Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

i think things should go back to how they were in 1787
all thing

makes sense right? nothing should change ever

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Poor guy is 97.
Poor guy is not a justice
It's an opinion piece

Can people still have opinions?

Um, isn't the OP just an opinion as well?

um, did i say the OP couldnt have an opinion?

Um, did you type this on ATS today?

Poor guy is 97. Poor guy is not a justice It's an opinion piece Can people still have opinions?

What did you mean here?

a reply to: TinySickTears

not if you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, the intention behind the second amendment is noted in federalist paper no.46, the intention is for the people having the ability to overwhelm any military force whether foreign or domestic by sheer numbers of arms, without the second amendment the people would no longer be secure from tyranny or invasion.

once you compromise the foundation of the whole american system provided by the constitution for some safety, you destroy any meaning it ever had and it will no longer have any legitimacy or the power to protect the people.

don't compromise the constitution or you compromise our national security and our human rights, what is so hard about staying within the boundaries of the 2nd amendment? why such vehemence? it's suspicious and smells of dangerous intentions.

a reply to: network dude

i meant just what i typed

hard to decipher?

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well the 2nd is hundreds of years old, and as far as I know the war of independence is over.

Using the 2nd to defend the purchase of military grade weapons is bogus. Preppers and psychopaths do responsible gun owners a disservice, we live in a world with thermonuclear weapons and arming yourself with a M16 with a M203 attachment won't save anyone.

There's a difference between repealing the 2nd and outlawing military grade weapons. I'm personally okay with a ban on anything that looks like a machine gun.

Because they look scary? That is the most ridiculous reason, and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.



And that is why that is the most uneducated response by people claiming to want "common sense control" on "military assault rifles"

Learn the difference and come back to the discussion, if you do not know anything other than what the msm tells you, you cannot even begin to have say; outside of the 'feelings'..

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: TinySickTears

not if you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, the intention behind the second amendment is noted in federalist paper no.46, the intention is for the people having the ability to overwhelm any military force whether foreign or domestic by sheer numbers of arms, without the second amendment the people would no longer be secure from tyranny or invasion.

once you compromise the foundation of the whole american system provided by the constitution for some safety, you destroy any meaning it ever had and it will no longer have any legitimacy or the power to protect the people.

don't compromise the constitution or you compromise our national security and our human rights, what is so hard about staying within the boundaries of the 2nd amendment? why such vehemence? it's suspicious and smells of dangerous intentions.

oh i see

once we read a bunch of essays then we realize that it is not open to interpretation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use The Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.

The amount of deference that should be given to The Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Not in the circles I've spent my life rolling with it isn't. Rural America isn't as beholden or smitten with the "first world" nonsense as you might think. Cities? Sure... rural? Not a problem.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well good for him! Not that I really care about his opinion as a retired SCJ.

His opinion in dissent on Heller revealed his opinion on the matter years ago. So this should come as no surprise to anyone.

So he's consistent, if wrong.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Without a standing federal government, the Constitution could still exist and be upheld, but without the Constitution, there is no legitimate government, period.

Without a vital, living, changing with the times(progressive) government, the Constitution might as well be a holy relic in a box.

You can take a progressive federal government, wad it into a ball, and shove it up FDR's withered, dead, mummified ass. The Constitution exists to restrain the "vitality" and overgrowth of the government, period.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Having a hard time finding any major downsides, man. Leisure time would be a bit bland at times, granted, what with no internet... but that wouldn't exactly be a bad trade off in any way, either.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then you've not been paying attention.

Bunch of folks in Afghanistan seemed to do just fine against the Brits. Then the Sovs. Now the Americans/NATO. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? Those farmer did OK, too.

You really should study up on asymmetrical warfare before making such statements.

I'll just leave this here when it comes to the Constitution of the United States.

1. This is not where our Rights come from, our Rights are inherent upon ourselves, by our creator, and inalienable, meaning no man can remove them without consent. - NO ONE. You are the only one allowed to surrender your rights.

2. The Constitution is the framework to limit the federal government on what it is allowed to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

They can repeal all they want, this still does not change the fact of where our Rights come from.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Celebrate this piece for what it is: an admission from a liberal Supreme Court Justice that gun control cannot happen within the boundaries of the Constitution without repealing the 2nd Amendment. His call to repeal the 2nd is loud and clear... he's admitting that it is sacrosanct to preservation of the free exercise of the right. They can't do jack snip about it, and that's just the way it should be.

Exactly!!!

I love how on one hand we have people saying no serious person would suggest repealling the 2nd or taking guns, then on the other hand we have very prominent people like stevens and others pushing for that, or other people defending them.

The one girl from parkland let it slip the other day, she said something to the effect of if they give an inch, we will take a mile. We will start with bump stocks, and then push to the next area.

You are right that Stevens has inadvertently acknowledged that the 2nd does indeed protects peoples rights to these guns.

What I find very amazing is that the same people that want new laws on guns totally ignore the laws we already have that are not enforced.

Over 100,000 convicted felons attempted to illegally purchase firearms each year during President Barack Obama’s eight years in the oval office, and the Obama administration did virtually nothing about it.

The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) only "considered prosecuting" approximately 30 to 40 convicted felons per year who attempted to illegally purchase firearms — roughly .04%, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported.

www.dailywire.com...

Or lets not forget the litany of let downs by law enforcement in the parkland case.

But instead of enforcing the current laws, it seems many just want to enact more laws to punish the law abiding.

It reeks of an agenda, one which I think many people see through.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

If it's reached the point of open rebellion, or even contemplating it, an electric bill is going to be well down on the list of priorities, close to the bottom I would surmise.

# it.

Repeal every thing.

a reply to: Lysergic

ATS should have a govt. censor here at all times. After all, the First Amendment is sooo 1791.

Freedom from illegal search and seizure, too. Heavens, who need that?

Yep, # it. Repeal 'em all.

a reply to: TinySickTears

no more controversial than your supposition that the constitution should be changed like any regular law because "the time period has changed", at least it shows the intention of the person who wrote and proposed the second amendment, at least it's not some "theory" based on the flimsy argument on how it's no longer necessary because the time period is different, despite the time period we find ourselves in human nature has not changed at all.

until humans actually change our nature through an evolution of some kind in the brain in regard to controlling others with force, until then the whole "time period" argument has no real validity in the real world.

a reply to: Plotus


The old man is just senile, pity is in order.

He is entitled to his opinion, the only issue I have with it is the way some members of the press are presenting his opinion with titles such as Supreme court justice says the 2nd should be repealed, when it should say retired supreme court justice.

a reply to: Grambler


It seems to me that the "us v. them" mentality has taken over. The citizens are considered "them", and the authorities are the "us". They get put in jail, we put on the handcuffs.

Government v. citizen