Author Topic: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’  (Read 52661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,863
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
By Max Greenwood - 03/27/18 08:36 AM EDT
 
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Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood.

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.

While protests have so far focused on implementing new restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and strengthening background checks, he wrote, repealing the Second Amendment would result in more lasting change.

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380406-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,113
...repealing the Second Amendment would result in more lasting change.


That's for sure.



Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
He is addled beyond reason or reality.   The 2nd Amendment is probably THE most important amendment of all and no way, no how, would Americans go along with eliminating it....

no matter how much the radical leftists moist-dream about it.

No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
The 2A is a flawed amendment,  but it doesn't need to be repealed.  Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense.   Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right.   The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline LMAO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,256
  • Gender: Male
As a former justice, I’m sure he’s familiar with the Amendment process by which repealing the Second would be impossible.
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.

Barry Goldwater

http://www.usdebtclock.org

My Avatar is my adult autistic son Tommy

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
As a former justice, I’m sure he’s familiar with the Amendment process by which repealing the Second would be impossible.

Its impossible to 'repeal' a right enumerated in the BOR. To think otherwise belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis of the Constitution itself.

Although its not surprising a leftist would believe otherwise.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
As a former justice, I’m sure he’s familiar with the Amendment process by which repealing the Second would be impossible.

I agree that repealing the 2A is a practical impossibility.   But clarifying it to confirm the individual RKBA for purposes of self defense outside the context of a militia is both politically possible and desirable.  The predicate clause provides the means for future mischief - for gun confiscation on the ground the right isn't an individual right like the rights to speech and the exercise of religion.   

Just look at how the abortion right has been politicized for the past 40 years - many folks continue to be single issue voters out of the hope (or fear) that a new President will finally appoint the judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade.   Heller was similarly a 5 - 4 decision, and its holding is similarly imperiled.

It is time for the people, by means of the Constitutional amendment process,  to ratify the individual RKBA found by Heller.     
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
The 2A is a flawed amendment,  but it doesn't need to be repealed.  Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense.   Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right.   The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
If you read what was said in its historical context, there is no flaw. The flaw exists in the distortions thereof and the semantic contortions those who have tried to make the words say something they do not.

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed isn't ambiguous in its intent, nor is the concept of a well controlled army being necessary to the security of a free state--whether that army be controlled for the purpose of repelling invaders or whether it be controlled to prevent the military imposition of tyranny.

Reading the Federalist Papers will elucidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and the the relation to the debate surrounding the establishment of a federal Army. That the need was perceived by those who wrote the first ten Amendments to the Constitution to enshrine that Right in the Bill of Rights only underscores the anticipation that those bent on tyranny would attempt to disarm the People.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 02:26:47 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Oh no. Clarity of the amendment is not in question.  Misinterpretation is, and always has been the problem.

The predicate clause makes the right unclear in the context of the individual right to ordinary self defense.  It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to find such an individual right.   It is not merely a question of misinterpretation - the language itself has always been flawed.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
The predicate clause makes the right unclear in the context of the individual right to ordinary self defense.  It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to find such an individual right.   It is not merely a question of misinterpretation - the language itself has always been flawed.   
It took two hundred years fo stupidity and creeping tyranny for there to be the need to have the SCOTUS hear a case to affirm that the Right to defend one's self, home, and family exists.

Before then, it was pretty well understood, and a right we would affirm exists for all nature's creatures.

The SCOTUS didn't "find the right", it has always existed, it is just that people were not so stupid nor tyrannical on these shores to deny it to the point of needing adjudication.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
If you read what was said in its historical context, there is no flaw. The flaw exists in the distortions thereof and the semantic contortions those who have tried to make the words say something they do not.

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed isn't ambiguous in its intent, nor is the concept of a well controlled army being necessary to the security of a free state--whether that army be controlled for the purpose of repelling invaders or whether it be controlled to prevent the military imposition of tyranny.

Reading the Federalist Papers will elucidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and the the relation to the debate surrounding the establishment of a federal Army. That the need was perceived by those who wrote the first ten Amendments to the Constitution to enshrine that Right in the Bill of Rights only underscores the anticipation that hose bent on tyranny would attempt to disarm the People.

Yes, but - you assume that judges will interpret the 2A in the way you describe by reference to the Federalist Papers.   That's simply not a reasonable assumption.  Even a conservative jurist like Justice Thomas will look primarily to plain meaning and will pointedly NOT refer to contemporaneous writings.   The predicate clause is a real problem for anyone who asserts that right is a right with respect to ordinary, individual self-defense.  Yes, Heller confirms that - but Heller was a 5 -4 decision.   Put a Dem in the White House and the individual RKBA is likely gone.   
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 02:31:00 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
It took two hundred years fo stupidity and creeping tyranny for there to be the need to have the SCOTUS hear a case to affirm that the Right to defend one's self, home, and family exists.

Before then, it was pretty well understood, and a right we would affirm exists for all nature's creatures.

The SCOTUS didn't "find the right", it has always existed, it is just that people were not so stupid nor tyrannical on these shores to deny it to the point of needing adjudication.

Don't be naïve, SJ.  I know that's what you believe,  but the predicate clause cannot simply be willed away.   

The individual right to self defense is a judge-made right that is as fragile as the abortion right.  It is better to face reality and take steps to ratify and confirm that right, than to place your hopes on the Federalist Papers. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Yes, but - you assume that judges will interpret the 2A in the way you describe by reference to the Federalist Papers.   That's simply not a reasonable assumption.  Even a conservative jurist like Justice Thomas will look primarily to plain meaning and will pointedly NOT refer to contemporaneous writings.   The predicate clause is a real problem for anyone who asserts that right is an individual right.  Yes, Heller confirms that - but Heller was a 5 -4 decision.   Put a Dem in the White House and the individual RKBA is likely gone.
As I have already stated, the Right to defend self, family, home, all exist regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

Rights don't go away because some bunch of tyrants deem them gone, they exist, and continue to exist, UNalienable, regardless of decrees and edicts. Removing the 2nd Amendment will not remove the Right because the Amendment did not grant the  Right, it only affirms it.

As the Founders intended, the Right exists to help stop those who would try to take it.

As common sense dictates, 80 million armed people have not spent the treasure on firearms and associated accessories to meekly give them up.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.


There's no misinterpretation at all.  The founders were painfully aware of how arms controlled by a permanent standing army would be under the authority of the government and not necessarily benign to the people they're supposedly protecting.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.


There's no misinterpretation at all.  The founders were painfully aware of how arms controlled by a permanent standing army would be under the authority of the government and not necessarily benign to the people they're supposedly protecting.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Don't be naïve, SJ.  I know that's what you believe,  but the predicate clause cannot simply be willed away.   

The individual right to self defense is a judge-made right that is as fragile as the abortion right.  It is better to face reality and take steps to ratify and confirm that right, than to place your hopes on the Federalist Papers.
The individual right to self defense, the right to LIFE is and has ever been unalienable.
The alleged 'right' to slaughter your baby in the womb flies in the face of that unalienable right, and even the commandment that 'Thou Shall not murder.'

One of those rights is unalienable, one is a court fabrication.

Please revisit the meaning of unalienable, it is seminal to this discussion. A God-given Right to defend yourself is understood, but nowhere in scripture does The Almighty come down in favor of murdering your children in the womb.

That people finally got soft and stupid enough to question a right to be armed to defend themselves, enough so that their political servants thought they could take that away, is the only modern construct here, but even decades of Liberal indoctrination to the contrary and the creeping corruption of our servant class has not been enough for the government to successfully assert that the right to arm for self defense did not exist.

That it even required the affirmation of that Right by the SCOTUS is the sad result of 200 years of decay and departure from original intent.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Oh no. Clarity of the amendment is not in question.  Misinterpretation is, and always has been the problem.

Isn’t that what he said?

But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.

See how easy it is?

I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 02:49:43 pm by aligncare »

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Isn’t that what he said?

But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.

See how easy it is?

I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.
It is only through ignorance of the original intent and/or willful misinterpretation that the 2nd Amendment is taken to be anything other than an affirmation of the sanctity of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

No one who has trouble with such a fundamental concept should ever be seated on the SCOTUS.  That would be a failure of the nomination/confirmation process and those participating in it.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Isn’t that what he said?

But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.

See how easy it is?

I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.

If we accept this premise then the entire BOR, excepting what the State prefers to retain, wouldn't be worth the parchment its printed on. No thanks.

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,473
Once you repeal the Second Amendment, it won't be long until the First is repealed as well.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male

I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.

That's it, AC - and you expressed it far more succinctly and effectively than I did.   

It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted in recent decades to extend beyond its original intent to allow citizens to form militias in the face of potential government tyranny.


There's no misinterpretation at all.  The founders were painfully aware of how arms controlled by a permanent standing army would be under the authority of the government and not necessarily benign to the people they're supposedly protecting.

Those who insist that the language is not clear or that the Amendment is 'misinterpreted beyond intent' are simply those who seek to abolish your God-granted right to arms for defense.

It would not matter if it was plainly written that guns in the hands of the people shall not be infringed, those intent on crushing and abolishing your rights, will find a clever argument to strip you of it, and tell you that the plain words written do not mean what they say, or are not applicable to today's society.

It's pointless to argue this anymore.  They are going to abolish this right or regulate it into irrelevance for the little people come hell or high water and they are going to strip you of your right to arms, one way or another.

You simply have to decide whether to live as a slave and be at the mercy of the state and the criminal, or die on your feet free.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
The individual right to self defense, the right to LIFE is and has ever been unalienable.
The alleged 'right' to slaughter your baby in the womb flies in the face of that unalienable right, and even the commandment that 'Thou Shall not murder.'

One of those rights is unalienable, one is a court fabrication.

Please revisit the meaning of unalienable, it is seminal to this discussion. A God-given Right to defend yourself is understood, but nowhere in scripture does The Almighty come down in favor of murdering your children in the womb.

That people finally got soft and stupid enough to question a right to be armed to defend themselves, enough so that their political servants thought they could take that away, is the only modern construct here, but even decades of Liberal indoctrination to the contrary and the creeping corruption of our servant class has not been enough for the government to successfully assert that the right to arm for self defense did not exist.

That it even required the affirmation of that Right by the SCOTUS is the sad result of 200 years of decay and departure from original intent.

The right to individual self-defense is no more explicitly stated in the Constitution than the individual rights of privacy and self-determination that undergird the abortion right.  Each has been found Constitutionally protected by a decision of the Supreme Court.  But, in each case,  the right has been subjected to political attack,  and it is naïve to assume that the political blowback over the "judge-made" abortion right won't be replicated with respect to the "judge-made" individual RKBA.   

Better to address the predicate clause directly by means of a Constitutional amendment that ratifies Heller.  Otherwise,  you'll see the next Dem President and Congress ratify justices that will overturn it.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male

It's pointless to argue this anymore.  They are going to abolish this right or regulate it into irrelevance for the little people come hell or high water and they are going to strip you of your right to arms, one way or another.

You simply have to decide whether to live as a slave and be at the mercy of the state and the criminal, or die on your feet free.

You're so full of shit.   I know you relish the thought of armed insurrection, but the mechanism exists to ratify and confirm the individual RKBA without having to "die on your feet".   *****rollingeyes*****
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Some days, the news makes me feel like I'm in a really bad episode of Black Mirror.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.