Here's what this "interesting guy" King had to say in post # 371868 about Conservative Radio Host Marc Levin and Liberal Left Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and his take on their views on the 2nd Amendment:
Looked up Levin in Wikipedia. Seems like some of my conservative friends. His book on the Court confirms my loosey-goosey characterization of its deliberations. Change and change again, nothing sacred or inviolable, eh?
"Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America
Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In a review of Men in Black, Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'."
That seems to put him at odds with the NRA-promoted amendment. Senator Stevens, a Republican appointee who served for 35 years on the Court with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, argues for amendments that would reduce the role of federal courts in American political life; in other words, amendments to entrench judicial restraint.
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."
All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist.
Note that King attempted to portray Stevens as a Conservative Justice. Stevens has been part of the Liberal Left wing of the high court for decades. Then take 5 minutes to go here and see what Levin really has to say about the 2nd Amendment:
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/Of course, Mr. Levin realizes that the individual right to bear arms and the right of self defense are merely affirmed by the 2nd Amendment, but granted by the God that King does not believe in. It is because of things like this that I have found it necessary to check out virtually everything King has to say here. When I had confronted King about mischaracterizing Levin's actual beliefs, he claimed that he was only posting what Wikipedia had to say. But note just how much of that drivel is from Wikipedia, and how much is King's own take on it.
Then later, in post # 372221, King tried once again to advance the Liberal notion that the Individual Right component of the 2nd Amendment is a relatively recent thing, and that for most of our history, it was viewed as a Collective Right that can legally be restricted. In this excerpt, King reluctantly accepts that Mark Levin holds the Individual Rights view... but he once again is claiming that the original intent of the Framers was not written down:
I believe what Levin says about the Second was in the the Founders' minds. The pity is they didn't write it down. They wanted to protect the states from federal interference, for sure. But the country is still wrangling with the Second to the point that courts are allowing various levels to regulate from popular vote.
This was in 2014, well after the 2008 Heller and McDonald decisions that affirmed the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. King has never been able to accept that settled law. He was once again defending the many Liberal Democrat jurisdictions where lower courts and local laws have infringed upon the 2nd. He has been corrected on his erroneous notions that the intent of the Framers was not recorded, and is not known, on numerous occasions. We have given him a multitude of references from The Federalist Papers, letters, editorials, and other contemporary writings of the Framers. But he always falls back on the dogma that is preached by Anti-Gunners. He got his ears pinned back on the very same thing in this 2007 thread, but like an Anti-Gun Energizer Bunny, he just keeps throwing out the same untrue crap, hoping that some of it will stick:
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Trust... but verify."
