John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

[chaos]

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

Really? So you haven't seen the tons of pictures out there with "protestors" holding signs that say "yes we want to take your guns"?

[Dos Equis]

What is he babbling about?  It's almost incoherent. 

Biden: ‘The 2nd Amendment Is Being Very Badly Interpreted’ – There Is ‘Prostitution of the 2nd Amendment’
by IAN HANCHETT
30 Mar 2018

During a discussion at the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday, former Vice President Joe Biden stated that the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted “badly” and the nation has decided it can’t ignore the “prostitution” of the amendment.

Biden said, “I think there’s a 2nd Amendment. I think the 2nd Amendment is being very badly interpreted. It’s not consistent with what they’re — our founders intended, in my view. You saw Justice John Paul Stevens say that we should — because it’s been so prostituted, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. It was about a standing militia. It’s a long story. I won’t go into all the legal side of that having taught it in law school. But there’s rational or irrational policy.”
 
He added, “What’s happened here is, the nation as a whole has decided it can no longer, in my view, continue to turn a blind eye to the prostitution of the 2nd Amendment here, and no longer can turn a blind eye to the enormous damage being done, not just in our schools, but on our streets, right here in Philly and Wilmington, Delaware, where I’m from, every night.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/03/30/biden-2nd-amendment-badly-interpreted-prostitution-2nd-amendment/

[Kazan]

If it was designed with the sole purpose of killing humans like the M-16, Thompson, and AK-47 that would be military style.

You ignorant fuck, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.
 You don't like the bill of rights, I suggest you find another country to live in.

[Agnostic007]

You ignorant fuck, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.
 You don't like the bill of rights, I suggest you find another country to live in.

And Kazan goes on the "too unhinged to hold a conversation" list. Congrats

[chaos]

Not to simplify your post.. but does the good guy with a gun need an Ar 15 to protect his family, and does he need a high capacity round? Because for the most part, that is the argument.

In my opinion yes, I need an AR15 and 30 rnd mags to protect myself and my family from a tyrannical and invasive government, that is why the 2nd was written, right?

[Agnostic007]

In my opinion yes, I need an AR15 and 30 rnd mags to protect myself and my family from a tyrannical and invasive government, that is why the 2nd was written, right?

perhaps, but as times change, it seems like a rewrite is due. The government doesn't have muskets now.

[Las Vegas]

perhaps, but as times change, it seems like a rewrite is due. The government doesn't have muskets now.

Then how do you explain the idea of stepping-up restriction on our arms?

How's that work?

[Las Vegas]

If it was designed with the sole purpose of killing humans like the M-16, Thompson, and AK-47 that would be military style.

What if one is in the process of trying to kill you?

[Las Vegas]

The inescapable flaw in an anti-gun argument, is that it relies on pointing out the fact there are potential killers among us.

[Agnostic007]

The inescapable flaw in an anti-gun argument, is that it relies on pointing out the fact there are potential killers among us.

Would be awesome don't you think, if potential killers didn't have access to high capacity military style rifles?

[chaos]

Would be awesome don't you think, if potential killers didn't have access to high capacity military style rifles?

Do you think making them illegal is going to stop people from getting ARs and standard capacity mags?

[Las Vegas]

Would be awesome don't you think, if potential killers didn't have access to high capacity military style rifles?

I don't know that'd be true, for one thing.  More importantly, I can't expect it to "magically" remove his desire to kill - even if it were true. 

Bottom line, I know better than to expect those things.  So should you.

[Las Vegas]

What you need to understand, is this: A reasonable person has guns not to be violent, but to be peaceful.  To remain in peace, to exist within a peaceful mind, which is in perfect accordance with his/her rights.

So when you attempt to take away guns, you are (in fact) telling individuals that they can't have peace.  That it's no longer on the table to enjoy peace, but for reasons you cannot explain.  Now, that's some kinda mysterious and freaky shit that cannot hold ground.  Really, how do you expect them to receive your message?  Do you think they'll see you as friend, or rather as foe?  As a dumbass, maybe, in the best scenario?

Problem for you, as someone who wants to take guns, is that no argument can help you.  Nothing.  Not a single shred nor trace of reason exists within our shared reality, for you to rely upon.  SO, by that, your message has made you into an enemy (or a pesky dumbass, at best).  By your own choice.  That's on you.

Sorry, m'boys, but we rely on one another for reasoning.  That's what we're here for.

[Agnostic007]

Do you think making them illegal is going to stop people from getting ARs and standard capacity mags?

I look at Thompson Machine guns as an example. Not many of them around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daabd6bba97e

Here is an article from a researcher, and it contains information from people who study this for a living.

"Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”

The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.

On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed."

[chaos]

I look at Thompson Machine guns as an example. Not many of them around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daabd6bba97e

Here is an article from a researcher, and it contains information from people who study this for a living.

"Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”

The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.

On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed."

Don't feel like looking it up now but there's been other studies done that show "assault weapon" bans were ineffective in the number of murders committed.
These people that study this stuff for a living will almost always find the info that they want to believe and skew the results towards their personal interests.





https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

2016 stats....
Less than 400 people murdered with rifles, including the evil "assault weapons" you want to see banned, yet 4 times that many people were stabbed to death, nobody calling for the ban of knives.

[Moontrane]

I look at Thompson Machine guns as an example. Not many of them around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daabd6bba97e

Here is an article from a researcher, and it contains information from people who study this for a living.

"Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”

The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.

On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed."

The term “assault weapon” is not used by federal law enforcement for statistics, so we don’t know how many of these rifles used in homicides are “assault weapons.”  As stated above, folks use knives to kill 4x as many as they do with rifles.

The piece uses the term “military-style,” but that’s just based on appearance as opposed to actual function.  Marines don’t use the AR-15.  The piece uses the term “gun massacre” but doesn’t state how many involved handguns or rifles, let alone “assault weapons.” 

Handguns are used in more than 7,000 murders each year, and just about all are semiautomatic.  The worst on-campus shooting was at Virginia Tech: 32 slaughtered and another 17 shot with two handguns.  Bastard had 19 magazines, mostly 10-round.  One Columbine shooter had thirteen 10-round magazines.  The Florida school shooter used 10-round magazines.

California now limits magazines to 10 or fewer rounds, but that just makes those who own larger magazines criminals. 

It’s not about the magazine.

[Kazan]

And Kazan goes on the "too unhinged to hold a conversation" list. Congrats

And you have been on the list of dumbass's that don't know what they are talking about for sometime now.

[Kazan]

Article V : “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

There it is, what are the gun grabbers waiting for? No instead you play the, well we only want "common sense" gun laws  ,trying to subvert the constitution.

[Las Vegas]

Published data is limited in what it can show.   Information surfaces to be gathered when the worst cases play out, for the obvious reason that they've become notable.  The problem with that, is it lends itself to an idea that guns and related items are purely offensive tools used by criminals.

The best cases, in which everyone gets to keep their lives and limbs (and brain matter) intact, aren't going to generate public information to be related to guns.  The cases of potential threat being altogether neutralized, aren't going to generate any public information.  Few, if any, positive outcomes are going to generate information in that way.

It does show information-gathering throws itself at the feet of the anti-gun crew, though, and they still can't get it together.  Maybe that ought to tell them something during the rare times they may question their beliefs.

[Las Vegas]

Btw   No one here's my enemy, just want to say.  Anyone willing to try to work it out, and who appears to entertain ideas, is OK in my book.  The ones who run around with broken ideas and deaf ears?  Not so much.

[Las Vegas]

Isn't it funny to wonder if J.P. Stevens only wanted to blow the cover off these fuckers, and nothing else?  Seems he did it at just the right time, for sure.

No, but still.  That's what happened and it's a good thing for it to be in the open, finally.  We all knew it, but now no one can hide behind the lies.

[Yamcha]

SHALL NOT INFRINGE

[Agnostic007]

Isn't it funny to wonder if J.P. Stevens only wanted to blow the cover off these fuckers, and nothing else?  Seems he did it at just the right time, for sure.

No, but still.  That's what happened and it's a good thing for it to be in the open, finally.  We all knew it, but now no one can hide behind the lies.

Stevens is a Republican.. to use him to say Democrats are wanting to take your guns is misleading. Not saying you are doing this but it's being done. And as I said before, saying "no one wants" is probably wrong. Saying the vast majority of Democrats do not want to take your right to own a gun away is probably true.

[Kazan]

SHALL NOT INFRINGE

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.


What does it mean?

Well regulated means well supplied and trained, not what people think regulated means today. Why would the militia be the safe guard against a tyrannical government, yet then allow that government to "regulate" it?  

They felt so strongly that the militia is necessary for the security of the free state, they put it in the bill of rights.

Then they say the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why the people and not the militia? Because they did not believe the right to bear arms only applied to members of the militia.

They also say Arms and not muskets or whatever weapon was prevalent at that time. When people say that it only applies to muskets, that is like saying well then only print news is protected by the 1st amendment because freedom of the press, at the time meant the printing press.

Its not that hard to find intent, simply read the Federalist papers. They specifically discuss the right to self defense of the individual

[Skeletor]

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.


What does it mean?

Well regulated means well supplied and trained, not what people think regulated means today. Why would the militia be the safe guard against a tyrannical government, yet then allow that government to "regulate" it?  

They felt so strongly that the militia is necessary for the security of the free state.

Then they say the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why the people and not the militia? Because they did not believe the right to bear arms only applied to members of the militia.

They also say Arms and not muskets or whatever weapon was prevalent at that time. When people say that it only applies to muskets, that is like saying well then only print news is protected by the 1st amendment because freedom of the press, at the time meant the printing press.

Its not that hard to find intent, simply read the Federalist papers. They specifically discuss the right to self defense of the individual

Good post.