Best
263 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

    Hey....doofus...where do you think that militia comes from?

    Your average everyday Joe or Joanne who are keeping and bearing arms while not being infringed upon by the government.

    And this guy was a Supreme Court justice?
  • #5
    !
    A senile old Liberal...not much worse. We think Supreme Court Justices should be term limited.......... what say you Justice Stevens....? yeah, didn't think so.
  • #6
    !
    @drpeeper the justices, all federal judges, magistrates and us attorneys would be the first mofo's I'd term limit. Term them out like the president but off cycle.
  • #27
    !
    If the state militia isn't regulated very well, and if the police aren't 'serving and protecting', then those firearms may become very necessary.

    And I don't mean for a zombie apocalypse either.
  • #53
    !
    @Rocker man, they are trying everything they can to destroy or take away our second amendment. For people that don't know. There is a U.N charter that calls for the disarmament of the U.S citizens. That's why the U.S govt has been staging all these shootings and gun violence trying to get us to give away our second amandment right.
  • #73
    !
    @MBernard Can you substantiate where you found this nugget of information at?(There is a U.N charter that calls for the disarmament of the U.S citizens.)
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    a 93 year old has been looking for 15 more min of fame, go fishing old man and be quiet, you had your turn to change the world and did not, to late now.
  • #55
    !
    A writing that explains why SCOTUS should be limited, because when they are wrong we suffer until they die or retire with their decisions. That's not the way it was meant to be, that lawyers can decide for the entire country, and a very small group of lawyers at that.
  • #101
    !
    @Hillofbeans great idea. who are the oldest members right now. oh, it's the gop appointees. great, we'll get right on your suggestion. put em out to pasture and Obama can appoint some new ones. Glad you're on board with this.
  • #112
    !
    @TRex84 Well, before you drool anymore, term limits should be in place for all appointees, including Federal judges and career prosecutors, they have qualified immunity, no accountability, abusing the system for personal gain and agenda's, and I will give you this, Roberts should be the first to get the boot imo. If they have no respect for the Bill of Rights they have no business as Judges, and a bullshit "reasonable" excuse don't cut it with me.
  • #120
    !
    @Hillofbeans maybe they actually understand the bill of rights. i think that's what creates the problem for so many... they know what it says, you only think that you do.
  • R Load more replies

  • #21
    !
    The biggest danger to a free people is the unrestricted power of a government that no longer responds to the wishes of those they govern. Exactly the reason why the 2nd amendment was worded as it was. Individual liberty is and was the single most important driver behind our constitution and is now the single most attacked freedom we have. Anyone besides me, wonder why that is? If we do not guard our own liberties, rest assured we will loose them.
  • #11
    !
    U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 ›§ 311
    10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  • #14
    !
    That's important information. But it's just a law that can be changed in the usual manner. If Stevens got his way, that law would change to mean National Guard members only before the ink was dry on the new Amendment.

    We know that.

    If Stevens got his way, the government would then be completely free to decide the definition of "militia" to suit government's interests and not the people's. It would be the opposite of the intent of the 2nd Amendment which is for the people to have a last defense of all our other rights against attempts by our government to take them away.
  • #54
    !
    A mark of punctuation ( ; ) used to connect independent clauses and indicating a closer relationship between the clauses than a period does. Just so everyone is aware what a semicolon is. I'm sure the author of the second amendment was well aware of its definition. When he penned people he was talking about the citizenry.
  • #123
    !
    @Jinks the militia is there to support the government, and therefore the people which it serves... and nobody is trying to take anybody's rights away and there is no reason to even think that you have to defend yourself against the government.
  • #124
    !
    @truthsayer and who, in his mind were the citizens... or even people?
    the poor? nope
    women? nope
    indians? nope
    blacks? nope
    debtors? nope
    children? nope
    the landed gentry/aristocracy? yes

    the fact is that nothing in what they wrote pertained to people like you or me.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    How does he intend to reconcile that the state militias have basically become extensions of the Federal Army at the call and command of the PotUS?
  • #29
    !
    Exactly. Every single time an anti gunner brings up the national guard I mention this fact. The national guard is under control of the branch that controls it which in turn controlled by the president. It is not a militia. Members of the national guard are still paid by the federal government, still eligible for funding for service related disabilities/injuries incurred while doing their 1 weekend a month 2 weeks a year deal. That is not a militia in terms of how the constitution was laid out.
  • #30
    !
    @DrNickels not to mention every single national guard brigade has recently served in foreign wars under the command of the PotUS. The guard is clearly a branch of the federal armed forces.
  • #31
    !
    @Yank
    Exactly! If you don't show up for guard duty you are AWOL. Serious issues there. A militia you are free to come and go as you please. The government does not own you. You do not fight unless you want to.
  • #35
    !
    @Yank says:
    ▌ state militias have basically become extensions of the Federal Army

    What about the unorganized militia?

    10 U.S.C.
    CHAPTER 13—THE MILITIA
    §311. Militia: composition and classes
    ▌(b)(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    ▌ the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    ▌ Naval Militia.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-titl...
  • #74
    !
    @Kimber_TLE the ones that are immediately declared as wack jobs or extremists and put under government watch? Not to mention what major militia groups are there out there?
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    Take away our guns. Plant RFID chips. Take away our abilities to feed ourselves independently. Have us live in little "controlled" neighborhoods. Ride the company bus to work. Die on the job.
    Yep, a liberal's wet dream..........
  • #8
    !
    I'm not sure what "liberals" you are referring to, but I don't know any of them that wants to do all that, you are just trying to stir the pot, it's the government with all players involved (repub and demo alike) wet dream maybe...they just want you to think that as to keep us divided and fighting amongst ourselves as they take more and more away from us.
  • #10
    !
    @hankf68 as an addition to what you said the majority of liberals don't want that, just as the majority of conservatives don't want america to be a theocracy, but say otherwise and you're just a spineless fence-sitter. It goes both ways, and neither side will admit it unless it's part of a BUT statement.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #13
    !
    @Real4WheelDrv -- Nice turn around on the left-wing hysteria (prejudice) that all conservatives want to do is impose fundamental Christianity on America. You forgot to add that they think that other things like School Choice are code for it. I just came across a TED Talk by Geoffrey Canada who founded and runs very successful Charter Schools in Harlem.

    Our failing schools. Enough is enough!
    http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_canada_our_...

    He's also featured prominently in Waiting For Superman
    http://vimeo.com/20095459
  • #15
    !
    @stepped_in_it dude, you absolutely misunderstood what I said. I was saying that both sides have their extremists, and anyone who tries to think in the middle instead of saying "our side good, your side bad" gets labeled a fence sitter, which is why we are stuck with a greed driven two party system. BTW, you assuming you "know" me, as a person from two years of internet posts, and taking something I said the wrong way is what's "so sad"
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    Crap. hit the wrong button. Proof that he always was a socialist. First confiscate the guns then us the cops to enforce their agenda. The ones without identifying marks like Czar Putin's.
  • #18
    !
    And all you "pro gun" liberals out there. This is what you get when you vote liberal. How do you not vote liberal? By NEVER voting democrat. NEVER EVER EVER. Then, be careful of the republic rats you vote for. You may get a nut like bloomberg. Either way, liberal =insanity, whether it's a D or an D lite republic rat.
  • #17
    !
    Why we're the BILL of RIGHTS written? To protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS right. The bill of rights are not "collective" rights. They are INDIVIDUAL rights. This is what liberalism does to the human brain. I bet the 2nd is the only amendment that he thinks is NOT for each individual. You can't have both ways liberals. Either ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights pertain to each individual, or none of them do.
    Once again though, this is liberalism. They don't like that the constitution limits the control of their god, so they want it changed so they can more easily control the populace, to make us more dependent.
  • #43
    !
    Man am I glad he is an ex supreme court justice. imagine the damage Obama and his democratic Hitler youth could do with this guy on the bench.
  • #148
    !
    Kinda surprised an old guy like him actually had some vision and common sense. You see the flaw in conservative thinking is that it's narrow minded and resistant to change by design. As society evolves, those that fear or don't understand those changes (usually old people) panic and become paranoid. (like the Hitler reference) Progressive ideas always end up moving society forward because it's what's best for the majority not the few who aren't capable of adapting to change. The ACA will evolve into universal healthcare like the rest of the civilized world and eventually gun control will follow.
  • #250
    !
    @Earle2 "COMMON SENSE" ?! How is violating the RIGHTS of the American people by disarming them equal to "COMMON SENSE" ?! Have you ever even READ "Common Sense" ?!
  • #257
    !
    @FaFoxy Common sense is not something to read, you just have it...or not. It's common sense that what was meant by the 2nd Amend doesn't apply the same today as it did in the 18th century. Universal background checks are common sense. It's common sense that private citizens don't need military style weapons for self defense. It's common sense that people don't need high capacity magazines for self defense. It's common sense that the 2nd Amend is not more important than trying to reduce the chance that 6 year olds are slaughtered like animals in their classroom.
  • #260
    !
    @Earle2 My common sense tells me that my second amendment rights state "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "If the democrats want to, or if Obama wants to, or if you want to. And our right to bear arms is against tyranny of a government that would abolish these rights of any form of government to include our own. There is no interpretation and no room to interject well, maybe, I think so, or kinda. It says clearly "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That is as common sense as it gets!
  • #261
    !
    @MadAmerican Doesn't sound like common sense to me. Sounds pretty paranoid and delusional actually. Really, tyranny!? You realize this is 2014 not 1814 right? If the 2nd Amendment "defenders" thought about what's best for the country and not about their own self interest and personal agenda, then common sense might prevail. I won't hold my breath though....
  • R Load more replies

  • #39
    !
    ▌ Stevens believes the solution is to amend the text of the
    ▌ Second Amendment...

    Justice Stevens: may I direct you to Article V of our Constitution?

    ① Submit your proposed Amendment.
    ② If three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, agree with you, then the Constitution will be changed.
    ③ I'm surprised you didn't know this, already!

    And good luck!
  • #36
    !
    Yes, indeedy. Progressive thinking at its best:'An individual can have TOO MANY RIGHTS, lol'.
    G-d Help Us All avoid people like this on the Supreme Court. Even the LEADING Constitutional Scholar on the Progressive Side, Lawrence J. Tribe, Attorney at Law, disagrees with him and concedes that the 2nd Amendment speaks of an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and not a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of the State. The State doesn't need protection from The People. It is The People that need protection from The State. He's got it assbackwards.
  • #72
    !
    Don't you just love it when liberal idiots try to interpret, twist the words, and alter the meaning to suit their own agenda!

    It's very simple what the founding father meant ... if they were alive today ... they'll shoot this stooge on the spot for betraying this country!
  • #61
    !
    Stevens could care less about the meaning of the Constitution. He is a liberal who believes that the document should be changed like you change socks or underwear.
  • #58
    !
    Gee what a shock. A Liberal leaning justice who wants to legislate his views, not interpret the Constitution. To all the issues that Democrats want to twist & tell you that the Constitution supports their views, answer me this. Why is it with gun control, school prayer, abortion, Gay marriage, etc. etc. etc. there re no historical records of any debates & controversy over those issues after the constitution was written! WHY! If the Constitution stood for what the Left wingers claim, there should have been many many hotly debated issues during those times. The Constitution would have been a very controversial document that was trying to transform America's culture. There was no controversy & Americans loved the Constitution. They knew that the Constitution was not going to take away their religious freedoms & religious expression. They knew it would not take their guns because those who fought against big Government knew the importance of the people having guns to fight ternary. History is proof of what the Constitution actually stood for, not a bunch of Liberal appointed Justices legislating their ideology.
  • #255
    !
    Ford should've been impeached for nominating this liberal NUT !(Yes, I know "liberal" and "NUT" is redundant, but I worded it that way for emphasis).
  • #19
    !
    Thank God he is a former justice. The Obama regime is trying to force Ginsberg and Breyer to retire now so Obama can appointed two new uber leftist young justices this summer, before the November election. Yes, all politicians and judges need to be limited in the amount of time they can serve.
  • #77
    !
    "Ex-Supreme Court Justice"....notice the key term "Ex" here. And at 93 years old I wouldn't be wasting my time fighting a losing battle.
  • R Load more comments...
Post