John Paul Stevens: "Repeal the 2nd Amendment"

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
1. How was the 2nd an over reach of what philosophy? How is that philosophy wrong in today's society?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Crankgrinder said:
A convention is not needed to enact an additional amendment sure, but is the repeal of an existing one a different matter?
Click to expand...
No, the process is identical. The repeal of an existing amendment requires passing a new one -- QED.
See Prohibition.
 
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.
: )
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Crankgrinder said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
My point is people who don't believe in the Bill of rights should not be sworn in to uphold it. They have no business being supreme court judges. I don't have too much faith in the legal system so I'm not a judge, or a cop for that matter. Leave public office to people that can seem themselves fit for it. Dont claim to be capable of impartial ruling when you know full well its hogwash .
 
Crankgrinder, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, isn't sacred text. That's why the founders, in their wisdom, included a mechanism for changing it. There is no contradiction between "believing in the Bill of Rights" and thinking that some parts of it could usefully be changed.

In fact I'd argue the opposite -- ONLY someone who genuinely believes in the rule of law would bother to advocate for changing it by established procedures. The folks who don't believe in the rule of law -- just go around it.
 
They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not agree with everything that's in it or how it gets interpreted by others. It's no different than policemen who agree to enforce the law regardless of their personal feelings about the merits of such laws.......or soldiers......or any other public servants.
 
It's been reestablished here many times about the entitlement to opinions. Mine is he's a dirtbag. pure and simple. As is a cop who imposes laws on other people but goes home and breaks them himself. He had every opportunity to say "i don't agree with x,y and z and thus cannot impartially rule accordingly" . Instead what did he say? He said "I xXxX do solemnly swear and before the end came the words..uphold and....impartial...and constitution of the United States." Pure and simple the guy is dishonest. He's a liar and he can't be trusted not with a seat on the supreme court and an astronomical salary not with fifty cents definitely not with my civil rights or yours. No the Bill of rights isn't sacred text and sure it's open to change or, being rewritten, or abolished and it's that kind of thinking means it probably will be especially if people like this judge are the ones trusted to its ruling and especially if the majority of the people continues to say its okay for people like that to hold those positions. I'll tell you this I've lived a certain way my whole life and I'm not about to change it because some people persuaded some judges and politicians to say that I must so that they can feel safe. I won't compromise on that.You? You can turn in your guns if you like.
 
I realize that this is an exercise in futility, but what the heck.

He's RETIRED from the bench. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller. He never lied about anything. Stating that he's a liar or somehow dishonest because he has a different interpretation of text in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is blatantly stupid. That's what the Supreme Court is there to do: argue about the meaning and interpretation of those very things.

Scalia and Ginsberg disagreed on virtually every ruling and were best friends, how could they disagree on those rulings on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights without calling each other a dishonest liar? Because they aren't/weren't idiots, that's why.

I don't think this is a concept that you are capable of grasping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top