Mason Michaels
Verified User
2nd Amendment is out dated,repeal and confiscate the guns!
Retired (Republican) Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
2nd Amendment is out dated,repeal and confiscate the guns!
Superfreak
Verified User
Thanks for outing yourself.
Barney talked big, too, punk.
lol
Write SCOTUS a letter, Oliver Wendell Holmes. I’m sure they’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.
It's not like he can say anything he didn't already say four years ago in Six Amendments.
The only thing that article does is further cement his constitutional incoherence.
Senile Stevens forgets that his dissent and Breyers which he signed on to, agreed that the "collective right" interpretation was no longer part of the 2nd Amendment question, that the "individual right" interpretation is the only viable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and that the "individual right" interpretation evident in ALL the Heller opinions, was consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
As Breyer says in his Heller dissent, citing Stevens dissent and the majority opinion as ALL standing on the same principle:
"I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."
Now he's talking like the individual right interpretation was spat like satanic verses from Scalia's lips and he vehemently disgarees with any part of the concept.
He's a fool . . .
There is no epidemic of gun violence. An epidemic, by definition, is an outbreak that is unexpected. We expect 30,000+ gun deaths every year. Year in and year out. Now, mass shooting are another thing altogether.
You are absolutely wrong on your erroneous claim that we have the lowest gun violence. I see what you’re trying though. Trying to compare us to Honduras or other 3rd world or near 3rd world countries in our hrmisphere. That bullshit won’t fly. And cherry picking a couple of Canadian provinces borders on a lie. As well as thecherry-picked “if you take out” garbage. Hint, pally boy. You can’t just remove them from the ststs, no matter how much you would like in order to pad your stats.
Sorry, pal, your lies and diversionary tactics are exposed.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
On the contrary. This version gives direct insight into how the term "bear arms" was used in the circle of people who composed the constitution and it demonstrates that to "bear arms" does not simply mean to carry weapons, as gun nuts insist it meant, but is actually a euphemism for joining or forming a military unit.
This contextual revelation completely changes the current interpretation of the second amendment.
Rereading the ratified version now tells us that the intent was very different form what the current popular notion inferred it to be.
Superfreak
Verified User
What ballistic properties are you referring to little leg humper?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is wrong. the founders feared central governments and as such, they created a LIMITED new central government.
this is all wrong as well. shining product of public indoctrination system.
If you think the 2nd applies only to muskets, get your NL ass off the internet, write me a letter with a quill pen, give it to a guy on a horse, and have him deliver it to me. That's how it was done in 1791.
The sad part about the marches is the vast majority of those marching don't have a clue about guns other than some appear scary to them.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, simply wrong. the ONLY version that matters is the one that was represented to the people and delegates for ratification. There is a reason that madisons earlier version was discarded and it was because the anti federalists believed that even militia service could not be compelled, thus a religious test wasn't necessary.
In 1876 SCOTUS first examined the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate and distinct things).
They recognized the right to be armed for self defense in public of two former slaves, then citizens, in 1873 Louisiana, a state without a state militia, it being disbanded by Congress. Of course wheter Louisiana had a militia is immaterial; the two citizens who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched (see footnote below) were barred from serving (so it is obvious and unavoidable that in the view of SCOTUS, the right to arms has no militia qualification or conditioning).
The Court said that this "right of bearing arms for lawful purpose" was not a right granted by the Constitution thus the right to arms was not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
The Court quoted and cited itself in 1886, dropping the case-specific language of the 1876 case and substituing the familiar wording of the 2nd Amendment (internal quotation mark removed):
" . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
The Court again quoted and cited itself in 2008 (citation removed):
". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
SCOTUS has never wavered from the -- individual right to possess firearms, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense -- interpretation.
It is the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations that are new. They were first inserted into the LOWER federal courts in 1942. Those perversions were not "precedent" for the Supreme Court; the Court in Heller (2008) just slapped the lower courts back into the constitutional fold and invalidated those "collective right" opinions.
footnote:
The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, according to historian Eric Foner. On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South.
The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank. In Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to prosecute individuals for violating the fundamental rights of others—including the First Amendment right to assemble and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—even in states that were ignoring racial violence and intimidation.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/remembering-the-colfax-massacre/
.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
Repeal and replace, through the legislative process, will be impossible, given the current political leverage the gun manufacturers are able to bring to bear.
I see the likelihood of a case that will bring the SCOTUS to a re-interpretation of the intent of the framers from the way they worded the second.
This could happen quite quickly without political debate or gun lobbyist pressures.
The court is immune to such influences.
All it will take is some clever lawyer who can argue a doubt about the current interpretation, through the appeals process.
With the current atmosphere regarding the desire for saner gun laws, and the willingness of corporate America to back the idea, such a driven lawyer is more likely to emerge now than ever.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
Discarded though it may have been , the earlier Madison version does still demonstrate the contemporary meaning of the term "Bear arms" to mean, "to join or form a military unit".
This changes the interpreted intent and meaning of the second.
The right to arms is a pre-existing right, not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence -- that obviously includes the words, phrasing, syntax or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment.
The very first interpretation of the RKBA and 2nd Amendment by SCOTUS recognized the right of former slaves -- Freemen, the right to bear arms for self defense in public from the KKK.
The last Case SCOTUS heard on the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment had a Black man from Chicago challenge the city's handgun ban and win.
If Blacks are not fully claiming and exercising their right to keep and bear arms, the singular reason why is that they are still believing the lies of white racist Democrats.
Wrong.
Heller did not disturb any SCOTUS precedent.
Even the dissents recognized this.
Stop believing lies.
You are delusional.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Miller was not about the man and his attachment (or lack of) with a milita. It was about the gun and the gun's functionality and usefulness in battle.
Miller, applied as if it were the singular governing rule, would render the government completely impotent to regulate any modern arm.
a pretty blue sky