wow -- former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says: Repeal the Second Amendment

[Billy_Kinetta]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution,

which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

Too funny. The question was not formally raised until the 1930s (United States v. Miller), 150 years after ratification, and finally put to rest in 2008, with Stevens writing the dissent.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

Only that which is not mandated by the Constitution as under the authority of the federal government is up to the states.

All rights so mandated are individual rights.

See, thats how i understand it. But people say (probably because of a SC case in the 1800s) that states can regulate guns however they see fit. Using that logic consistently, a state can tell christians to get the fuck out. A state can ban any dissent against the govt. A state can do whatever it wants.
I say BULLSHIT.

Bingo.

 

[saveliberty]

National Defense is clearly implied in the Second Amendment, letting states determine individually how that right is borne out is not an option.

 

[koshergrl]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

Such a statement by a past supreme court justice should trigger a review of every ruling he ever made.

Why? 90% of them are fucking loons who cant even read English

90 percent of whom?

 

[koshergrl]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.

We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.

Guess you didn't read the article!

The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution,

which mentions guns only in the context of militias.

Too funny. The question was not formally raised until the 1930s (United States v. Miller), 150 years after ratification, and finally put to rest in 2008, with Stevens writing the dissent.

He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

Only that which is not mandated by the Constitution as under the authority of the federal government is up to the states.

All rights so mandated are individual rights.

See, thats how i understand it. But people say (probably because of a SC case in the 1800s) that states can regulate guns however they see fit. Using that logic consistently, a state can tell christians to get the fuck out. A state can ban any dissent against the govt. A state can do whatever it wants.
I say BULLSHIT.

States can't regulate guns as they see fit.

 

[saveliberty]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

Such a statement by a past supreme court justice should trigger a review of every ruling he ever made.

Why? 90% of them are fucking loons who cant even read English

90 percent of whom?

Water foul appointed to the Supreme Court?

 

[koshergrl]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

Such a statement by a past supreme court justice should trigger a review of every ruling he ever made.

Why? 90% of them are fucking loons who cant even read English

90 percent of whom?

Water foul appointed to the Supreme Court?

I am just not understanding why the fact that they are known to be unhinged is a reason NOT to review rulings.

 

[konradv]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms.

You will never have the opportunity to test your theory.

More defective logic. In order for me to have the "opportunity" I'd have had to state the desire to test it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms.

You will never have the opportunity to test your theory.

More defective logic. In order for me to have the "opportunity" I'd have had to state the desire to test it.

You made a statement postulating a possible outcome.

 

[Norman]

ya still think they're not comin for your guns?!

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Does someone still actually believe that? Difficult to comprehend that when the usual losers are standing there with their "repeal 2nd amendment" signs up.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood. Note: Stevens was nominated for the Supreme Court by a Republican, Gerald Ford.

In an op-ed published by The New York Times, Stevens, a Republican, said that students and anti-gun violence advocates should press lawmakers to take on the amendment.

-snip-

"That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms," Stevens wrote.

"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform," he continued. "They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."

-snip-

Read more: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’


His NYT op-ed is here:

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment


Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
Continue reading the main story

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

Stevens goes on to say that Heller "has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power" -- but overturning the decision with a constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment "would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option."

This guy gets it..the NRA baggers don't.

Well it should be noted Militias arre formed by the people of the various states and with their own weapons, does this explain the need for we the people to own and maintain the guns.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

ya still think they're not comin for your guns?!

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

OK lets do it. and enclude the first adm also since there are not real reporters around anymore.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

He was a descending voice in DC vs Heller, as well. A minority opinion.

The guy is 97 years old and not zipped up very well.

 

[basquebromance]

"THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!" - President Trump

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ya still think they're not comin for your guns?!

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Let's hope Jonn Paul takes one between the eyes soon.

And Ruth right after.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Mass killings ?

We should outlaw airliners.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Source: The Hill

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood. Note: Stevens was nominated for the Supreme Court by a Republican, Gerald Ford.

In an op-ed published by The New York Times, Stevens, a Republican, said that students and anti-gun violence advocates should press lawmakers to take on the amendment.

-snip-

"That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms," Stevens wrote.

"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform," he continued. "They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."

-snip-

Read more: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’


His NYT op-ed is here:

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment


Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
Continue reading the main story

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

Stevens goes on to say that Heller "has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power" -- but overturning the decision with a constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment "would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option."

This guy gets it..the NRA baggers don't.

Well it should be noted Militias arre formed by the people of the various states and with their own weapons, does this explain the need for we the people to own and maintain the guns.

 

[TNHarley]

I wonder how many times Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued for total repeal of Secret Service protection for Supreme Court Justices throughout his life? I'd bet everything he owned he never once made that argument. Quite the contrary, I'd bet everything I owned that he insisted on a fully armed Secret Service protection detail.

Such a statement by a past supreme court justice should trigger a review of every ruling he ever made.

Why? 90% of them are fucking loons who cant even read English

90 percent of whom?

SC Justices

 

[basquebromance]

the 2nd amendment is an amendment not a commandment.


how about we change it to:

"the right of the people to apply for the privilege of owning non-military style weaponry, as long as you're not batshit crazy, shall not be infringed"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the 2nd amendment is an amendment not a commandment.

It is a commandment that Congress shall not infringe on the right.

"the right of the people to apply for the privilege of owning non-military style weaponry, as long as you're not batshit crazy, shall not be infringed"

So, we have the right to ask permission to exercise a watered down right as long as we meet pre-determined conditions?

You need to go back to law school and learn the meaning of a right.

I would modify the 2nd Amendment to state this:

"Neither Congress nor any State shall in any way infringe or limit the right of individuals, whether citizens or otherwise, to own, possess, or carry any weapon of any type, for any purpose."

 

[basquebromance]

They take the Second Amendment first then the First Amendment second.