Hey, you know I'm kind of on board with this line of thinking. Push the anti-gun movement to stop nibbling at the edges... just go for the whole shabang and suggest they propose a CC to repeal the 2nd. While this will almost assuredly work in our favor right now, who knows about 20 years from now?
John Paul Stevens: "Repeal the 2nd Amendment"
- Thread starter ligonierbill
- Start date
- Status
Hey, you know I'm kind of on board with this line of thinking. Push the anti-gun movement to stop nibbling at the edges... just go for the whole shabang and suggest they propose a CC to repeal the 2nd. While this will almost assuredly work in our favor right now, who knows about 20 years from now?
If in 20 years we are going to lose the fight we are going to lose the fight. Its not like nibbling on the edges is going to prevent them from being hungry to take the whole thing if they can. I don't think they will be able to. Various firearm battles are in fact being "won" (I know I said they weren't) in individual states.
I understand your opinion and I will not criticize you for it. By the same token, I grew up on a farm here in NC. Growing up, the common conception at the time was that anyone who did not have a firearm on hand and know how to use it was a problem, man and woman alike. Yes, for self-defense, but also as much for pest control, putting down injured animals, and hunting (eating what was killed). I feel like an ancient relic sometimes, but I'm not even that old.
Don't take it the wrong way, it is not a criticism of you or your wife. It's a show in the difference in culture. Just a few short years and one county away can produce a dramatically different world-view. It doesn't even mean that one is right and the other is wrong... just different.
And yes, lastly, I cede that I did not grow up with AR15s on the farm. But to be fair, it is a wonderful platform for varmint and pest control. Most of the Coyote culls we do have a lot of AR15s show up, though they are varmint rigs and don't look as much like the scary M4s, and it is one of the better tools for the job.
As SonOfScuba accurately points out:
Calling for someone to be labeled anti-American simply for advocating something you happen to disagree with is, however, quintessentially un-American. Not sure how or why pointing that out indicates that I'd welcome the change, but from small minds...
Advocating for a change does not make one anti-American.
Calling for someone to be labeled anti-American simply for advocating something you happen to disagree with is, however, quintessentially un-American. Not sure how or why pointing that out indicates that I'd welcome the change, but from small minds...
ligonierbill
New member
Interesting discussion. RC20, remember that Heller did not judge the 2nd to give unrestricted access to any type of firearm. In fact, while Stevens (New York Times op-ed) wants to get rid of it, many on these forums decry the fact that it has not been the basis to throw out every gun law in the country. SCOTUS has declined to review a number of challenges to restrictions, in fact.
As is often the case, extreme positions are the ones that get press. The result is a distrust of the motives of the opposition and no discussion beyond hurling insults. That won't change any time soon. Where they have the votes (think CA and NJ), the anti crowd will pile on punitive (and that is how they are intended) measures. Where pro-gun votes hold sway, not even the most reasoned legislation will pass. There does not seem to be any common ground. So we have to pick a side. Given the choice, I'll take the pro side, crazies and all. But it probably is time we talked among ourselves and offered something other than, "my cold dead hands". Hey, they have a sheriff candidate in NC that wants to make that a reality, and his audience thought is was funny.
As is often the case, extreme positions are the ones that get press. The result is a distrust of the motives of the opposition and no discussion beyond hurling insults. That won't change any time soon. Where they have the votes (think CA and NJ), the anti crowd will pile on punitive (and that is how they are intended) measures. Where pro-gun votes hold sway, not even the most reasoned legislation will pass. There does not seem to be any common ground. So we have to pick a side. Given the choice, I'll take the pro side, crazies and all. But it probably is time we talked among ourselves and offered something other than, "my cold dead hands". Hey, they have a sheriff candidate in NC that wants to make that a reality, and his audience thought is was funny.
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.
turkeestalker
New member
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:
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.
Originally posted by RC20:
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.
Last edited:
RAfiringline
New member
>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.
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
New member
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
New member
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."RC20 said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
New member
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?
Crankgrinder said:
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
New member
I agree with you whole heartedly TruthTellers, very well said.
What I want to understand is RC20's reasoning.
What I want to understand is RC20's reasoning.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
turkeestalker
New member
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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.
- Status