Retired (Republican) Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment

[Leonthecat]

But for some odd reason, that's not the way it was finally written.

This message is hidden because USFREEDOM911 is on your ignore list.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

This message is hidden because USFREEDOM911 is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Buckly is on your ignore list.

 

[countryboy]

You are artificially conflating the second amendment with the ability to own guns.

Very few nations in the word have a 2nd amendment type right.
But hunting, sporting, target shooting, and weapons for home defense still exist through out the world.

The so-called leftist-socialist state of France has some of the highest gun ownership in the world.

In Putin's Russian dictatorship, people are still have guns for hunting, shooting, and home defense. Think about that. Even in the Russian dictatorship, people have guns even when they don't have a second amendment.

Not having a second amendment is not the same thing as a "ban on all guns". That is a lie, a fabrication, a preposterous exaggeration that gun humpers are going to cling to like grim death. It is one reason an honest discussion can not take place -- because a lot of the rightwing are simply committed heart and soul to lying their asses off.

I cannot speak for Justice Stevens, but I think a lot of people see the second amendment being abused by assholes who would like to amass assault rifles, bump stocks, high capacity cartridges, possibly even grenades and machine guns.

In a democratic society, there is zero feasible chance that our elected representatives would enact a "total ban on all guns", even absent a second amendment.
Any rightwinger who has even a shred of honesty knows that if guns are allowed in Putin's dictatorship, there is not a snow balls chance in hell of a total "gun ban" here, even absent the 2nd.

How exactly is the amassing of weapons by law abiding citizens an "abuse" of the second amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I mean, if you and your ilk want to abolish the Second Amendment, then fine, work towards that end. But don't lie your way through it, just be honest.

 

[domer76]

soldiers in the military do not need a right to bear arms-they are issued by the government.
Militias are civilian soldiers that form themselves up for the common defense, but are not US military

Militia was a military entity in the 18th century.

Notice the same root word?

 

[dukkha]

You are trying to apply 21st century definitions to 18th century writings.
In the contemporary vernacular of the late 18th century "bearing arms" meant military service and all armies were referred to as militias.

ah. i see where you are going with this..Original intent argument. but an army or even to use the term "militia" has no need for an enumerated right to bear arms. The government gives that right to soldiers - so why enshrine it as an individual right?

 

[dukkha]

Militia was a military entity in the 18th century.

Notice the same root word?

i get the argument. But t was clearly written towards protecting citizen/soldiers to help them become" well regulated"
There were obviously many Militas that did fight in the revolutionary war-they supplied their own arms ( i think)

 

[Damocles]

Militia was a military entity in the 18th century.

Notice the same root word?

The people who wrote the constitution had just faced off with a government that tried to disarm them, then tried to kill them, and they won. Basically the 2nd Amendment states that because the government can call up a militia and use it, the people have a right to own and bear arms to protect themselves from it. These people just fought the world's most powerful government and won. They weren't stupid.

In order to believe that it isn't a right given to the people you'd have to believe that when they said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "the people" meant something different and they "really meant" the right of the government to be armed is sacrosanct... The people means the same thing every time in the constitution, it isn't differently meant here because you want it to be.

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.

 

[domer76]

The people who wrote the constitution had just faced off with a government that tried to disarm them, then tried to kill them, and they won. Basically the 2nd Amendment states that because the government can call up a militia and use it, the people have a right to own and bear arms to protect themselves from it. These people just fought the world's most powerful government and won. They weren't stupid.

In order to believe that it isn't a right given to the people you'd have to believe that when they said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "the people" meant something different and they "really meant" the right of the government to be armed is sacrosanct... The people means the same thing every time in the constitution, it isn't differently meant here because you want it to be.

Yep. An armed citizenry in the context of a militia. The OP is correct. It’s an outdated vestige of the 18th century and is no longer relevant.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The people who wrote the constitution had just faced off with a government that tried to disarm them, then tried to kill them, and they won. Basically the 2nd Amendment states that because the government can call up a militia and use it, the people have a right to own and bear arms to protect themselves from it. These people just fought the world's most powerful government and won. They weren't stupid.

In order to believe that it isn't a right given to the people you'd have to believe that when they said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "the people" meant something different and they "really meant" the right of the government to be armed is sacrosanct... The people means the same thing every time in the constitution, it isn't differently meant here because you want it to be.

 

[Leonthecat]

ah. i see where you are going with this..Original intent argument. but an army or even to use the term "militia" has no need for an enumerated right to bear arms. The government gives that right to soldiers - so why enshrine it as an individual right?

The right to keep and arm the military is the 2nd amendment.

 

[Damocles]

Yep. An armed citizenry in the context of a militia. The OP is correct. It’s an outdated vestige of the 18th century and is no longer relevant.

No, an armed citizenry to stand against the militia as they had during the revolutionary war. It basically stated that unlike the King this government would not try to disarm you and that you had a right to stand against tyranny.

While you may think it is useless now, you need to repeal it to actually remove the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. "The people" means "the people" the same way every time it is used in the bill of rights, to pretend it doesn't mean it just this once is just trying to wish the problem away.

If you want to "legally" disarm people, you will need to repeal this amendment, however I don't think you would be able to. I just don't believe you'd get 38 states to ratify that even if you could get 2/3 of the congress to put it forward...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, an armed citizenry to stand against the militia as they had during the revolutionary war. It basically stated that unlike the King this government would not try to disarm you and that you had a right to stand against tyranny.

While you may think it is useless now, you need to repeal it to actually remove the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. "The people" means "the people" the same way every time it is used in the bill of rights, to pretend it doesn't mean it just this once is just trying to wish the problem away.

If you want to "legally" disarm people, you will need to repeal this amendment, however I don't think you would be able to. I just don't believe you'd get 38 states to ratify that even if you could get 2/3 of the congress to put it forward...

 

[Leonthecat]

No, an armed citizenry to stand against the militia as they had during the revolutionary war. It basically stated that unlike the King this government would not try to disarm you and that you had a right to stand against tyranny.

While you may think it is useless now, you need to repeal it to actually remove the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. "The people" means "the people" the same way every time it is used in the bill of rights, to pretend it doesn't mean it just this once is just trying to wish the problem away.

If you want to "legally" disarm people, you will need to repeal this amendment, however I don't think you would be able to. I just don't believe you'd get 38 states to ratify that even if you could get 2/3 of the congress to put it forward...

Gun laws will change due to a reinterpretation of the second by the Supreme, Court not through repeal.
That is the most likely scenario.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The right to keep and arm the military is the 2nd amendment.

Why would the government—being an entity that holds powers, rather than rights—require a constitutional amendment giving it the right to keep and bear arms, given that executive and governmental power encompasses the use of an armed military?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Gun laws will change due to a reinterpretation of the second by the Supreme, Court not through repeal.
That is the most likely scenario.

Isn't it lovely how little regard the left holds for right/wrong, truth, the law, and the Constitution?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

love how so many JPP liberal, anti-constitution gun grabbers have finally come out of the closet and proudly have declared they are against the 2nd amendment. so many of you were in denial for so long.

 

[domer76]

How exactly is the amassing of weapons by law abiding citizens an "abuse" of the second amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I mean, if you and your ilk want to abolish the Second Amendment, then fine, work towards that end. But don't lie your way through it, just be honest.

You morons quote the “shall not be infringed” ad nauseam. Guess what, pally boy. You get legally infringed all the time.

 

[domer76]

No, an armed citizenry to stand against the militia as they had during the revolutionary war. It basically stated that unlike the King this government would not try to disarm you and that you had a right to stand against tyranny.

While you may think it is useless now, you need to repeal it to actually remove the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. "The people" means "the people" the same way every time it is used in the bill of rights, to pretend it doesn't mean it just this once is just trying to wish the problem away.

If you want to "legally" disarm people, you will need to repeal this amendment, however I don't think you would be able to. I just don't believe you'd get 38 states to ratify that even if you could get 2/3 of the congress to put it forward...

You make the same mistake that the illiterate cawacko made right away on this thread. Where did the OP make the statement that he wanted to disarm people. He merely stated what I have been making the case for a long time. The 2nd is an outdated and irrelevant vestige of the 18th century. About as relevant as the 3rd and 7th.

The 2nd had two purposes in the 18th century.

1) To maintain an armed defense in the event of an invading enemy until a standing army could be mustered. That was a result of the fear of large, standing armies at the time.
2) To maintain armed citizenry against a tyrannical government. (Back to the standing army concept)

Guess what?

1) We have the biggest, baddest standing military the world has ever known, thus making 1) irrelevant.
2) Because of the biggest, baddest military, in the (absurd) event of a truly rogue, tyrannical government, your pissant popguns are useless. But that notion is absurd anyway, thus rendering 2) irrelevant on two levels. Only RW barrel-strokers believe otherwise.

 

[domer76]

love how so many JPP liberal, anti-constitution gun grabbers have finally come out of the closet and proudly have declared they are against the 2nd amendment. so many of you were in denial for so long.

It’s time has passed, Rufus. You probably still cling to the notion that blacks can’t vote

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

It’s time has passed, Rufus. You probably still cling to the notion that blacks can’t vote

the two issues have nothing to do with each other. stop being intellectually deficient.

This image is one of my most favorite, badass, patriotic displays in our nations history:

“The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he declared, "must take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”