Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 27, 2018
Author: Alex Pappas
Post Date: 2018-03-27 18:33:43 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 1356
Comments: 21
Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed Alex Pappas Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling to repeal the Second Amendment. A look at his reasoning and why he argues it should be repealed. John Paul Stevens, the 97-year-old retired Supreme Court justice, is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment and is encouraging anti-gun protesters to do the same. Stevens, once the leader of the court's liberals, said the “schoolchildren and their supporters” who have been demonstrating against school shootings should “seek more effective and more lasting reform.” “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Stevens wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times on Tuesday. Stevens argued that the amendment – which states 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” – is a “relic of the 18th century.” Repealing the Second Amendment, he argued, is the most effective way to stop school shootings. Stevens retired from the court in 2010. “That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” Stevens said. “It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world.” Tucker: Sen. Bernie Sanders and Gov. Andrew Cuomo went to anti-gun rallies escorted by armed bodyguards. In republic like ours, the rulers are supposed to hold themselves to the same standards as the ruled. You can't surround yourself with an armed retinue and then tell citizens they don't have a right to own guns themselves. #TuckerVideo Tucker: Left-wing pols protest guns, have armed guards Repealing the Second Amendment would be extraordinarily difficult for anti-gun activists to do. That would require both houses of Congress proposing the amendment with a two-thirds vote, or two thirds of state legislatures calling on Congress to hold a constitutional convention. It would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states or state legislatures. In his op-ed, Stevens also railed against the 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller decision that established an individual right to bear arms. “That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” Stevens said. “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.” Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Tuesday that the gun-control lobby is “no longer distancing themselves from the radical idea of repealing the Second Amendment and banning all firearms.” “The men and women of the National Rifle Association, along with the majority of the American people and the Supreme Court, believe in the Second Amendment right to self-protection and we will unapologetically continue to fight to protect this fundamental freedom,” Cox said. There has been a renewed push for gun control since February's school shooting in Parkland, Fla. But there has been no serious push by Democrats to repeal the amendment. But speaking to conservatives last month, President Trump said he believes Democrats would try to repeal the Second Amendment if they take back control of the government. “They will take away your Second Amendment, which we will never allow to happen,” Trump said. Poster Comment: Stevens also railed against the 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller decision that established an individual right to bear arms. “That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable ----- . It's not debatable, in my opinion, because our right to arms is inalienable.. A basic right, like life and liberty... Thus, ---- it's repeal would be unconstitutional.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
No change of the constitution is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the means by which it may be amended. The terms are hard to meet, but if met, the change is constitutional. Whether it is sensible, logical, or moral is a separate question. The Constitution can be amended to remove the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, given that the right is in it, the ONLY legitimate way to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms is to amend the Constitution. Truth is, the votes don't exist to do it.
As usual you ignore my basic argument: ------ Our right to arms is inalienable.. A basic right, like life and liberty... ---- Thus, ---- it's repeal would be unconstitutional. I suspect you ignore the above because you're unable to address it?
What makes this "right" inalienable? Is it because it is stated as such by the US constitution?
Hopefully, you making 98 gets repealed by Mother Nature. Die, you snowflake bitch I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Because we will hunt you down if you try to take it away.
That may be true. But trying to take peoples guns is an act of war that can legitimately be resisted with deadly force. Constitution or not.
Seriously, answer the question.
What makes this "right" inalienable? Read much? Our right to be armed, to defend ourselves, cannot be voted away by others.. Just as our right to life and liberty cannot... These rights are inherant and basic...
Just as our right to life and liberty cannot... These rights are inherant and basic... So, What makes this "right" inalienable? Is it a "right" because of the constitution? or is it a right because "God" said so...??? "endowed by our creator" as mentioned in the DOI.... What say you?
He must be getting senile, as even misterwhite was able to call him out on a mistake he made about the '33 gun act.. (On the other thread) But wishing death on him is a bit much....
I say maybe, being agnostic about our creator...
Well, yeah! That's how we got the Constitution in the first place: by winning a war of rebellion against the then-established government and starting a new one. If the people revolt, and win, the old law is swept away.
I think his retirement money should be pulled because he obviously got paid fraudulently.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Fair enough.
Real Americans support the Declaration of independence and all believe in God. Or you have no basis for inalienable rights.
Agree ! I also think he should STFU and go back to sleep. No one gives a shit what he thinks ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
I support the Declaration of independence and also support our freedom of religion, from an agnostic viewpoint. An agnostic view allows me to admit that I simply do not know who created us, or our universe. -- And at the same time defend our inalienable rights. Does that offend you in some way?
Maybe for a pussified sheep. Toughen the fuck up, kookifornian. Ain’t no safe spaces here. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You don't offend me. You're ok in my book. It would be wise to get off the fence though.
Repealing the Second Amendment Is Easier than You Think
Repealing the Second Amendment Is Easier than You Think Taking my weapons would be much more difficult I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
#3. To: tpaine (#0)
It's not debatable, in my opinion, because our right to arms is inalienable..
#4. To: tpaine (#0)
the 97-year-old retired
#5. To: Jameson (#3)
What makes this "right" inalienable?
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
No change of the constitution is unconstitutional.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Because we will hunt you down if you try to take it away.
#8. To: Jameson (#3)
Our right to arms is inalienable.. A basic right, like life and liberty... ---- Thus, ---- it's repeal would be unconstitutional.
#9. To: tpaine (#8)
Our right to be armed, to defend ourselves, cannot be voted away by others..
#10. To: GrandIsland (#4)
Hopefully, you making 98 gets repealed by Mother Nature.
#11. To: Jameson (#9)
What say you?
#12. To: A K A Stone (#6)
That may be true. But trying to take peoples guns is an act of war that can legitimately be resisted with deadly force. Constitution or not.
#13. To: tpaine (#0)
#14. To: tpaine (#11)
I say maybe, being agnostic about our creator...
#15. To: tpaine (#11)
#16. To: sneakypete (#13)
(Edited)
" I think his retirement money should be pulled because he obviously got paid fraudulently. "
#17. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Real Americans support the Declaration of independence and all believe in God. Or you have no basis for inalienable rights.
#18. To: tpaine (#10)
But wishing death on him is a bit much....
#19. To: tpaine (#17)
#20. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#17)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#21. To: Deckard (#20)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]