UPDATED Trump Responds to SC Justice: 'THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED!'

[DonViejo]

Source: Mediate



by Aidan McLaughlin | 6:08 am, March 28th, 2018

President Donald Trump fired back at John Paul Stevens on Twitter Wednesday morning, after the former Supreme Court Justice called for the repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed.

Link to tweet

In the op-ed, the Justice — who retired from the court in 2010 — said gun control supporters should “should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” and railed against the 2008 Court decision that affirmed the individual right to bear arms.

###



Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-the-second-amendment-will-never-be-repealed/

---

UPDATE:

‘NO WAY’: Trump turns lifelong GOP ex-Justice Stevens’ call to repeal 2nd Amendment into pitch for GOP Court

SARAH K. BURRIS
28 MAR 2018 AT 06:08 ET

President Donald Trump was up early this morning to tweet out his support for the Second Amendment in response to the op-ed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Link to tweet

Stevens, a lifelong Republican nominated to the Court by Gerald Ford, urged school shooting survivors to call for the repeal of the Second Amendment. The NRA then proceeded to go into full meltdown-mode. Trump has yet to respond to the students of Parkland, Florida, who lead marches across the country over the weekend.

He went on to address North Korea.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/no-way-trump-turns-lifelong-gop-ex-justice-stevens-call-repeal-2nd-amendment-pitch-gop-court/

[trusty elf]

1. Hopefully, F*ckface, soon YOU will be repealed.

[Vogon_Glory]

6. The Second Amendment Will Never Be Repealed

In Donald Trump’s lifetime.

Younger DU’ers please remember that Thump is no spring chicken.

[oberliner]

2. A SC Justice who was appointed by Republicans incidentally

[still_one]

16. Not only appointed by republicans, but Stevens is a republican himself.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Never

is not usually a good word to use in politics

[Corgigal]

4. You have bigger things to protect.

Like your fat ass. Not that you understand what's coming.

He's scared of sharks, he's swimming in the ocean now with chum in the water. Shhhh, don't tell him.

[knightmaar]

5. But you talked about it, and that means the goalposts have moved.

As a negotiator, Trump sucks. He just acknowledged the repeal of 2A as existing on the political horizon.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Yes. We'll settle for clarifying, amending and restricting. . . . nt

[Auggie]

7. Will "they" make this the big issue at mid-terms to bring out the conservative vote?

Would they imply that a vote for Republicans is (technically) a vote of support for the Second Amendment? This would not be good. Most Americans have no idea how government works and what it takes to repeal an amendment.

[Still In Wisconsin]

25. I'm sure it will be the same fear-mongering tactics: Abortion, guns, gays, bathroom laws, terrorists

Mexicans, other brown or brownish people, more gays, more guns, etc. etc. etc.

[Auggie]

26. There's always a lead issue though. The Second Amnendment would be a good bet IMO. (n/t)

[Still In Wisconsin]

31. Yeah, I see your point. Guns would probably be a good bet as regards their "lead" issue.

I do fully expect guns/ Supreme Court to be huge when DJT runs for re-election. Oh, wait, he's already campaigning!

[sinkingfeeling]

8. I'm just months away from 70, and I have never had a president

who only addresses his own party. Saying the GOP must always pack the SCOTUS is horrifying to me. Just like the gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[ananda]

10. This is a comment I totally relate to.

So true!

[Saviolo]

30. Yeah, that was the scariest part of that little rant to me.

He sounds like O'Brien from the end of 1984 explaining to Winston about the ideological purity of The Party is its strength.

Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.

That's the playbook of today's GOP. They're not in the game to help get poor people jobs or to make society better or any of that. They are only in power because if they're not in power, they're not in power.

[llmart]

50. So true.

Plus, never in my lifetime did I expect a President to use Twitter for commenting on policy, etc.

How far we've sunk. I hope the next President does not use Twitter.

[IronLionZion]

11. If dipshit says never, then it's possible

Or rather we would elect more liberals and appoint more liberal judges to ensure it is "well regulated".

Nobody has strong opinions on the 3rd amendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Times have definitely changed a bit.

And we rarely discuss the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which could be the right to not be shot.

I bet people thought there would never be an amendment to prohibit alcohol, or to repeal it.

[beachbum bob]

12. repealing the 2nd amendment will NEVER happen as the american people will not support it

we will never stand for a complete ban on all weapons.

All this does is AID republicans in drumming up support from more than their base and does exactly that. We have to be smarter than throwing gas on their smoldering dung heap...

[Blue_Adept]

13. Now imagine if a Democratic former Supreme Court Justice had said it!

Heads would explode!

You do realize that what was said was by a Republican, right? It's not like it's something that most people on the left are calling for or what the majority of people agree on.

[jayschool2013]

27. A repeal is not a ban on all weapons

It just removes it from even the idea that owning a weapon is a right rather than a privilege.

[X_Digger]

40. No, it doesn't. Rights aren't 'granted' by the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, repealing them doesn't make the right go away.

[jayschool2013]

42. Thanks. NFM

NFM

[X_Digger]

44. ?

Are you asserting that rights are granted by the Bill of Rights?

Let's take for example the right of free passage (aka the right of travel).

It is not in any of our founding documents, but is nonetheless a right.

The Bill of Rights is not a 'the people can..' document, it's a 'the government cannot..' document.

That's right in the preface:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government.



Civics refreshers should be mandatory with driver's licenses.

[jayschool2013]

45. Thank you.

Take care.

[jayschool2013]

47. Seriously, thanks for the reminder

May I also ask for clarification on my original statement?

A repeal of the Second Amendment is not a ban on all weapons.

Is that a reasonable statement? I'm happy to be wrong, if that's the case.

Really. Thank you. And take care.

[X_Digger]

48. Correct, repeal does not equal a ban.

The right would go from being explicitly protected by the second to being implicitly protected by the ninth amendment.

Not to mention all the state constitutions that still explicitly protect the right.

[jayschool2013]

49. Thanks, X.

Jeff

[TheBlackAdder]

14. IT'S A FUCKING TRAP! DON'T FALL FOR IT! Stevens is redirecting MSD cause to be a Third Rail!

.


Changes need to be incremental. Guns will NOT go away in this country and culture in the near future.

What GOP Judge Stevens did was to take the moderate changes MSD is asking for into a sweeping narrative that the GOP will use to paint Democrats as anti-firearm. MSD has around 75% combined support for their causes. The Republicans will try to pull Democrats into a BINARY decision.

There are probably as many Democrats who own firearms as Republicans, although Republicans seem to be more of the types to hoard various weapons. Anyone who things that Democrats don't own firearms to the degree that Republicans do, are just dreaming. They just don't boast about it.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of people blasting me, but we have to keep it real.


RW sites will quote DU and other Democrats for wanting to perform a gun grab! It will galvanize the GOPers for 2018.

.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. One need only say over and over that Justice Stevens is GOPer appointed by a GOP Prez

and his editorial had nothing to do with the Democratic Party's platform for "sensible gun control".

[TheBlackAdder]

29. There's another OP, with a poll, that shows DU respondents favoring GOP Stevens by 75%

.

This should not be allowed, as it will paint DU and Democrats as extremist anti-gun nuts.

It will cause damage to the MSD effort and could drive up GOP turnout and suppress Democrats in 2018.

We need every percentage point at the polls this fall.

.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. That's probably because

he has generally voted with the liberals and centrists on the court. The man will be 98 years old next month and this story will disappear because there is plenty of "reality TV" going on at the moment to blow it out of the news cycle (at least for the politically unengaged).

I doubt very much that this issue is going to somehow "suppress Democrats in 2018". Democrats are too fired up and in reality, Democrats & indies far outnumber GOPer nutjobs in terms of numbers and there are other things going on that will be moving Democrats and indies to the voting booth this November.

We are still in March. GOTV and TURNOUT for the November election, is what is key.

[TheBlackAdder]

34. Chris Hayes said Dems have to outperform Cons by 11% if they want to take the House back.

.

It just takes one lightning rod issue to sway a few electorates to staying home or going out.

Polls like this, that can be cited on other sites, won't do us any good. Not one bit.

.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. Yes I saw that last night

And he also brought up what OTHERS have claimed - "6% or 7%".

But that, IMHO, is speculation based on the past. Their past "speculation" also said that Conor Lamb would be toast.

And you had (infamous) pundits predicting the below just 2 months before the 2006 election -

Keeping these considerations in mind, the Crystal Ball has not yet changed its outlook from last month to project larger Democratic gains. Contrary to the prognostications of several otherobservers, we continue to see Democrats on the cusp of regaining congressional majorities at the UPPER end of their expected gains: if the election were held today, the party currently out of power would likely net 12-15 seats in the House (+15 needed for control) and 3-5 seats in the Senate (+6 needed for control). At the gubernatorial level, Democrats remain favored pick up 4 to 6 additional states’ top jobs, for a grand total of 26-28 governorships (and unfortunately for the Democrats, it’s the majority that doesn’t matter!).

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/dnw2006092901/

where the final results were this -

Democrats rode voter unrest over Congressional misconduct and the war in Iraq back to power in the House on Tuesday night, ending 12 years of Republican rule by persuading voters it was time to change course in Washington.

Led by a string of victories in the Northeast and Midwest, Democrats gained at least 21 seats, 6 more than the 15 required to install Representative Nancy Pelosi of California as the first woman to become speaker of the House. Assuming they hold on to enough of their incumbent seats elsewhere, Democrats will hold the House majority for the first time since 1994.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html

So we shall see!

[Libloom]

35. Completely agree

[FakeNoose]

41. I believe in baby steps, especially where the 2nd Amendment is concerned

The Democratic Party cannot go on record as favoring banning of all gun ownership. If we can outlaw the military assault weapons (for now) I believe there's enough support to make that happen.

It's not the same thing as repealing the Amendment though. Baby steps!

[backtoblue]

52. Agree with you. nt

[KG]

15. it will happen one day.

the u.s. will eventually join the rest of the civilized world on that and other progressive issues like universal health care, the death penalty and such

[C_U_L8R]

18. Idiot doesn't know his R's from his D's

Get a brain, Trumpfart

[Maxheader]

19. Amusing..

so many events the press wondered why dementia boy never responded..
But his base is rabid 2nd and so it figured it better say something this time.

[mountain grammy]

20. Spanky doesn't understand the basic words in his tweets..

like "repeal" and "amendment." shut the fuck up, donnie.

[malthaussen]

21. "always hold the supreme court."

Well, there you have it. In the words of the nominal leader of the GOP, the USSC is a partisan institution, and must always remain so.

-- Mal

[stopbush]

51. Bingo!

[AllaN01Bear]

22. then read the ENTIRE clause and not just the section," right 2 bear arms .

[Libloom]

23. They're just trying to find an issue to get their

Base engaged. Hopefully this moves along and doesn't stick around.

[bullwinkle428]

24. "DETAILS OF MY TAWDRY AFFAIRS WILL NEVER BE REVEALED!!!!"

[Renew Deal]

28. This is why Democrats really need to win the Senate in 2018

So Trump never gets another Supreme Court pick

[radliberal]

33. From the 70 year old relic of yesterday. The kids from Parkland are the future, not his fat ass.

yawn*

[Mr. Ected]

36. For years, the NRA has riled up its base saying the Dems want to take away their guns

Justice Stevens just provided fuel for that argument, which frankly I'd not heard in the past.

Now is when Dem's messaging needs to step up a notch. We need to separate ourselves from this pronouncement.

I'm a strong gun safety/control advocate, but this all or nothing bullshit does not help our cause, nor does it reflect what the kids are rallying the nation for at this juncture.

[Blue_Adept]

38. We need to separate ourselves from a Republican? Easy fucking peasy.

[logosoco]

37. Well, he used the word "amendment"

but just like with all things in government (and maybe life in general) he does not know what it means or how the Constitution was set up.

[Botany]

39. +1

"But just like with all things in government (and maybe life in general) he does not
know what it means or how the Constitution was set up."

He is deeply clueless.

[Doitnow]

46. Well we'll just eat away at it till it makes sense.