Author Topic: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment  (Read 13529 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« on: March 27, 2018, 03:45:37 PM »
He is wrong and what he proposes is absurd (claiming it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment), but I can respect the fact he is being honest.  This is what the left wants.  They're just not honest about it like Stevens.

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

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. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of 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.”

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.”

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

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.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second 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.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Correction: March 27, 2018
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Montague

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2018, 04:01:09 PM »
He is wrong and what he proposes is absurd (claiming it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment), but I can respect the fact he is being honest.  This is what the left wants.  They're just not honest about it like Stevens.

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

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. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of 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.”

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.”

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

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.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second 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.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Correction: March 27, 2018
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region


Yes... Let's "re-write" the Constitution!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2018, 04:02:29 PM »

Yes... Let's "re-write" the Constitution!!!

And confiscate 300 million firearms.  Talk about starting civil war.

Montague

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2018, 04:03:48 PM »
And confiscate 300 million firearms.  Talk about starting civil war.


What's the problem?
It will end mass-shootings!!
ALL THE BAD GUYS will surrender their guns!

Geezus, Dos...
Don't you know nothing?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2018, 04:09:56 PM »

What's the problem?
It will end mass-shootings!!
ALL THE BAD GUYS will surrender their guns!

Geezus, Dos...
Don't you know nothing?

lol.  That's how simplistic their argument is.   :-\

Montague

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2018, 04:12:23 PM »
lol.  That's how simplistic their argument is.   :-\


Yep.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61533
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2018, 04:38:58 PM »
Is this the same Justice John Paul Stevens that was originally appointed by George Washington?

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2018, 05:11:04 PM »

Yes... Let's "re-write" the Constitution!!!

Just to be clear.. no one including this retired Judge is asking anyone to "re-write" the constitution. As you probably know, the amendment..any amendment is in a sense re-writing the constitution

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2018, 05:12:09 PM »
And confiscate 300 million firearms.  Talk about starting civil war.

No one is advocating confiscating 300 million firearms. It is a false argument put forward by the right.. and it seems to be working given it gets repeated so much

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2018, 05:14:32 PM »
No one is advocating confiscating 300 million firearms. It is a false argument put forward by the right.. and it seems to be working given it gets repeated so much

Yeah.  Whatever.  Citing Australia as an example, where they had government ordered gun confiscation, is just a coincidence.  Pretty naive thinking. 

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2018, 05:15:33 PM »
Yeah.  Whatever.  Citing Australia as an example, where they had government ordered gun confiscation, is just a coincidence.  Pretty naive thinking. 

Australia doesn't have the US Constitution.. relax

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2018, 05:16:46 PM »
this guy was appointed by well known liberal POTUS Richard Nixon


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2018, 05:20:06 PM »
Australia doesn't have the US Constitution.. relax

No kidding.  They don't have their version of the Second Amendment.  That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense.  But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment.  Or keep your head in the sand. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2018, 05:23:39 PM »
No kidding.  They don't have their version of the Second Amendment.  That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense.  But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment.  Or keep your head in the sand. 

there is no need to repeal but I understand why you keep wanting to frame the argument that way


Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2018, 05:25:44 PM »
No kidding.  They don't have their version of the Second Amendment.  That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense.  But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment.  Or keep your head in the sand. 

Never wanted to repeal it. Im frankly perplexed at your suggestion otherwise

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2018, 05:26:23 PM »
this guy was appointed by well known liberal POTUS Richard Nixon



Strangely enough you used to be able to buy a Thompson sub machine gun out of the sears catalog for about $250.00 up until 1933. Some politicians brother gets killed by Chicago gangsters by 1934 fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted. So we go from 1776 to 1933 where your average citizen can pretty much buy anything to what we have now.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15439
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2018, 05:26:59 PM »
No kidding.  They don't have their version of the Second Amendment.  That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense.  But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment.  Or keep your head in the sand. 

I own 3 rifles (no military type) and 2 handguns. I carry a handgun roughly 12 hrs of the day. I think you have me confused with someone else

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2018, 05:32:15 PM »
Never wanted to repeal it. Im frankly perplexed at your suggestion otherwise

Yes, that is exactly what the left wants.  It just took someone at the end of their life with integrity to say it like Stevens. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2018, 05:34:58 PM »
Strangely enough you used to be able to buy a Thompson sub machine gun out of the sears catalog for about $250.00 up until 1933. Some politicians brother gets killed by Chicago gangsters by 1934 fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted. So we go from 1776 to 1933 where your average citizen can pretty much buy anything to what we have now.

Apparently it was the gun of choice by mobsters in Chicago during Prohibition

Good Times

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2018, 05:37:31 PM »
Apparently it was the gun of choice by mobsters in Chicago during Prohibition

Good Times

Yeah and if the stupid fucking government hadn't decided that making alcohol illegal was a good idea, that shit wouldn't have happened
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66389
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2018, 05:51:27 PM »
This is wrong, but did make me laugh out loud.   ;D

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2018, 06:25:03 PM »
Yeah and if the stupid fucking government hadn't decided that making alcohol illegal was a good idea, that shit wouldn't have happened

well you can now buy alcohol all over the country and pot in most states

I guess you'll have to find a way to deal with not being able to have a machine gun but I suspect that lack of one hasn't had much impact on your life.  I think bump stocks are still legal so maybe just get one of those instead

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2018, 06:13:04 AM »
well you can now buy alcohol all over the country and pot in most states

I guess you'll have to find a way to deal with not being able to have a machine gun but I suspect that lack of one hasn't had much impact on your life.  I think bump stocks are still legal so maybe just get one of those instead


And just like that the Al Capone's of the world lost their cash cow. I personally don't want a machine gun, but if someone else does more power to them. See that is the difference between you and me. I don't like something, I change the channel, or don't buy the product. You think it should be banned for everyone simply because you think that no one needs a machine gun.

And as far as the bump stock, its a stupid gimmick, but if someone wants one...............

I also accept the fact that some people are just simply fucking evil and will find a way to kill no matter the tool.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2018, 08:54:32 AM »
At least he is being honest about what most libfagcommies want but are to scared to admit

He is wrong and what he proposes is absurd (claiming it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment), but I can respect the fact he is being honest.  This is what the left wants.  They're just not honest about it like Stevens.

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

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. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of 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.”

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.”

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

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.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second 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.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Correction: March 27, 2018
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41757
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2018, 08:55:54 AM »
Apparently it was the gun of choice by mobsters in Chicago during Prohibition

Good Times

So what Grasping At . . .    - Mobsters mainly killed mobsters and thats it.