Former Republican SCOTUS justice calls for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to allow for significant gun control legislation.

The 97-year-old Stevens says in an essay on The New York Times website that repeal would weaken the National Rifle Association's ability to "block constructive gun control legislation."
Retired justice urges repeal of Second Amendment

Damn Republicans just want to take away all our rights! We need to fight back against this oppression! </sarcasm>

 

He's right. And of course repealing the weak man's amendment would not make gun fetishes illegal, it would just remove the sales-based influence of the fringe cult NRA and allow states to make the laws

 

I read that too!

I think it might be easier to amend than to repeal. I'm reading lots of environmental policy where this is done. They take the Safe Drinking Water Act or something and then rehash it. At least I think that's what's being done. The Appendix to the book has certain things mentioned with more than one date, which leads me to think they're amending certain policies.

 

All the SCOTUS need to do is interpret the 2nd Amendment like a sane person would and then rule on it. Like abortion. There is no explicit right in the Constitution that allows a woman to have an abortion. It's just how the SCOTUS interpreted the 14th Amendment.

 

Lest we forget, Stevens is a Republican, appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican President Ford to fill the position left vacant by the liberal icon Justice Douglas. He had previously served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, appointed by Richard Nixon. He was the last Protestant to serve on the Supreme Court since Niel Gorsuch. As he explained in his New York Times editorial re 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". Too bad other Justices have lost perspective in interpreting this relic to include a personal right detached from its historical context.

 

Well, when you consider that today's standing army includes, tanks, jets, nukes, aircraft carriers, a well-regulated militia armed with AR15s doesn't really stand much of a chance anyway.

 

Can't you see that besides the inferior firepower, we also have the members of the armed forces, who are on the side of their firearms bearing relatives and all their rights, on our side? No chance at all our standing military makes any move at all against any citizen for any reason other than self defense. The right to bear arms is about being nobody's pushover, and being able to look after yourself and your rights without relying on some fantasy group to come to your aid at the moment you need it.

 

Who knows maybe these people will get to test their fantasies. Hypothetically if there was a law that suddenly made gun ownership a crime. They would have no choice but to attack they have said so for years but are they prepared? Based on public opinion polls these people could find themselves against the American police, military, and most of it's citizens. It's not likely the lobbying of the NRA or the price of politicians will change in the near future.

There is money to be made talking and preparing for the war but no money to be made when the average American can't go to 7-11 because all over America small groups of 100's of people are breaking the law with public attacks and bombings because they are fighting for a way of life most Americans don't want. This kind of public terrorism is very possible and Americans are willing to do it.
They will view those who accept a gun free society as part of an evil goverment and their enemy. To take the guns will be "liberal" and "left. So much of the gun culture is already rooted in these people being their enemy and then when shit hits the fan they will probably be too stupid to own a gun. A lot of gun owners would probably rather just give it away then be part of a loosing battle when America is not really under any tyranny. But the risk of those who will not is tremendous. They REALLY love these things. Americans will not have to worry about Islam they will worry about the religion of the gun.

 

You mean like at Kent State?

 

Repealing the second amendment does not make guns illegal. I know that’s been said before but your response - maybe I’m wrong - makes me think you’re equating a repeal and an all out ban

 

My view on the US constitutions and its amendments is well documented and similar to that of Thomas Jefferson who wanted to have a new constitution re-written every 20 years or so

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia

*

He was basing his idea on generations, and life expectancy has gone up in the US since then so I think 50 to a hundred years would be best.

In fact many people have believed that the US constitution should have been re-written or dramatically altered.

Here is some historical background

Constitutional Topic: Rewriting the Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

^^^This.

I'll never understand the mentality that the Constitution is some concrete thing that cannot--nor should ever--be changed.

 

The US for the most part is run by lawyers. Changes to laws can have effects on the bottom lines of lawyers whereas creating a flood of new laws with every new administration keeps their wallets fat and happy.

I am positive that the founders did not have this in mind. Our government has become progressively more oppressive and the citizens have morphed into serfs and subjects. If you want genuine freedom, the iron fist of the government will come down on you. They enforce the laws with prisons and guns.

I can't help but wonder if the guns owned by the citizens are granted these days for reasons the founders could not imagine. Could it be they specifically want us at each other's throats, fighting over trite issues like skin color and political leanings?

 

Bam.

Too bad this isn't in the Constitution, then people would take it as gospel

 

Since so of them were lawyers, I wouldn't be so sure. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers. Of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

Really? I guess from the standpoint of a privileged white planter, sweatshop owner, or industrial polluter things are getting more oppressive. From the perspective of those they were oppressing, things have been looking up. Everything is relative.

I dunno. They were a pretty scrappy bunch themselves, and fought with each other with words that make our present day politicians seem like boy scouts.The Feuding Fathers
But they did at least share a common fear that some day a demagogue would be elected president and then use the power of his office to destroy the republic by transforming it into an autocracy.:"And they knew just what sort of character would do that: a flamboyant charlatan who lied at every turn, used those lies to channel resentments at the status quo into votes that sent him into office, and then did not scruple to abuse his new power to amass even more power". Our Founding Fathers Feared a Trump

 

The March for our Lives was a bad idea for gun control....

All the signs the protestors carried said horrible things about the 2nd amendment, gun owners, and flat-out said they do want the government to take guns away.

After all this time the media was trying to convince us "Nobody wants to take your guns. We just want to find a reasonable solution even if it means making it harder for psychopaths to acquire one." Lets let the voting base come out and speak how they really feel; they showed their true colors.

It blew up right in their faces. The cat is out of the bag. And now a senile former supreme court justice is fanning the flames.

Now the NRA donations are higher than ever. People are divided more and more on this issue. And the chances of gun control passing have greatly declined.

 

Oh no, the mean march for our lives people said horrible things about gun owners? You poor babies. And you always have such kind things to say about "the left" too...

I still haven't seen any signs suggesting we take guns away by force by the way

 

Well considering that a majority of Americans are in favor of some gun control I would say if any law were to be passed it would be one that gun owners did not like. They have had years to control their own community where they could have had the "reasonable gun laws" but they were not interested. So it's only logical anti-gun people will be frustrated and go the next step of thinking these people can not be reasoned with so maybe any gun is a threat.

 

LOL, a majority of Americans are in favor of replacing their government altogether.