John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of 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.
[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter .]
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
* Emphasis by Calbab.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html
Tags
Who is online
392 visitors
Well, Justice Antonin Scalia is sadly passed on. So, what now?!
The NRA doesn't have anywhere near the power that the gun grabbers would have us believe. Leftists have no idea why it was created, what it does, how it is supported, and why it won't be going away.
Thanks to the good justice, this is wonderful news for the GOP. The Democrats will ride this repeal train all the way to the midterms and lose thousands of voters in the process. This action by Stevens is bound to raise the concerns of gun owners and will result in the sales of even more guns.
Gun oversaturation? Is that anything like too much love? Or, watering (loving) plants to death? Or, too much sugar in the blood stream? Or, the ravages of gambling?
Keep buying guns until they can not be hidden and safely kept any longer. Or, until super-abundance figuratively causes gagging at the sight of them! /s
Why do you point to the "leftists"? Only 1 President has openly advocated taking away your guns, and Trump is not a leftist.
You have no clue do you? My statement was:
And you reply with a cartoon about a private citizen. I know you have nothing, but will never understand why you are so proud to flaunt it.
The Court doesn't like to simply say, "the previous decision was wrong, so now we're going to decide the opposite"... but it has done so even in important cases. Brown v Board overturned Plessy v Ferguson, which had accepted segregated schools.
So there's nothing to prevent the Court from simply turning away from Heller.
Especially now that Justice Scalia is "resting" in his tomb. I do not like to speak 'exotically' of the dead, but this one time I will. "Boy, what a piece of (indulgent) work he left behind in Heller."
Not a chance liberals will take the honest route and repeal the Amendment. Much easier to get 5 judges to act as imperially and simply rewrite the Constitution according to their own personal preferences.
So, the unity of marchers, etc., etc. I seem to recall lots of anti-abortion Marchers and they return and march on D.C. every year. So, if we're going to repeal supreme court rulings based on protests, I guess 'choice' is back on the table, no? What else can we repeal by marching?
I think that is a poorly thought out statement that the Justice has sent out. Also, would he have to recuse himself form the discussion if and when it ever makes its way to SCOTUS? As he's already made his decision known prior to hearing any testimony.
Justice Stevens is retired. However, he was on the court from 1975 to 2010. Dissented on the Heller decision in 2008.
Yes, I believe that he was a Jimmy Carter appointee, and we all know how great Carter's decisions were, don't we.
Oops, Sorry guys. I got the date wrong. He was not a Carter appointee, he was appointed by Gerald Ford. Also not one of the brighter bulbs in the pack, even if he was from Michigan.
Why in. . . do you have to use character assassination to get your point across? Is Justice Kennedy any "dumber" because of who appointed them.
IT DOES NOT MATTER!
Who appointed who to office. Former Justice Stevens is speaking from his court background and elder jurist perspective alone. Let us be the big men and women we often SAY we are and let other people's words and ideas stand or fall in the proper context. Peace, TTGA! (Smile.)
Not character assassination. I didn't say he was evil, I said that he wasn't very smart and that the guy who appointed someone like that to the Supreme Court had to be a hard left winger or incredibly stupid.
No comment. )-:
Not true. He has 35 years of service (1975 - 2010) and we can thank Justice Stevens for that service. He is an elder Justice and as long as what he offers can breathe hope, growth, and new development into a tired old discussion like this, we, all, should listen. Because when we really look at it, kids just told us to, "Grow up."
In addition, did anyone notice that similar to what is happening in Media, Justice Stevens is trusting "babes" to wield the power of change. They are babes foremost, and aren't we being indulgent when we steal their one childhood away from each of them, respectively? Indulgent a lot.
You twist and spin. The tone-deafness on what matters here (the children) is mind-numbingly astounding. The children matter.
Remember Sandy Hook! Remember Columbine! Remember Parkland!
Remember Sandy Hook! Remember Columbine! Remember Parkland!
The three schools were not secure. If the children matter then put them into a SECURE school and GUARD THEM. Stop wasting your time and that of everyone else chasing around trying to outlaw guns. Going after guns is the wrong direction, it is impossible to accomplish. Do what actually works to keep them safe.
Earlier you mentioned the four grandchildren in my avatar. They are probably the safest children in the country, because they are GUARDED on a 24/7 basis by ARMED ADULTS (even though they don't realize it). The adults are not just willing to die to keep those kids safe, they are willing to kill to keep them safe. When they are in school, they are behind locked doors where child murderers can't get to them. When they come out of school, I'm standing right there waiting for them. The kids aren't aware that my job is not just grandpa and babysitter; my job is Armed Guard. In the town I live in, only 400 people so we know everyone, every neighbor watches out for all the children in the town at all times, and those neighbors are pretty heavily armed. And you figure that we should disarm ourselves and start trusting GOVERNMENT to do that job??? We don't trust government to do anything competently or without corruption.
It was not a backhanded compliment. I do care about all children, and I do so not having any of my own. I, like millions of citizens in this country, do not have the luxury of living in a town with only 400 people or any such number. We don't feel bad about it, either.
I am glad your family is safe. Now, can we make the people in larger cities feel safe too?! Small towns are fine, but they are not everything that a city or nation is.
How about the 3rd and 4th Amendments. They will be needed to control things if the 2nd is repealed.
We should suspend the 16th for a short time. At least until the government figures out how to handle money.
read this this morning over coffee, and what I take away from it and agree with is that the former justice , is of the opinion that the 2nd and its current interpretation of being an individual right is an impediment on the federal government in passing legislation.
remove the 2nd and the federal entity is able to make moves legislatively remove the individual right aspect , and no rights are infringed , which seems to make up the bulk of challenges currently.
I can see a couple of problems to this , to repeal will take another amendment to do so, can anyone think of 14 states that would not ratify such an amendment? if so the proposed repeal fails . another thing that would have to happen is the repeal of the 10th amendment to increase federal authority over the states , my reasoning is say the repeal of the 2nd passes , the feds only have authority over commerce that is made across state lines. they don't have the authority to regulate commerce within state lines.
the supremacy clause only goes so far.
he is entitled to his opinion.
I will also remember , all but the first 10 amendments have come about , through congress, not convention of the states , there has only been one of those , ever , and it was convened to fix the then governing document called the articles of confederation, instead the country ended up with the current governing document we call the constitution, so a convention of states , could run the risk of throwing out what we have now ,for something that is left to speculation. and in order for that to be passed it still would have to use the current ratification process, again , can anyone name 14 states that would vote against that?
You mean like about 90% of the center 2/3 of the country?
These are the problems that this nation bring upon itself with certain states and districts within insist on taking obstinate stances. People over time revolt and start looking for (demanding) ways to "punch" their way out of the suffocating control of their "oppressors." The NRA has become an 'overlord' corporation.
Better to work together for the good of all. Stop making the Second Amendment into a false God. Remove its Prophet: The NRA. It was not intended for "godship" at its creation and informed citizens know that!
In regards to your reply in 6.2, I will simply state I disagree, and you do not know me well enough to say if I even pay attention to what the NRA-ILA ( the NRA political watchdog arm) says or rates any politician , some people can still be independent critical thinkers , that have their own criteria , that candidates must meet in order to get that coveted "vote".
Obstinate as hell when it comes to the government stripping away our rights.
Not unless they're armed, they don't.
Hi Mark! My comment, written with one foot out the door as I had appointments today, was actually an EXTENSION of your train of thought. If you read it again with that in mind you will see that I am not criticizing your points. Indeed, your points brought some new thoughts into the discussion. (Smile.) Sorry, for leaving off any indicator of support!
You expect to go to war with the Federal government. . . again?? Really. Do you realize that the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to quell insurrections? For this reason alone the federal government was charged by law to put down the rebellious confederacy. The Constitution does not permit any group to succeed at overtaking its central authority. Insurrection: Oh, it's in there since the 1700s!
Uh Oh. Liberals are mad that Justice Stevens let the cat out of the bag.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/27/john-paul-stevenss-supremely-unhelpful-call-to-repeal-the-second-amendment/?utm_term=.1c3058b94ff3
Yes they are....especially if they pick up this idiotic idea and run with it to the midterm elections, it will be a wonderful gift to the GOP
From the article.....
Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment . The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans' efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump's 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican)
Why do these Leftist keep making that same old stupid statement "We don't want to take your guns from you, we only want more common sense gun laws"? And for anyone to insult our intelligence and expect us to fall for the idea this "March for Life" is anything other than a Leftist supported march to promote their agenda of taking away our guns is ludicrous. That has always been the Left's agenda in every country they have ever destroyed.
The everyday Democrat has obviously been brainwashed to such an extent they are unable to see what the agenda behind all of this and many other cultural changes their Party has been promoting. It's not what they're doing nearly as much as why they are doing it. Democrats and the MSM use to be really proud of Venezuela, the Socialist Utopia, but you never hear them talking about Venezuela these days. They don't have anything on the news about all those people who are starving, do they? It was fine when Hugo Chavez took over the oil companies for the people. The Left is always happy to see big corporations losing control of their companies, but all you hear today are crickets.
John Paul Stevens statement is one of the reasons we need to take back the power the Judicial system has stolen from the other branches of government. His statement is ridiculous for one thing.
Now what percentage of the gun ownership in this country do you think are semiautomatic guns, not weapons, unless they are used on someone? I'll tell you now, nearly all of them. Stevens has really gone into retirement, although he has always been pretty Liberal, he has crossed the line now and may as well admit, he is an out and out Stalinist.
So, stop trying to convince us you don't want to take our guns. Unlike many other organizations, the NRA are lobbyist for people who love freedom, not some government union where all the employees pay into them whether they want to or not or some baby killers and organ sellers who get a whopping half a billion dollars from the taxpayers whether they support them or not, but lobbyist for their members and yet to become members to protect them from a totalitarian government run by a bunch of Leftist who want open borders so they can import enough votes to assure their power until they don't need the votes any longer.
If this march was truly to protect the children, the children would be making speeches demanding they be protected from people who want to do them harm, not removing guns from the law abiding citizens of this country. And the Left isn't fooling anyone with half a brain in their head. We'll have our Liberty until the last bullet is gone.
Sixpick, that makes these corporations sound like a group for social workers! Give. Me. A. Break. Fine. There is a right out there to do so. I will fight for gun freedoms for the right people. I will stand on the bridge between the two extremes. Think badly of me, I can't be bothered to care.
SAVE THE BABES. THEY REALLY ARE DYING OUT THERE! NO JOKE—REALLY.
Repeal The Second Amendment? Absolutely not. Not necessary and would accomplish nothing.
Instead do this. Completely nullify Citizens United. Limit all campaign contributions to $250 per candidate per election. Every donation to every candidate will be an easily accessible public record. Any violation of these parameters will induce a fine of $100,000 per incident.
bb, it's nowhere near that simple in my opinion.
The talk about repealing the 2nd amendment is idiotic and guaranteed to initiate another civil war.
Further, either Stevens is mentally incompetent or deceitful. Heller didn’t establish an individual right to keep and bear arms.
that right along with ALL inalienable rights exist APART from the Constitution. A FACT affirmed142 years ago by SCOTUS
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 1876
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government"
And Stevens certainly was around when our nations leaders like JFK affirmed this fact
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
John F Kennedy Inaugural Speech Jan 20 1961
Exposing the leftist myth that mass shooting at schools are increasing
“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.
Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.
Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.
Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.”
Why do these Leftist keep making that same old stupid statement "We don't want to take your guns from you, we only want more common sense gun laws"?
Maybe because that is what THEY truly believe today and now, and that may be true, that they do not wish to take guns , but they cannot see that the mistrust is not in them , but in those that will eventually follow and again incrementally try and get more until all private gun ownership outside the confines of government approval is abolished. personally I'm not willing to take that chance.
personally , this call from a retired old justice, has simply affirmed something that has been said all along , that the only thing really standing in the way of more gun control , is the guarantee of the 2nd , since it is a prohibative amendment aimed at the federal government . Now count in the fact that the people in states themselves continue to elect , legislators that will continue to refuse legislation such as being desired , I doubt a repeal of the 2nd would even make it out of congress, that would leave needing 2/3rds of the states to call for a convention , AND if it made it out of convention , it would still have to pass the 3/4 , that means all it would take is for 13 states to not vote for ratification of the proposed amendment , can you name 13 states that wouldn't go along with a repeal proposal? and that is where it would die.
I do not worry about a repeal of the 2nd , those that approach it in a manner to disembowel it , and make it mere words on paper , do so at their own peril, at the hands of those that elect them .
I agree Mark, but if Hillary had won the election, we would have another Liberal Judge in the SCOTUS and the way the different branches of the government seem to be taking on powers that weren't meant for them to have, I fear they would find a way around the Bill of Rights. If they had the power right now, they would take our guns. If they had the power, it wouldn't be "We're not going to take your guns" anymore. They would do it if they had the power. Of course they would have one hell of a time taking them and I would rather die than give them that power. I'm not even what you would call a gun loving person, but I feel the day our last bullet is fired will be the end of the United States as we know it now.
Also, I agree, most don't even see beyond their belief that common sense gun laws will make us safer. I refuse to be the little old lady in France and have to face certain death or harm without being able to protect myself.
And with the deceit I see coming from the Left every day, I don't trust them. I am not talking about the people on this site, but the general movement of the country and especially how deceitful the MSM is.
"...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
-- US President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address , March 4, 1861
"I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government"
Of course it all leads to the question , if what is desired comes to pass, even in the slightest, who is expected to go and enforce it on those that refuse to consent and comply?
Don't want conservative guns. But can't convince you. So, good night!
Okay! How about a compromise, Mark? Just pass sensible gun laws that stop getting the children murdered en masse. And one more thing. Remove the NRA-ILA lobbyists out of politics. They are using coercion out in the open and informed people know it.Incidentally, look up the four occurrences of the word, "insurrection" in the Constitution. It's late. Off to bed. *Yawn!
Oh please sir...just passing more stupid, useless, senseless, toothless, and pointless gun laws will stop school shootings? And believing that restricting their 1st Amendment rights by keeping a group from speaking or lobbying will somehow magically stop gun violence? This is absolute ignorance and denial of reality.
Cal,
There is no such thing. No Gun Control measure will stop even one killing and none of them are "sensible". I would suggest that you read a bit about the concept of incrementalism.
Laugh and mock all you want, could it be there has not been any one you have to cry over yet shot down like a dog in a cage! Loose the talking point provided by the NRA, why don't you. As to the obvious lack of recognition, "Chief" Trump has already 'taken away and restricted 1st Amendment rights of a group from speaking or lobbying ' — "Look! Nothing up my sleeve, Presto!"
Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others
Published 12:24 PM ET Sun, 29 Jan 2017
President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
Trump has said individuals who want to aid him in his quest to "Make America Great Again" should focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people, not thinking ahead to the future income they could rake in by peddling their influence after serving in government.
"Most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work," Trump joked , referring to an array of White House officials who lined up behind him as he sat at his Oval Office desk. The officials included Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus , senior strategist Steve Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway . "So you have one last chance to get out."
S o Gre g, how's that 'taken away' stupid and denial of reality thingie sound to you now ? "Chief" got 'er done!
May 30, 2017
“Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017” Would Enact Lifetime Lobbyist Ban on Members of Congress"
S. 1189
T o provide greater controls and restrictions on revolving door lobbying. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.This Act may be cited as the “Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017”.
SEC. 2. Lifetime ban on Members of Congress from lobbying.(a) In general.—Section 207(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: “(1) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.—Any person who is a Senator, a Member of the House of Representatives, or an elected officer of the Senate or the House of Representatives and who, after that person leaves office, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before any Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress or any employee of any other legislative office of the Congress, on behalf of any other person (except the United States) in connection with any matter on which such former Senator, Member, or elected official seeks action by a Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in his or her official capacity, shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this title.”. . . .
Reference:
Yes, it's possible to ban NRA-ILA lobbyists from Congress and they can take their arrogance down the block! It wouldn't even bother me if those "money hand changers" had their lips poked out as they depart!
Remove anybody and anybody that is obstructing the business of life and its efficiency up to and touching the President. Understand me well on this! All I care about is the children! Lobbyists must be 'corralled" not left to range freely out of bounds, with no markers!
Throw them all out and let them reenter back in with parameters and punishments set on what they can do and accomplish. The so-called "peoples' advocates" have began to eat the people! We made promises to the children to keep them safe from as much harm as we can, and these greedy lobbyists are "eating them in their skins."
Do whatever is clever! I do not care how it is fixed. Just stop all this needless killing while defending a stupid and inefficient status quo with obnoxious talking points (if that is not you, then I do not internal this point).
Damn the NRA! Damn the NRA-ILA! Damn every last politician who cedes the points and circumstances to fear and coercion from powerful corporations! Damn 'dribble' talk.
People matter.
and is that not using coercion using a set of morals? to shame?
I decided to go look for the word insurrection in the body of the constitution and its amendments . found the one in art 1 sec 8. 15 the one about quelling rebellion and insurrection, and again in amendment 14 sec 3 about qualifications for service of office in government, could you please point out the other 2? didn't find them.
I will admit, I have seen SOME proposals that on their face would seem sensible , and reasonable , but once the details are looked into ( that place where the devil resides) they are usually frought with if not circumvention of an enumerated right as of now an outright violation, so please pardon me if I look at any proposed gun legislation with an eye towards how it could be used as a detriment to the execution or exersize of a right.
On an aside , please note that this country was born of the fires and violence of insurrection, IF the founders had lost their bid , they would have been charged and convicted under the laws of the day of rebellion , insurrection and treason ( another term that holds a Constituional definition) and would have suffered the pains of conviction up to and including death . good thing they won huh?
Nice picture in your header , I have one similar to the top one that has had the lockwork reworked to accept a precussion cap ( not uncommon for that time as advancement came about) that participated in Parkers revenge in the hands of one of my forebearers, I also have one similar to the bottom one but mine is AWB compliant as to NOT be considered an AW, meaning it was legal even under that defunct piece of legislation , and I have it because even though I am over the age of recall for service federally, my states laws state that I am subject to recall to service until I am 72 years old, but that gets into what constitutes what the STATE says is a militia , subject to recall.
Constitution
Section 8
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Yes, those men would have been ruined and worse. However, in those days, "to the victors goes the spoils." They got to make the rules for this nation that we celebrate and hold up as the standard today. Again, the Civil War was fought based on the foundational statement, insurrection can not be allowed to fester in the colonies, and in the nation!
Nice gun picture. I agree. It comes from the New York Times article. I am truly happy you have a gun heritage you can look back on with pride. I am not against good people with guns. I do understand the value of guns.
But. We pay our "leaders" what they ask for to keep us and the children, especially the children safe, and what do they do: They have left the children 'uncovered' and to fend for themselves. I am mad "all day" with that! Kids! Out there fighting with the adults who swear they will not let anything come near to harm the children! (*Ahem!) Mark, I'd better stop right here. . . .
I most likely disregarded the last 2 mentions of insurrection because it applies to what financial responsibility the government has in paying for the result of the action, where as the first one gives the government authority to qwell insurrections , and the second is a punishment of sorts for participating in an insurrection.
looking at the fact that the amendment is part of the reconstruction era that followed the civil war, keeping in mind that some in government wanted greater punishments for those that rose in rebellion, I take it for what it is worth, the government would pay for those that remained loyal , those that were not were shit out of luck and the government was not responsible for their financial losses, basically it was that way all the way up until the end of WW2 and the Marshall plan , you went to war with the US, and lost, you were shit out of luck.
Like I pointed out , our founders were insurrectionalists , rebels , committed high treason and could be considered traitors , and I am sure there are some in the UK that could argue it even better , but what is proven is , it only really applies if the insurrection , and rebellion fails. if it is won , it doesn't apply.
for a 243+ year old front stuffing smoke pole, it is still in serviceable ,accurate and operational order and gets fired at least once a year in Apr, usually on the 19th or on the closest weekend , its been a family tradition and a rite of passage sorts of with the eldest born male on reaching 16 years of age of the next generation taking the honor of first shot ( 16 because that's how old the forebearer was at Parkers revenge) . it has been handed down and entrusted to the eldest male until their death.
I came into possession 6 years ago. and I am the 6th in line to have had it since Parkers revenge.
Thus, all the more reason for the Central Authority/State to have the bulk of the states resources on its side should insurrection ever rear its MONSTROUS head again! Besides the idea of this country being akin to "North Vietnam and South Vietnam"; "North Korea and South Korea"; with accompanying Demilitarized zones and divided families is majorly repugnant!
Cal,
Rather than more gun laws, which will accomplish nothing whatsoever toward keeping children alive, why not try something that actually works. Read this article from a month ago.
This shows something that can actually do something to keep kids alive. Just constantly jumping back to guns indicates a completely different agenda than keeping kid alive.
Gun freaks keep repeating that blatantly false line (no doubt being fed and refed to them from the NRA propaganda pukefunnel). Fact is, the AWB dramatically reduced mass shootings during the 10 years it was in effect. It's been steadily soaring ever since it expired in 2004.
Great article. TTGA! I only want the kids and young folks to go to school and live like they did before they had to learn to live in fear of being shot dead by the tens. I am certainly willing to speak up for all projects which can be agreed upon and deliver positive effect of saved student lives, and adults too, as a bonus! Subsequently, kids willnot feel like they have to miss out on their youth, because they had to increase their changes of survival in classrooms adults made them "captives" and prey in!
I am not against guns. Uncle Bruce, BF, yourself, and others have made a tremendous and cool-headed set of arguments for why guns and the right hands is a blessing!
I do find what the NRA-ILA is doing by riding 'shotgun' over every gun topic is wrong. I probably will never give blanket-acceptance for NRA and gun manufactures to be "jefe" over what happens with guns in this country! Everybody should get to talk.
Afterall,. . . and this is a point I need to make. Please, think of it in the right frame its being shared in:
Gunowners appreciate and respect the power of guns because of long-time association, familiarity, and seeing its power to aid in getting out of truly dangerous situations. On the other-hand, individuals who do not use guns on a regular basis, if ever at all, are making a point too! That being, they have come this far—to varying ages—without holding a single gun or firing a shot! What's so wrong with that? It certainly does not make them a "menace" in any gun-sense. People who do not handle guns will never gun other people down!
Life works better when we see each other as people working wholly to solve a problem which is killing some of us, instead of dehumanizing each other. Peace TTGA! Again, Great article, Uncle Bruce!
Just stop it. Your delusions of being free end the moment you step out of your home (castle). Oops! You are not free inside your own home. Just fail to follow the laws of the land and even hiding in the sanctuary of your bedroom will be violated. The authorities will come in and drag you (any one of us) out of there, one way or the other, if it becomes necessary!
Delusions of freedom from rules and regulations from city, state, and federal systems are just that, delusions. Fight for what is right. Oh and, 'talking points' suck!
actually , they did , I believe , my greatX2 grandfather got to keep his springfield 1896 he used in the Spanish American war for the cost of $7 but he was in a guard unit and it was considered surplus, a great uncle got his 03a3 for $15 when discharged from the guard after WW1 and I think another great uncle did the same with his garand at the end of WW2 for if family lore is correct the sum of $35, I think they Stopped allowing servicemen from buying their arms when they upgraded to the M-14.
but then again , selling of surplus or obsolete arms has never really been a problem. most of those 96s and 03s were cut down and sportserized , I happen to have one of each that have not been , and are factory issue condition.
facts often not admitted, the mentioned AWB , didn't actually "Ban" anything , it grandfathered a bunch of firearms already in existance , and those that came on the market after it went into effect were simply manufactured in such a way as to leave off key elements (un needed actually to function) avoiding the criteria defining said AW, essentially the same firearm , without the bells and whistles.
of course , those that still think the AWB had any effect , don't like to be reminded that Columbine and a few other school shootings such as in Mississippi and a couple other places happened right smack dab in the middle of that 10 year experiment .
they can attempt to claim that it did have an effect , but the data shows that violent crime was already in a downward trend starting in the 70s, and surprisingly the data has shown from the uniform crime reports that homicide surprisingly is still going down even in light of events recently seen. meaning we are having less homicides , but they are taking the form of more extreme situations , I really hate to use this term , more made for tv and news reports to make them more riveting, more of the breaking news alerts.
Though I myself do not feel that a repeal of the 2nd amendment is needed, I will say that it should be brought into the 21st century (or at least the 19th).
Most of the weaponry available today did not exist nor was anticipated at the time of the amendment. Hand guns, hunting rifles I am fine with, high capacity clips and military platform based weapons available to the average Joe Blow, not so much, but then I find my penis to be of adequate size.
Oh you! (Smile.)
You are aware that the British , had developed and deployed during our revolution a breechloading rifle? that increased the rate of fire from 3 -4 shots to 7 accurately? that the development of musket caps started PRIOR to our winning our independence?
So yes , the writers of the amendment WERE aware that there would be advancements in the development of arms and yet they still wrote it as they did.
Times advance and so does technology. The founders knew this and they wrote in a way that is timeless or do you want to give up your magic box that can almost instantly transmit your thoughts and ideas to multiple people thousands of miles away from you and go back to quill and ink on parchment?
and yet the bulk of crimes of violence using firearms are committed with handguns , IF any gun is actually a problem , it would make sense to go after the one most used, but its not a gun problem to my view , it is a problem with society itself and what it teaches to itself.
And yet, the NRA actively works against any kind or regulation of those weapons especially in high crime areas of the country. It's clear, they and gun freaks in general really want the carnage to continue in those areas since it provides them with a constant excuse to attack those areas and try (in vain) to divert attention away from the mass killing devices used in LV, Parkland and dozens of other sites in this country.
It appears that the judge isn't aware of the fact that Parkland students with different views and alternative suggestions were not invited onto the stage in Washington, DC. Only one "side" was allowed to speak.
Yeah, that poor NRA never gets anyone to listen to them.
It's amusing to watch gun freaks try to slap together arguments about what men knew about the future over 200 years ago. At this rate we should be seeing the claim that the theories of general and special relativity were predicted by James Madison in 1787. But this argument from some on the gun control side about the killing ability of modern assault type rifles is off base and pointless. It wouldn't matter if the most advanced rifle was still a musket, the argument that anyone can have any kind of weapon at any time for any purpose is nowhere to be found in the second amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. Even Scalia specifically addressed this ridiculous idea in his majority opinion in Heller v DC:
Scalia also dovetailed that idea into skepticism about the idea that assault-type weapons were somehow foreseen by the second amendment and therefore "covered" by it:
Even Scalia allows that some weapons may be declared to be unlawful. It's a fact that the AWB existed for 10 years and and survived every legal challenge in the courts. Since its expiration, multiple states have enacted AWBs and SCOTUS has ruled against every one of those challenges.
No one serious about reasonable "well-regulated" gun control is advocating for that but I realize you think you've found a nut.
since we are talking about the repeal of the 2nd , I wonder what the reaction would be if someone proposed the repeal of the 26th?
the amendment that says 18 year olds have the right to vote.
back when it was ratified in 1971, one had to be 21 to vote , it was argued that 18 year olds could drink , buy firearms and were subject to call to national service (draft). all of which I agree with BTW.
well 18 year olds lost drinking because of the actions of a few so they now have to wait to be 21 to do so legally, buying a gun is being considered being raised to 21 , again because of an actions of a few, we no longer have a draft , but we do have selective service registration which can be used for a draft if need be.
all the reasons that were used to get 18 year olds the right to vote , basically either do not exist , or they have been taken away because they themselves have proven too unstable , immature , or emotionally motivated.
If they cant be trusted to make good choices in drinking or with firearms , why would or should one trust them to vote?
And if one was going to be repealed? which would have a better chance of ratification?
The only people talking about are ex-Justice and gun freaks who predictably are, of course, freaking out about it and hoping they can inflate into something real.
the only difference between an assault weapon and a defense weapon is who is holding the gun not what kind of gun it is or what color it is.
repeal the second amendment? now that is funny. hillary has a much better chance of being president in 2020 (ZERO, ZILCH and NADA chance)
you can thank soros for that one
Koch brothers funded the aurora shootings then..
Newp. Not on my watch, asshole.
How about Repeal and Replace?