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

Darth Omar said:
That makes too much sense in this political climate lol.

And you make a good point: vast swaths of the country are basically Canada or Western Europe in terms of gun violence. Here in WV, I would have to drive hundreds of miles to be in a place where I feared being shot at with a gun.

What we have is a gun violence problem in urban areas—where guns are already restricted in most instances. And a rash of school shootings in random areas that are likely copycat. And the elephant in the room is why are so many kids turning into killers?

Getting rid of the second amendment is a political rallying point for the left. Nothing of significance would change if they did get rid of it—and it’s academic anyway, because it will never happen.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that with all the proclamations regarding about how we need to protect the children; the actual idea of looking into why children are doing this, seems to be almost non-existent. :palm:
 
Abatis said:
Wrong.

Heller did not disturb any SCOTUS precedent.

Even the dissents recognized this.

Stop believing lies.
Click to expand...

It is not a lie that the "reinterpretation" struck down the ban on handguns in D. C. and the requirement that rifles be unloaded and disassembled. So, it might not have changed precedent but it certainly changed the law in D. C. The Supreme Court thought it had changed precedent or there would not have been four dissenting votes.

But my post says it makes no changes from a practical point of view since all interpretations allow government regulation. That means the issue of gun control is about political decisions on regulation and not any constitutional interpretations.
 
Leonthecat said:
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.
Click to expand...

So to clarify, you think that instead of going through the process enumerated in the Constitution for changing the Constitution, you just want to have judges decide it?

OK

So extending that argument, we can merely have the justices to "reinterpret" Roe v Wade right? I mean it is kinda old and science has come along way showing that life begins very early right?

Do you really want to play that game?

Also, it sounds like you realize that if the democrat party runs on a campaign of repealing the 2nd Amendment they will get their assess handed to them in 2018. That is a good boy. You know your place.

Now back to the courts. Do you think the current construction of this Supreme Court is going to rule your way on the 2nd Amendment? By the time any case would wind its way through, we could have another right winger on the court to replace Ginsburg.
 
We should repeal all of the amendments.

I mean why is the 3rd Amendment really needed?

4th? If you have nothing to hide why should you fear the government?
5th? Again, if you have nothing to hide you should not fear the government?

Any takers for repealing all of the Amendments and not just the 2nd?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Superfreak,



The tyrannical government Americans feared was the British government, not the new and better government being formed to get away from that.

The purpose of the 2nd was to allow the new nation to quickly form an army if needed. It dovetailed with the concept of the nation not maintaining a standing army. The forefathers feared government oppression by means of using a government army to force citizens into submission. That's why the USA was not supposed to have a standing army. The forefathers wanted to create a government free of tyranny that the people would like: a government of the people, by the people and for the people. With such a concept, the people would not have to fear their own government because the balance of powers among the 3 branches would prevent tyranny.

Since there was to be no standing army, the 2nd was created in order to provide a means for the nation to defend itself. The common misconception that the 2nd was for citizens to defend themselves from the government is why the NRA always leaves off the first half of the amendment. The NRA office in DC has the second part of the 2nd in bold letters on the front of the building. The first part is completely omitted because they don't want to understand it and they only care about the last phrase. Like tunnel vision.



Now that we have a standing army, the premise of the 2nd no longer applies.
Click to expand...

Then after all that you've written, can you now explain why the founders looked far enough ahead to include the words "the right of the people" and not "the right of those in the militia"; because not every person WAS in the militia, but they were still allowed to possess firearms.
 
Flash said:
You are correct, but neither does the 2nd Amendment allow anybody to abuse gun ownership or prevent almost any regulation the public supports. Many states already have gun regulations that ban assault weapons, require longer waiting periods, etc. So, repealing the 2nd would accomplish nothing that cannot already be done.

I certainly don't see a march or 97 year-old justice as providing any momentum that would accomplish anything toward repeal--not even a member of Congress introducing a proposed amendment to repeal.
Click to expand...

Does his age detract from his opinions? He is very lucid. he understands the law and the constitution thoroughly.
 
Abatis said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it was his possession of that shotgun that was illegal. It would also be illegal for him to possess a fully automatic weapon against federal law but you could not argue that weapon had no usefulness in battle. His possession of either weapon would be illegal even though their usefulness in a militia was very different. The court would have found both cases constitutional regulations.

From Miller: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
 
I Love America said:
So to clarify, you think that instead of going through the process enumerated in the Constitution for changing the Constitution, you just want to have judges decide it?

OK

So extending that argument, we can merely have the justices to "reinterpret" Roe v Wade right? I mean it is kinda old and science has come along way showing that life begins very early right?

Do you really want to play that game?

Also, it sounds like you realize that if the democrat party runs on a campaign of repealing the 2nd Amendment they will get their assess handed to them in 2018. That is a good boy. You know your place.

Now back to the courts. Do you think the current construction of this Supreme Court is going to rule your way on the 2nd Amendment? By the time any case would wind its way through, we could have another right winger on the court to replace Ginsburg.
Click to expand...

It's not a "game" and it's not "my way".
This isn't a red or blue issue, it is a matter of judgement, something the SC does best regardless of the appointing parties.They will surprise you when it comes to what you perceive as a strictly political issue.
A good argument , well documented could sway the courts to reconsider past rulings.
A reinterpretation of the fuziest amendment in the constitution will not be changing the constitution as much as understanding it better.
 
Nordberg said:
Does his age detract from his opinions? He is very lucid. he understands the law and the constitution thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Probably not. But even if he was only 60 years-of-age the opinion of one former (or current) justice does not provide any momentum toward repealing the amendment. All the marchers and high school students would provide more momentum than his opinion, but none (or few) of them are even calling for repeal; especially if they understand the amendment does not prevent any regulations most of them are proposing. And any momentum they currently have will be gone in six months.

I will agree there is some (but very little) momentum when a member of Congress introduces a proposal to repeal.
 
Abatis said:
Your argument is shredded when you understand that because the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment, the right to arms does not depend IN ANY MANNER on the words of the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent -- never wavering -- from that principle for going on 150 years.

Why do you give such import and power to words that the right in no manner depends upon?
Click to expand...

It's because the left is desperate.

They've lost so much, over the past few years, that they're hoping that they can use these tragedies to gain a momentum and push through more Government regulations; not only on guns, but on the populace in general.

I can prove that they don't really care about the "safety of children"; because if that was they truly wanted they would be talking about how to make schools safer and keep those who mean harm out of them, instead of talking about the 2nd amendment.

If you remove a 'weapon", I don't care what it is, from being available to someone, they aren't just going to throw their hands up in the air and proclaim "Well I guess that's the end of it"; but instead will look to see what else is available.

How do they intend to stop someone from parking a truck filled with improvised explosives, next to a school playground, outside a sports event, on a busy fucking street?

Is it their intent to turn the US into a vision of "1984".

At one time, not so very long ago, England banned the carrying of weapons and this was very strictly regulated and controlled by law. Peasants were not permitted to own or carry swords or other edged weapons, except those freemen earning above a certain amount per annum who were required to provide occasional military service, acting as a kind of local militia - their usual weapon was a spear.

Guess what they did, when it became time to band together and over through the tyranny; THEY IMPROVISED.
 
This is a very emotional issue for gun nuts.
Justice Stevens and the anti gun protests have set them dancing and gnashing their teeth.
They understand just how fragile and tenuous the current rulings on gun possession have been.
Tick Tock Tick Tock
LOL
 
I Love America said:
We should repeal all of the amendments.

I mean why is the 3rd Amendment really needed?

4th? If you have nothing to hide why should you fear the government?
5th? Again, if you have nothing to hide you should not fear the government?

Any takers for repealing all of the Amendments and not just the 2nd?
Click to expand...

No. There was a case involving the 3rd a few years ago; it can still be a (rare) issue. The 3rd is one of the Bill of Rights which has never been made applicable to the states.

4th: I don't have anything to hide but I don't want police entering my house or car to search for any contraband (and you don't either).

5th: If government doesn't have enough evidence to convict you without your own testimony, it doesn't have much of a case.
 
I Love America said:
We should repeal all of the amendments.

I mean why is the 3rd Amendment really needed?

4th? If you have nothing to hide why should you fear the government?
5th? Again, if you have nothing to hide you should not fear the government?

Any takers for repealing all of the Amendments and not just the 2nd?
Click to expand...

The only one who mentioned repeal was a retired republican SC judge.
Ironic ain't it.
You go ahead and knee jerk like an NFL place kicker with shit on his shoe.
It's what you do best.
LOL
 
Leonthecat said:
This is a very emotional issue for gun nuts.
Justice Stevens and the anti gun protests have set them dancing and gnashing their teeth.
They understand just how fragile and tenuous the current rulings on gun possession have been.
Tick Tock Tick Tock
LOL
Click to expand...

Maybe the marchers but I don't think many gun rights people gave any notice to Justice Stevens.

Give us an example of a fragile and tenuous gun ruling.

" [2017] The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a blow to gun control advocates by opening the door for some convicted felons to challenge a federal ban on them owning firearms.

The justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that uniformly denying felons whose crimes were not serious the right to own guns violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top