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

[Flash]

my claim that its an individual right comes from cases way before heller.

this is the main problem, people think that 19th century court decisions can change the constitution. jefferson warned about this. the courts are not the final arbiter, we the people are. the people that ratified the constitution were told in no uncertain terms that the federal government had no power to interfere with the arms of the people, so what allows you to accept that they now can?

How do the people get to make the final decision about constitutional interpretation? We don't have national referendum. What if the people voted to prohibit free speech of blondes or Muslims? That is changing the Constitution which you say cannot be done. The government has always had regulations on weapons, so it is not true that the government had no power to interfere with that right:

"James Madison's proposal for those who violated Virginia's game laws captured the important distinction between civilian and military gun use. In a bill to prevent the killing
of deer, Madison proposed that a person who "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground,unless whilst performing military duty" would face penalties of forfeiting their unlawfully killed deer, paying a fine, and being "bound to their good behaviour." The language of this statute provides a remarkable window into the way Madison understood
the differences between bearing a gun for personal use and bearing arms for the common defense."

"In the antebellum period, several states had laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons. Ohio's language is fairly typical: "[W]hoever shall carry a weapon or weapons,
concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.'

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

If there can be no interference, then government cannot regulate age, criminal history, etc.

 

[domer76]

Your laughable march means jack and shit without a Constitutional amendment through Article 5 procedures, without one we will put the little fascists like Hogg and Gonzalez 6 feet under before we let them overthrow the Constitution.

Well the, Rambutt, that's called murder.

Fucking Barney Fife

 

[Flash]

Just about every person in this County thinks they have a right to own a gun. Not sure where you've been but that's a fact.

The NRA, along with a bunch of racist white men have people thinking that way.

No, about every person in the country is willing to allow age requirements, prohibit felons and mentally ill, prohibit fully automatic weapons and many other regulations; so, they don't believe everybody has the right to own a gun.

TTQ64--everything is not about racism.

 

[domer76]

if your going to remove the second ammendment getting rid of it via constitutional ammendment would be my preferred choice rather than by judicial fiat or legislation as liberals seem to want. Getting rid of it the other ways means your other rights can be removed that way as well.

Only way to repeal an amendment is with another amendment.

 

[domer76]

I'm your militia. I have a right to buy the guns I feel are appropriate for militia use.

View attachment 6233

Make good use of it, Jethro. When you hit 45, we're coming for your guns.

 

[Flash]

That is up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court does not make those decisions. It is up to federal and state governments. The Supreme Court only becomes involved if someone challenges one of these laws as unconstitutional (if the court accepts the case which is very slim).

 

[TTQ64]

No, about every person in the country is willing to allow age requirements, prohibit felons and mentally ill, prohibit fully automatic weapons and many other regulations; so, they don't believe everybody has the right to own a gun.

TTQ64--everything is not about racism.

Everything isn't about race when your white.

No need for regulations if they didn't feel everyone has a right to own a gun in the first place.

This country was built on racism, what makes you think it's over now?

Don't answer that.

 

[domer76]

It means I can own any gun I want to. What part of "militia" don't you understand?

It sure as shit doesn't, Rufus. Better have a 10 year old literate read Heller for you.

 

[Leonthecat]

Any other amendments “ripe for reinterpretation”?

The second is sparsely worded and more awkwardly phrased of all the amendments. It is unique among the other amendments that are so much clearer in their intent. So probably not.
It's as though Jefferson wanted to be purposely vague on this by choosing the phrases and putting them in the order that he did.
It seems he was successful with those vagaries, and so, the amendment remains open, and subject to interpretation.

Taking the sentence as a whole, it is apparent that what shall not be infringed, is the militia.
What appears between the first and second commas remains an unconnected set of thought and opinion.

If the amendment were only what appears after the second comma the intent would be clear. Jefferson choose not to do that . He wanted it to be vague so it could be interpreted as the rights of either the people or the militia.

 

[domer76]

My wife and I have already decided that 2018 is the year to go prepper. We're working on that right now!

A sucker is born every minute

 

[Flash]

all of this tells me that you're of the belief that people are not fit to govern themselves and therefore must be governed......but if man cannot govern himself, what makes you think that a separate group of men can govern others????

You avoided the question. You said the courts cannot change the meaning of the Constitution; yet, you say the people get to decide what it means. How do the people make that decision? And where do they get that power--the Constitution clearly does not give the people the power to interpret the Constitution except through amendments and we cannot amend it every time we disagree about its meaning.

I believe the people are fit to govern themselves, I want to know specifically how it is done. What if the people decide we can all own one 22 rifle? Do you accept their decision?

You keep attributing beliefs to me which I do not hold while avoiding the real issues.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

As I thought. You got nothing but white wing dribble.

right.....and I never marched for open carry next to black people. but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you racist?

 

[domer76]

I speak the international language Domer

You may speak an international language, but you suck at interpreting English.

Where did he say he wanted to take away all guns?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How do the people get to make the final decision about constitutional interpretation? We don't have national referendum. What if the people voted to prohibit free speech of blondes or Muslims? That is changing the Constitution which you say cannot be done. The government has always had regulations on weapons, so it is not true that the government had no power to interfere with that right:

"James Madison's proposal for those who violated Virginia's game laws captured the important distinction between civilian and military gun use. In a bill to prevent the killing
of deer, Madison proposed that a person who "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground,unless whilst performing military duty" would face penalties of forfeiting their unlawfully killed deer, paying a fine, and being "bound to their good behaviour." The language of this statute provides a remarkable window into the way Madison understood
the differences between bearing a gun for personal use and bearing arms for the common defense."

"In the antebellum period, several states had laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons. Ohio's language is fairly typical: "[W]hoever shall carry a weapon or weapons,
concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.'

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

If there can be no interference, then government cannot regulate age, criminal history, etc.

have you never heard of jury nullification?

 

[Leonthecat]

You forgot the repeal of the 15th and 19th Amendments.

I would expect a racist and misogynist to want to repeal the 15th and the 19th.
You don't surprise me Vlad.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Make good use of it, Jethro. When you hit 45, we're coming for your guns.

YOU personally? please?

 

[domer76]

The second is sparsely worded and more awkwardly phrased of all the amendments. It is unique among the other amendments that are so much clearer in their intent. So probably not.
It's as though Jefferson wanted to be purposely vague on this by choosing the phrases and putting them in the order that he did.
It seems he was successful with those vagaries, and so, the amendment remains open, and subject to interpretation.

Taking the sentence as a whole, it is apparent that what shall not be infringed, is the militia.
What appears between the first and second commas remains an unconnected set of thought and opinion.

If the amendment were only what appears after the second comma the intent would be clear. Jefferson choose not to do that . He wanted it to be vague so it could be interpreted as the rights of either the people or the militia.

The original wording by Madison included a conscientious objector clause. For whatever reason, that was removed when sent to the Senate. There is no record why. However, with that clause, the original intent is clear.

 

[cawacko]

You may speak an international language, but you suck at interpreting English.

Where did he say he wanted to take away all guns?

Not AN international language, THE international language

 

[Flash]

No need for regulations if they didn't feel everyone has a right to own a gun in the first place.

Because a person thinks he has a right to own a gun doesn't mean they are correct. The percentage of households with guns has been declining for years. Remington just declared bankruptcy. Gun purchases took a big dip after Trump's election but increased among minorities.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You avoided the question. You said the courts cannot change the meaning of the Constitution; yet, you say the people get to decide what it means. How do the people make that decision? And where do they get that power--the Constitution clearly does not give the people the power to interpret the Constitution except through amendments and we cannot amend it every time we disagree about its meaning.

I believe the people are fit to govern themselves, I want to know specifically how it is done. What if the people decide we can all own one 22 rifle? Do you accept their decision?

You keep attributing beliefs to me which I do not hold while avoiding the real issues.

jury nullification, for one. the primary purpose of the courts was to ensure that the rights of the minority wouldn't be run over by the majority. so no, if the majority said only one .22, i'd laugh and tell them to make me.