR 27, 2018
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19604852/democrats-repeal-second-amendment/

[Las Vegas]

Pretty sure John Paul Stevens is okay with restricting free speech, too.  For stuff that's "too offensive" to be taken by someone else, I suppose.

No, that doesn't sound like trouble.  Perfectly good idea.  That way we'll learn not to be mean!  

Seriously, the guy's a real ringding.  He's supposed to be someone known to have an ability to see the big picture, and to wisely use it for our benefit.  No way he could answer for his thoughts on this stuff, though.  

I understand he's very old now and no longer holds his spot, so that's probably why he figures it's okay to go a little crazy.  Guaranteed, no way he'd ever allow anyone to corner him to ask for an explanation.  That much he DOES know.

[Las Vegas]

You gotta admit seeing a tiny bit of humor, though.  Right at the time the anti-gun nuts were screaming, "No one wants to get rid of the Second Amendment, you paranoid freaks!!"

 

[Agnostic007]

You gotta admit seeing a tiny bit of humor, though.  Right at the time the anti-gun nuts were screaming, "No one wants to get rid of the Second Amendment, you paranoid freaks!!"

 

Yes the reality is it is very difficult to say "no one" on about anything these days. No one would vote for an accused pedophile. No one would vote for a white supremacist. N one thinks women should'nt be able to vote. The reality is there are always a few who will.

[Las Vegas]

Yes the reality is it is very difficult to say "no one" on about anything these days. No one would vote for an accused pedophile. No one would vote for a white supremacist. N one thinks women should'nt be able to vote. The reality is there are always a few who will.

IMO when a John Paul Stevens says so, then he'd better put his ass on a line to answer for it.  I do believe he waited until reaching such a state in life that it'd be unlikely that could ever happen.  He's now around 100 years old (serious).

[Agnostic007]

IMO when a John Paul Stevens says so, then he'd better put his ass on a line to answer for it.  I do believe he waited until reaching such a state in life that it'd be unlikely that could ever happen.  He's now around 100 years old (serious).

I think this isn't the first time he voiced that opinion. And he will probably also tell you it's just his opinion. I still would like to hear his opinion on how repealing the 2nd amendment would look like to him, as I don't think he made it very clear.

[Las Vegas]

I think this isn't the first time he voiced that opinion. And he will probably also tell you it's just his opinion. I still would like to hear his opinion on how repealing the 2nd amendment would look like to him, as I don't think he made it very clear.

And he'll exit life that way, exactly as planned.

The guy's a flake imo.  He shouldn't say things he can't back up.

[Las Vegas]

No, I think the way it's supposed to work is that a person would have to make clear explanation in order to "hope" he or she will be "granted permission" to have a gun.

Someone living outside of town, for instance, has every reason in the world to be armed.  No one can ask that person to risk the safety of their family: seeing as how easily a "do or die" situation could result from, say, an intrusion onto their property.

[Las Vegas]

Fuck that, though.  Most advisable thing under those circumstances, is to keep your weapon(s) stashed and don't even bother with the so-called "law" at that point.  It'd no longer be valid on the subject, being that it amounts to some wiseasses placing themselves above God.

Keep you and yours safe, because without that you've got nothing.  None of it could matter in that event.

[Dos Equis]

You gotta admit seeing a tiny bit of humor, though.  Right at the time the anti-gun nuts were screaming, "No one wants to get rid of the Second Amendment, you paranoid freaks!!"

 

Pretty funny.  Did you see Cuomo putting his foot in his mouth?  http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnns-cuomo-no-one-calling-repeal-second-amendment/

[Las Vegas]

Pretty funny.  Did you see Cuomo putting his foot in his mouth?  http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnns-cuomo-no-one-calling-repeal-second-amendment/

 

What a mess, but it's almost worth it for that.  Almost.

[Agnostic007]

Pretty funny.  Did you see Cuomo putting his foot in his mouth?  http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnns-cuomo-no-one-calling-repeal-second-amendment/

You are spot on , Cuomo put his foot in his mouth. It's not my intention to minimize his stupidity but I'm sure I could match you foot for foot with any anchor host like Hannity or Tucker in similar situations. The only difference might be.. the lack of acknowledgement 

[Dos Equis]

You are spot on , Cuomo put his foot in his mouth. It's not my intention to minimize his stupidity but I'm sure I could match you foot for foot with any anchor host like Hannity or Tucker in similar situations. The only difference might be.. the lack of acknowledgement 

That’s exactly what you’re trying to do.  Hannity or Tucker has zero to do with Cuomo making a fool of himself.

And I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don’t watch Tucker Carlson’s show. If you did, you’d know he is one of the straightest shooters on TV.

[Agnostic007]

That’s exactly what you’re trying to do.  Hannity or Tucker has zero to do with Cuomo making a fool of himself.

And I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don’t watch Tucker Carlson’s show. If you did, you’d know he is one of the straightest shooters on TV.

I watch it. It's tough to watch but I make myself do it about once a week. And yes, if you are a right wing Trump supporter, he would appear to be a straight shooter

[Dos Equis]

I watch it. It's tough to watch but I make myself do it about once a week. And yes, if you are a right wing Trump supporter, he would appear to be a straight shooter

I am sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Thanks for confirming you are just another uninformed left wing hack.

[Agnostic007]

I am sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Thanks for confirming you are just another uninformed left wing hack.

Sure, please accept my apology for treating you like a normal adult

[Dos Equis]

Sure, please accept my apology for treating you like a normal adult

And let me go record saying that you claiming you watch Tucker Carlson every week is absolute bs.  Why do you feel the need to lie?

[Agnostic007]

And let me go record saying that you claiming you watch Tucker Carlson every week is absolute bs.  Why do you feel the need to lie?

Let me also go on record to say that if something is beyond your personal comprehension or something you would personally do, you label it a lie. Why do you feel the need to do that?

[TheGrinch]

"Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away.."  GC


Just sayin'

[Dos Equis]

Let me also go on record to say that if something is beyond your personal comprehension or something you would personally do, you label it a lie. Why do you feel the need to do that?

   I choose my words carefully.  For example, you lied when you said you read an objective analysis of snopes.  When I pressed you about ten times for your source, you gave me a link to an article written by a snopes contributor.  lol

In that same thread, when I was talking about Sharyl Attkissson (whom you falsely called a right wing hack), you posted what you called representative reviews of her book The Smear.  That was another lie, because the negative reviews of her book were only about 2 percent. 

In this thread, you claim to watch Tucker Carlson every week.  In addition to literally making me laugh out loud, I think you're lying again.  There is no friggin way you watch his show every week. 

So, those are specific examples, not the tit for tat juvenile crap you're trying to push.  If you're going to come, you need to come correct. 

[Agnostic007]

 I choose my words carefully.  For example, you lied when you said you read an objective analysis of snopes.  When I pressed you about ten times for your source, you gave me a link to an article written by a snopes contributor.  lol

In that same thread, when I was talking about Sharyl Attkissson (whom you falsely called a right wing hack), you posted what you called representative reviews of her book The Smear.  That was another lie, because the negative reviews of her book were only about 2 percent.  

In this thread, you claim to watch Tucker Carlson every week.  In addition to literally making me laugh out loud, I think you're lying again.  There is no friggin way you watch his show every week.  

So, those are specific examples, not the tit for tat juvenile crap you're trying to push.  If you're going to come, you need to come correct.  

talk about lying. .. you say I posted only snopes. You and I both know that isnt true

I do watch Carlson. I also watch hannity. Prove I am lying.

So far, all you have done is shown your right wing bias, and your penchant to intellectually lie. Not impressed . Ive been treating you with kid gloves, hoping at some point you would acknowledge you haven't been fair. No more. Its time to adult up or shut up

[Dos Equis]

talk about lying. .. you say I posted only snopes. You and I both know that isnt true

I do watch Carlson. I also watch hannity. Prove I am lying.

So far, all you have done is shown your right wing bias, and your penchant to intellectually lie. Not impressed . Ive been treating you with kid gloves, hoping at some point you would acknowledge you haven't been fair. No more. Its time to adult up or shut up

Treating me with kid gloves?  LOL!  Take them off.  The internets is serious business.  lol 

Neither of the links you posted were objective sources.  So yes, you lied.

You posted a cherry picked negative review of The Smear to give the false impression that people panned her book.  That was a lie. 

Can I prove you don't watch Tucker Carlson every week?  Of course not.  That's my opinion, based on your history of dishonesty on the board, the fact you post like a typical delusional liberal, and you called Carlson some kind of rightwing hack.

[Agnostic007]

Treating me with kid gloves?  LOL!  Take them off.  The internets is serious business.  lol  

Neither of the links you posted were objective sources.  So yes, you lied.

You posted a cherry picked negative review of The Smear to give the false impression that people panned her book.  That was a lie.  

Can I prove you don't watch Tucker Carlson every week?  Of course not.  That's my opinion, based on your history of dishonesty on the board, the fact you post like a typical delusional liberal, and you called Carlson some kind of rightwing hack.

gloves are off...I will be acting as a liberal, but with right wing morals... so I ask forgiveness going forward. The facts will take a back seat to opinions and biases. 

[Dos Equis]

gloves are off...

I'm terrified.  What are you 10 years old?  Are we going to meet after school?  lol