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

[canceled.2021.1]

Not at all. You absolutely should fight and die for what you believe in.
I have never felt the need to own a gun in order for me to feel free, so I won't need to.
Once the second is re-interpreted, I will not likely even notice.
If your toys are so important to you that you can't feel free without them, then you should die for them.

The notion that you think amendments are up for “reinterpretation” is frightening and shows a stunningly callous approach to our Constitution as written

If you get what you want and it is “reinterpeted” what is to stop future courts from reinterpretation or other aspects?

1st Amendment?
5th Amendment? Do we really need it? If the government points a tank at you and sucks Mueller on you you will answer anything they want right?

 

[Leonthecat]

The notion that you think amendments are up for “reinterpretation” is frightening and shows a stunningly callous approach to our Constitution as written

If you get what you want and it is “reinterpeted” what is to stop future courts from reinterpretation or other aspects?

1st Amendment?
5th Amendment? Do we really need it? If the government points a tank at you and sucks Mueller on you you will answer anything they want right?

I'm sorry you are so frightened, but the rest of the constitution is much clearer in their intent. The court will see the reinterpretation of the second as understanding the intent better and correcting a past misreading of the awkward phrasing, I'm sure.
There there, it is really nothing to be frightened of.
Have you picked out your cabin yet?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm sorry you are so frightened, but the rest of the constitution is much clearer in their intent. The court will see the reinterpretation of the second as understanding the intent better and correcting a past misreading of the awkward phrasing, I'm sure.

there are almost a dozen court cases that specifically state the 2nd is an individual and fundamental right. There is a senate committee study in 1982 that states the same thing. numerous presidents throughout our history have said the same thing. every single commentator and debater considered the 2nd an individual right. so what do you think makes it something different?

 

[Leonthecat]

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”



and you will die trying to take them. good luck.

You have been deluding yourself into believing that gun ownership makes you free.
There is no freedom that a gun owner has that a non-gun owner doesn't have.
I won't die from taking anyone's guns.
I will be watching you die on TV though.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You have been deluding yourself into believing that gun ownership makes you free.
There is no freedom that a gun owner has that a non-gun owner doesn't have.

sure there is. if you do not have a gun, you can be forced to do something you don't want to do by intimidation alone. If you have a gun, the person attempting to force you to do something must be willing to accept that force can be used to counter them.

I won't die from taking anyone's guns.
I will be watching you die on TV though.

unless you live in your own bunker with zero friends, you will be a target. I'm sure that some of your friends, or at least acquaintances who are pro gun, know your gun stance and will reveal your identity should confiscation ever become an issue. you will be a target.

you also seem to be unable to acknowledge numbers, like 3 million gun owners vs 1 million law enforcement agents. attrition alone will cost the government the war. those numbers will only increase if you add national guardsmen.....those that are willing to kill fellow americans at least.

 

[Leonthecat]

there are almost a dozen court cases that specifically state the 2nd is an individual and fundamental right. There is a senate committee study in 1982 that states the same thing. numerous presidents throughout our history have said the same thing. every single commentator and debater considered the 2nd an individual right. so what do you think makes it something different?

All rulings were based on a failure to understand the intent correctly. Once the SCOTUS clears up the meaning of the awkward phrasing, we can amend the laws based on the error.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You have been deluding yourself into believing that gun ownership makes you free.
There is no freedom that a gun owner has that a non-gun owner doesn't have.
I won't die from taking anyone's guns.
I will be watching you die on TV though.

You ain't going to watch anything, except for the reflection in the screen of you crying; because no one is going to send out swat or the National Guard to take weapons from law abiding citizens, who are a threat to no one.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

All rulings were based on a failure to understand the intent correctly. Once the SCOTUS clears up the meaning of the awkward phrasing, we can amend the laws based on the error.

the supreme court had every opportunity to correct those 'misinterpretations', as you call them, and refused to do so. Any reinterpretation that eliminates a very clear, basic, and fundamental right disintegrates any obligation to follow the laws and will result in bloodshed. so the question to you then becomes 'how many lives do you consider worth it to obtain your objective?'

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You ain't going to watch anything, except for the reflection in the screen of you crying; because no one is going to send out swat or the National Guard to take weapons from law abiding citizens, who are a threat to no one.

it has been shown time and again that most police officers will follow orders, despite some claim that they won't, especially if they swallow their disbelief and accept a reason to justify it.

 

[Leonthecat]

sure there is. if you do not have a gun, you can be forced to do something you don't want to do by intimidation alone. If you have a gun, the person attempting to force you to do something must be willing to accept that force can be used to counter them.



unless you live in your own bunker with zero friends, you will be a target. I'm sure that some of your friends, or at least acquaintances who are pro gun, know your gun stance and will reveal your identity should confiscation ever become an issue. you will be a target.

you also seem to be unable to acknowledge numbers, like 3 million gun owners vs 1 million law enforcement agents. attrition alone will cost the government the war. those numbers will only increase if you add national guardsmen.....those that are willing to kill fellow americans at least.

I'm really not afraid at all.
So your silly plan is to reverse a SCOTUS ruling by armed force .
Didn't Bundy, Howell and Weaver teach you anything?
How many of the three million are willing to die for their toys like nutjobs like you?
Many will grumble.
Very few will actually shoot.

 

[Leonthecat]

it has been shown time and again that most police officers will follow orders, despite some claim that they won't, especially if they swallow their disbelief and accept a reason to justify it.

View attachment 6289

They will do their job.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm really not afraid at all.
So your silly plan is to reverse a SCOTUS ruling by armed force .
Didn't Bundy, Howell and Weaver teach you anything?
How many of the three million are willing to die for their toys like nutjobs like you?
Many will grumble.
Very few will actually shoot.

Didn't Bundy teach YOU anything? A larger group of heavily armed citizens drove back the armed government agents and Bundy was later set free because a prosecutor had to lie, cheat, and break the law in order to attempt a secured conviction. NOBODY was going to convict him. The only thing that Weaver taught us is that the government is a corrupt band of assassins and any that support the government is also the same as them. therefore we have no qualms about killing you, or them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They will do their job.

and they will die.

 

[Leonthecat]

the supreme court had every opportunity to correct those 'misinterpretations', as you call them, and refused to do so. Any reinterpretation that eliminates a very clear, basic, and fundamental right disintegrates any obligation to follow the laws and will result in bloodshed. so the question to you then becomes 'how many lives do you consider worth it to obtain your objective?'

Who is trying to intimidate what here?
LOL

 

[USFREEDOM911]

it has been shown time and again that most police officers will follow orders, despite some claim that they won't, especially if they swallow their disbelief and accept a reason to justify it.

View attachment 6289

If this turns into a nationwide situation, there are plenty of those in the Departments and the Military who are not going to support this.

 

[Leonthecat]

Didn't Bundy teach YOU anything? A larger group of heavily armed citizens drove back the armed government agents and Bundy was later set free because a prosecutor had to lie, cheat, and break the law in order to attempt a secured conviction. NOBODY was going to convict him. The only thing that Weaver taught us is that the government is a corrupt band of assassins and any that support the government is also the same as them. therefore we have no qualms about killing you, or them.

They all failed in their attempts to defy their gobblement, didn't they.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Who is trying to intimidate what here?
LOL

i'm simply stating inevitable facts and acts. you're not scared, so i'm not trying to intimidate you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If this turns into a nationwide situation, there are plenty of those in the Departments and the Military who are not going to support this.

and there will be plenty who will. not all, of course, but plenty

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They all failed in their attempts to defy their gobblement, didn't they.

again, you continue to look at each situation as a stand alone. are you of the mindset that other like minded gun owners are too dumb to realize that they need to group together? what happened at the bundy ranch? the government fled. With active confiscation, they will be killed instead. it will just expand in to a revolution that the government will lose.

 

[Abatis]

I'm sorry you are so frightened, but the rest of the constitution is much clearer in their intent. The court will see the reinterpretation of the second as understanding the intent better and correcting a past misreading of the awkward phrasing, I'm sure.

That's not just a reinterpretation, that is a complete rewriting of foundational rights theory -- and not just for the right to arms.

The Court has always held that original, fundamental rights emanate and exist on a plane separate and distinct from the Constitution. IOW, the Constitution is not the source of our rights. That you think that a simple reinterpretation of the "awkward phrasing" of the 2nd will result in a legal circumstance where the right to arms of the citizen will fall under the ambit of Congress is just leftist fanciful fantasy. (That seems to really be a recurring theme on this board)

From the very beginning rights were considered pre-existing the Constitution; possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and before any governmental powers were delegated. Since our rights are retained, no aspect of then has ever been conferred to the care and control of government, they are exceptions, subtractions of powers NEVER GRANTED:

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)

The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;. . . " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

". . . 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 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” -- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008)​

I don't know why you think the entire concept of rights can be reworked but I would argue your position, if you keep maintaining it, is only demonstrating ignorance of our constitutional system.