John Paul Stevens: "Repeal the 2nd Amendment"

[5whiskey]

But it probably is time we talked among ourselves and offered something other than, "my cold dead hands"

I agree, and I think a lot of discussions we are having here on TFL are debating on what we as a community can offer. One of the issues is, many of us here just do not know how to resonate with the younger generation... which everyone here likely believes should be our target market.

[SIGSHR]

Yes, better to have an anti acknowledge the 2A's true meaning than try to "re-interpret" it in light of "present day circumstances".

[turkeestalker]

Stevens was believed to be a Conservative Republican back when he was appointed by President Ford, though that may've been in label only.

Originally posted by RC20:

1. I believe the 2nd was an overreach of philosophy as opposed to evidence that armed militia or a single armed individual is going to do anything about government.

2. Technology has changed beyond their ability to envision. Gun owners were accountable people, guns were expensive. Ability of a single person to wreck mayhem with a single shot gun was severely limited.

3. The 2nd amendment has been hijacked to protect the second amendment, not it intent of protecting the rest of the rights. You hear no comments about freedom of speech, press, association, simply to have a gun to protect the right to have a gun.

4. The drive of high production mfg to make profits by selling lots of guns has dumped huge numbers of guns into the system. Rather than safer they are more accessible to anyone from criminals to legal gun owners who do not have their guns locked up and get stolen and then into criminal enterprise. We had a gun shop break in that they are still tracking all the guns that wound up in felons hands. Most not accounted for yet. Those that are were used in various crimes and one killing.

5. While I never thought I would in the past, I am an advocate of being licensed, serial number and required to be in a safe of the AR and smaller semi auto (Mini 14) as well as handguns when not in your actual possession.

In no way am I saying that your view is Anti-American and I acknowledge that you see yourself as being very much in the minority.
Your view is vastly different from my own and I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate in order to help me to better understand your perspective.

1. How was the 2nd an over reach of what philosophy? How is that philosophy wrong in today's society?

2. How has technology changed beyond our Forefather's vision? Guns are still expensive, but do you believe that law abiding gun owners are no longer accountable people? Were all people who owned guns then accountable?

3. How is the RKBA not the right to protect all freedoms and not just the right of an individual to own firearms?

4. Are you saying that the manufacturers are in some way wrong to meet the demand of the available market? Or that they're somehow responsible for that demand solely to increase their own profits?

5. How do you envision a system like you advocate working? Where do you see it leading in the future if such a system were implemented? What successes and what potential for failures do you see coming from said system?

I would sincerely like to hear your perspectives if you wouldn't mind.

[RAfiringline]

>Never forget that this is the goal of many. And all of our rights are just a couple judges away from gone.<

Well, we know from Binney, Snowden, and others, that the 4th Amendment is essentially gone.

Through communications databases, they have all your comm network contacts (family, friends, work, colleagues, conspiratorial associates, militia buddies, etc), and maybe actual conversation recordings, and probably text from emails etc., and internet searches.

All of it going back 10+ years.

(And if you're posting in here, you're not off the grid and anonymous, are you? ;-)

Armed revolt against an outlaw government is a nice thought, but it will get rolled up pretty fast. All they need is a few dead bodies or captured wounded to identify and start the network analysis process.

I hate to sound all 1950's, but actual hard core non-violent political activity may be the only thing with any prospect of success.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Actually I prefer this to be the tactic taken. It acknowledges the power of the amendment while advocating for an approach that takes tremendous and widespread support which is unlikely to actually occur. Further it is a Constitutional approach and not some end run around it.

Same. All these laws like AWB's, magazine capacity limits, ammo background checks, etc. are all unconstitutional, it's just that activist judges know that a Prohibitionary amendment is impossible to pass, so they use their judiciary powers to make unconstitutional laws hold weight.

I'd have to believe that 98 year old Stevens is senile because he knows that an amendment repealing the 2nd is not going to happen. At least, not for a few decades.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by RC20

1. I believe the 2nd was an overreach of philosophy as opposed to evidence that armed militia or a single armed individual is going to do anything about government.

In the Declaration of Independence, written over a decade before the 2nd Amendment, Jefferson said, and the founders agreed, that "All experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer-while evils are sufferable -than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

They knew then that people were more likely to complain about problems than engage in the labourious, dangerous methods to fix them. The 2nd Amendment existed more as an act of deterrence in that any gov't that became tyrannical would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time trying to subject an armed people to their despotic whims.

2. Technology has changed beyond their ability to envision. Gun owners were accountable people, guns were expensive. Ability of a single person to wreck mayhem with a single shot gun was severely limited.

Technology is irrelevant to any argument regarding the Bill or Rights. That would be like saying that the 4th Amendment only applies to physical possessions and not emails, text messages, etc. Guns at that time were so simple that they did not require much to manufacture at home or in the local blacksmith's workshop. Thus, guns were always viewed as being easily attainable.

3. The 2nd amendment has been hijacked to protect the second amendment, not it intent of protecting the rest of the rights. You hear no comments about freedom of speech, press, association, simply to have a gun to protect the right to have a gun.

The right to have a gun is to be able to defend yourself, especially if it's from those who don't agree with your free speech. When I see someone like David Hogg, I see the reason why the 2nd Amendment was created because the crowds marching against guns are the lynch mobs that would be outside your door if you held an opinion about abortion or transgender rights that don't line up with theirs.

4. The drive of high production mfg to make profits by selling lots of guns has dumped huge numbers of guns into the system. Rather than safer they are more accessible to anyone from criminals to legal gun owners who do not have their guns locked up and get stolen and then into criminal enterprise. We had a gun shop break in that they are still tracking all the guns that wound up in felons hands. Most not accounted for yet. Those that are were used in various crimes and one killing.

Again, guns were always meant to be easily accessible, both for law abiding people and criminals. The Founders knew then that a criminal with a gun, highway robbers, whoever were going to do what they did and the resistance to those types was an armed populace.

5. While I never thought I would in the past, I am an advocate of being licensed, serial number and required to be in a safe of the AR and smaller semi auto (Mini 14) as well as handguns when not in your actual possession.

All of this is stuff the founders would have fought a war over. They were enraged enough to kill other men simply over taxes, let alone their ability to defend themselves.

I'll tell you this: the continued press to tell innocent and well meaning people that they are not allowed to own weapons will lead to the next civil war. You cannot tell people that their ability to defend their lives and their rights is not within their authority because that instantly means that they are subjects to be subjected, not individuals of free will.

[Crankgrinder]

I have questions. Are supreme court justices not sworn to an oath to uphold the constitution and the Bill of rights, one that they can be removed from office If they violate? and does a repeal of any constitutional amendment not require a convention of the state's where all of it, not just the one, would be on the table for repeal or modification and not only that but all laws based upon those laws, and even the boundaries of the states, and their union status, basically the whole state of America as it exists, is on the chopping block?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Crankgrinder

Are supreme court justices not sworn to an oath to uphold the constitution and the Bill of rights, one that they can be removed from office If they violate? and does a repeal of any constitutional amendment not require a convention of the state's where all of it, not just the one, would be on the table for repeal or modification and not only that but all laws based upon those laws, and even the boundaries of the states, and their union status, basically the whole state of America as it exists, is on the chopping block?

A convention is not required to enact an amendment. We've done it many times before with no convention.

As a practical matter, removing a sitting Justice who is part of the process that determines what is constitutional with a failure to uphold what he defines is going to have problems. You'd have a better shot at ethical scandals like the one that had Abe Fortas stepping down.

[turkeestalker]

I agree with you whole heartedly TruthTellers, very well said.
What I want to understand is RC20's reasoning.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Crankgrinder

...does a repeal of any constitutional amendment not require a convention of the state's where all of it, not just the one, would be on the table for repeal or modification and not only that but all laws based upon those laws, and even the boundaries of the states, and their union status, basically the whole state of America as it exists, is on the chopping block?

In a word -- no.

Read my post #12, above, which explains the process.

[turkeestalker]

Are supreme court justices not sworn to an oath to uphold the constitution and the Bill of rights, one that they can be removed from office If they violate?

As a practical matter, removing a sitting Justice who is part of the process that determines what is constitutional with a failure to uphold what he defines is going to have problems. You'd have a better shot at ethical scandals like the one that had Abe Fortas stepping down.

The key is to have Justices appointed who uphold the constitution as written.
That is why I say that the Supreme Court was the only issue in the last Presidential election.
It is highly likely that more than a replacement for Scalia is in the very near future, there were only two choices as to who would be nominating them.
A wrong one, and one as close to right as was possible.

[mack59]

The media highlighting this and gun control advocates supporting this is great news - it's a huge over reach and will contribute to a backlash in the favor of the RKBA.

[WyMark]

You guys do realize that this is a retired justice, right? And that he wrote this in a opinion piece, published on the OPINION page of the NY Times, right?

So no, a retired associate justice can't be removed from "office" for stating his personal opinion (believe it or not, even non-retired justices are allowed to have those) that an amendment can or should be changed. *gasp*

And the fact that I understand that it could be changed, or even if I understand that maybe it should be discussed, doesn't mean that I think it needs to be changed/repealed.

[turkeestalker]

Steven's opinion piece is of zero consequence, who is appointed in the future is of grave consequence.
RC20's reasoning for his views is of consequence to me, I want to understand his perspective.

He is a gun owner who supports his right to do so, living in what I take to be a gun friendly state.
I want to understand.

[Crankgrinder]

A convention is not needed to enact an additional amendment sure, but is the repeal of an existing one a different matter? and I find a huge problem with people who swear to an oath to uphold X but then say it should be abolished.Yes obviously a retired judge can't be removed doesn't need to be. He's retired. I don't know if it's supposed to be sarcasm or what but please spare me that much.

[rpenmanparker]

Exactly right. It is only the Bill of Rights as long as it is the Bill of Rights. Violating the amendment and seeking to repeal it are very different things. The chance of repealing the 2nd amendment is negligible, but that is still the right way for antis to pursue their goals.

[RC20]

1. How was the 2nd an over reach of what philosophy? How is that philosophy wrong in today's society?

Essentially the debate was the citizens vs the King and or one who would become King. How do you achieve a free and fair society (by their terms which was severely limited in voting rights)

As the Revolution was explaining new ground in overturning a King (not by nobles as was often done), then the reasoning extended on how to maintain that if and when (and ultimately was) successful?

Ergo the take was that an Armed Militia was what stood between the citizens and tyranny. That was philosophical in that it was not proven and in fact most militias were failures. What won the war was a standing army (that was also opposed) and the assistance of France with armaments and troops and their Navy as well as Spain (very unknown) with armaments.

While many ardent 2nd amendment believers won't agree, the other democracies have maintained a great deal of freedom and enjoy in some cases better protections that we do. They are not any more perfect than we are.

So, the 2nd amendment acualy enfranchises the right to a device, as opposed to concepts that are not, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (which does not mean you get to impose it on me)

What I have seen is that the NRA and the gun mfgs have used that for marketing for their self serving purposes. Growing up I can't remember seeing guns in irresponsible hands. Now, a good 25-50% of the shooters I see are untrained or downright dangerous and irresponsible.

2. How has technology changed beyond our Forefather's vision? Guns are still expensive, but do you believe that law abiding gun owners are no longer accountable people? Were all people who owned guns then accountable?

Freedom of speech ca be interpreted into modern terms and forms, because it is not a device. I don't alwyas agree with that (Citizens United is a gross abuse of that in my opinion)

The founding fathers could no more envision the Internet than they could the atomic bomb but freedom of speech does translate across, it not a device its a concept.

Gun on the other hand when translated into large numbers in hands of irresponsible people that shoot vastly faster than anyone ever could have imagined are a different story.

3. How is the RKBA not the right to protect all freedoms and not just the right of an individual to own firearms?

I have seen gross abuses of power develop in my lifetime. Gun owner have not done a single thing nor taken any action to stop that. All I hear about is the 2nd, not what its supposed to do.

4. Are you saying that the manufacturers are in some way wrong to meet the demand of the available market? Or that they're somehow responsible for that demand solely to increase their own profits?

Cigarette mfgs did just that. They distorted data, hid facts and incurred a disease upon the nation. I see the same thing with gun mfgs. I don't see a whit they care about the 2nd, they do care about making money. Laws are supposed to balance the needs of society, but Corporations have undermined that almost totally (hidden practices like mandatory arbitration on their terms anyone?)

We have lost vast rights, and nothign is being said nor done about it (and no I don't advocate revolution but I really don't like hypocrisy)

5. How do you envision a system like you advocate working? Where do you see it leading in the future if such a system were implemented? What successes and what potential for failures do you see coming from said system?

That is why I am talking about it. My wife who is also from a state that firearms play a significant role, is appalled.

Discussing idea like licensing seems to me to be a way to deal with it.

A test and mandatory training. Segregate out the issue guns (pistols and handy AR types) from Long Guns (idea, not a given)

The gun suicide rate is a national tragedy that happens so scattered that its not acknowledged in the gun community but is a major impact.

And I am not solely focused on guns. Medical irresponsibly is even larger when gross incompetence kills 100,000 (forget the number) each year.

I don't see the 2nd amendment adherents addressing that either, and I do think we have a right not to get killed in a hospital by gross negligence that is every bit as bad as getting shot by a scum bag.

I would sincerely like to hear your perspectives if you wouldn't mind.

Thank you, I think it needs to be talked about. I think generation or two from now can jettisons the 2nd. I like my guns, I love my shooting, I am distressed that my wife is conflicted (and many others) on the issue because she sees both sides.
easily jetision the 2nd.

[rpenmanparker]

I can easily visualize a Justice who would fairly interpret the existing constitution independent of politics while still disagreeing with it and hoping for changes more consistent with their political views. That is what it means to be impartial. And yes, such a thing does still exist.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Crankgrinder

A convention is not needed to enact an additional amendment sure, but is the repeal of an existing one a different matter?

No, the process is identical. The repeal of an existing amendment requires passing a new one -- QED.
See Prohibition.

[Crankgrinder]

I don't see how someone who is openly against something and calls it a "relic of the 18th century" can be impartial in its interpretation in any way. They just said they were against it, they called it a relic and said they hope for its repeal. That is not impartial that is contempt. I also don't believe in such a thing as "fair interpretation" whose fairness? And how fair? Bias is always ever present no matter where you look especially in our courts and people who talk about suicide and medical malpractice, these are not related to the right to possess "arms" nor is the right to "life". The Bill of rights doesn't tell you that you won't be killed and it does not guarantee your safety and it does not indicate that you deserve for someone else to be looking out for your safety. It doesn't indicate that the doctor you get won t make a mistake of do a lousy job it doesn't protect against emotional or psychological depression. completely unrelated issues that are not my problem, not the problem of society as a whole. You think a repeal of your right to the means to self preservation is going to fix all of that you've got more coming.
: )

[rpenmanparker]

What you don’t see is exactly how this country used to be governed. It is amazing how fair minded some people can be. For much of our history it was such folk who were elevated to the bench.

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by Crankgrinder

I don't see how someone who is openly against something and calls it a "relic of the 18th century" can be impartial in its interpretation in any way. They just said they were against it, they called it a relic and said they hope for its repeal. That is not impartial that is contempt. I also don't believe in such a thing as "fair interpretation" whose fairness?

How impartial are you? Why should John Paul Stevens be any more or less impartial? And how in the world can you possibly call that contempt? Contempt for what?

[Crankgrinder]

In my grandfather's town, there was a headstone in his cemetery that just said "the gambler". Story was he was most likely a card shark and was shot over a game of cards. His daddy, came home telling about what had happened the night of after he had been in town that night. I asked him about the cops, sheriffs, etc. He told me "there weren't any law not in those days". I know full well how this country used to be governed. If someone was a habitual danger to the community of behaved irresponsibly with a weapon you shot him pure and simple and/or he was hung from the tallest tree. It wasn't always "fair" but I just said to me there's no such thing. If someone acted crazy he wasn't out on drugs and monitored he ended up being shot and it didn't become a media circus or a national debate, the problem was over with right then. I'm acutely aware of how this country used to be governed and then, just as now, there was no "fairness" in it. People didn't fool themselves into believing in such things or into expecting it from other people. I still dont.

[Crankgrinder]

I never claimed to be impartial and I don't expect it out of people especially paid beurocrats. In fact I expect the opposite. How can you not see that being against something and advocating for its abolishment is a form of contempt for it?

[WyMark]

Again, he's retired. He's entitled to his opinion, as you are to yours and I am to mine.

I have contempt for many things and many, many people. So what? I'm allowed to do that. I'm a private citizen in a free country. So is JP Stevens.