Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

a reply to: TinySickTears

just cause you say a thing does not make it so.

Neither does refusing to believe a thing make it so.

At the end of the day, all that limbo you speak of exists only as a direct result of willful refusal to accept reality. Remember Bill Clinton, when he said it all depended on "what the definition of is, is"? That sounded so silly, it became a joke. But in reality, it does matter what the definition of a word is. And that's the trick that's been pulled on the American public: words have fluid meanings now, and when words have fluid meanings, there is no protection against anything. Even the Constitution is meaningless when it has no set meaning.

Just remember that the same specious argument you use against me to try and justify gun control can be used on you to justify restricting what you can say, think, and feel.

im very curious

I really don't think you are. I think you know exactly what you are doing in this debate.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

How is the army of the US going to be able to literally lock down and control the entire area of Red State US?

It's not like the enemy they would face is concentrated in urban areas, and even then there are far too many medium size cities for the army to control. Then you have the issue if protecting all those army non-coms when the locals get upset over being preyed upon by the military. Never forget that many of the rebal partisans are former military themselves.

Then you to wonder how lines of supply will be secured across the entire country.

Then you have to wonder how you compel rural folks, many of them Red Staters, to produce for the urban Blue folks.

Understand what we'd be looking at is a city/country battle.

You're just furthering the argument that people don't need to be armed in that case, because it wouldn't be groups of soldiers fighting each other. Another civil war would largely be terrorist attacks against citizens of the opposing side.

a reply to: Aazadan

One mans terrorist is one mans freedom fighter.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

One mans terrorist is one mans freedom fighter.

The types of fighting that would go on still wouldn't be the types that need military equipment.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
It wouldn't matter who is paying what, if all hell is breaking loose and you're told your neighbors are now the enemy.

ETA: Or members of your own family for that matter.

Food and other supplies still need to be purchased. Rent may still need to be paid. Soldiers will be forced to side with only those that can cover their families necessities. Unless a rebel group can do so (and doing that as a decentralized group is nearly impossible) the people won't turn.

Let me give an example, lets say an entire military base turned against the government. How is that base going to support soldiers with no supply lines?

If that base/those bases are doing this to uphold the constitution, there will be many that will join them. Because every service member makes an oath to that document, not the CIC or his administration that's in power at the time.

And if the situation reaches that point, then it'll be a logistics game. Gain control of supply lines or disrupt them. The military buys fuel from civilian refineries.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

An oath to the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution can't be changed though, if the 2nd were changed it would be completely legal, in which case threatening the government or the citizens would be acting against the Constitution.

a reply to: Grimmley

From Wikipedia:

The ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964. Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight assault rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow the infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Colt now owns the AR-15 and other manufacturers make copies of it.

The military definition of "assault rifle" mandates fully automatic mode. More precisely, it requires 'selectable' firing modes; semi-auto, burst, and fully-auto. From wikipedia:

The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is a United States military adaptation of the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.

The M16 entered service in the US Military in 1964. Colt began selling the AR15 in 1964.

The most fundamental difference between the two is the selectable fully-auto mode. Put a bump stock on an AR15, and you can achieve in excess of 400 rounds per minute. This is technically not 'automatic', but the result is effectively the same.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am curious though.
Since the shotgun thing is apparently illegal I am curious as to why you and others are not taking up arms against that.

I may be a lot of things but I'm not a liar. If I say I'm curious than I am.

I still don't get how you don't think it is up for interpretation when it clearly is. If it wasn't cases that challenge wouldn't even be heard

a reply to: rnaa

The military definition of "assault rifle" mandates fully automatic mode. More precisely, it requires 'selectable' firing modes; semi-auto, burst, and fully-auto.

That is the key definition right there. The AR-15 is NOT an assault rife. AR-15s can fire either 5.56n or .223 Remington. Still sends one bullet per pull of the trigger, hence forth not an assault rifle. The Ruger Mini-14 as in the following picture shoots the exact same way as an AR-15, same mags everything, but it isn't scary looking. That is the only reason why most of the people who want to "ban" them. Cosmetics. Nothing more. and it is a stupid argument. Most of the people who want to ban them cannot even name different parts of ANY firearm little lone what is or how it works.

The most fundamental difference between the two is the selectable fully-auto mode. Put a bump stock on an AR15, and you can achieve in excess of 400 rounds per minute. This is technically not 'automatic', but the result is effectively the same.

And with bump stocks you have no accuracy and are a waste of money.

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think gun ownership rights would be left to the states.

I think if they repeal the 2nd, the States should be allowed to secede from the Union!

States are allowed to secede from the Union. It's just about as hard to do as it is to repeal amendments.

I love it when you Constitutional scholars tell someone they're uninformed than immediately spew forth some misinformation.

It is NOT legal for states to secede:

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[53]There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[55] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[56] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I love when people don't read your post. I didn't say they could unilaterally secede. I merely said they are allowed to. And they are, it's just not easy. It would have to be approved by a Constitutional Amendment, which I'm sure you know is not easy. There is, however, an avenue for States to secede. It's not impossible. Thanks for playing.

a reply to: CB328

So the part of shall not be infringed means nothing? Seriously? How about no, because again, our Rights do not come from any man or man made construct.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shawmanfromny


First of all, I don't believe that repealing the 2nd Amendment necessarily means that the government will take away all the gun owners' guns in the USA. I think gun ownership rights would be left to the states.

Secondly, "The People" have a well regulated militia, several actually. They are called the Army, the Navy, The Coast Guard, The Air Force and the National Guard.

Third, an most importantly, there are no weapons that are available to the public that would give a neighborhood militia the ability to defeat the United States military, in the case of claims of tyranny.

You sure? Because the Great United States couldn't defeat a bunch of natives armed with Ak-47s in Vietnam, and we can't beat a bunch of sand people armed with Ak-47s, either. Even with all our fantastically expensive planes, bombs, and electronics, we've never actually 'won' a war.

And considering the United States population is the most heavily armed force on the earth, I highly doubt if they started attacking the populous it would end well for anyone in Government. It's all fun and games and Ipads until you start taking neighborhoods.

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shawmanfromny


First of all, I don't believe that repealing the 2nd Amendment necessarily means that the government will take away all the gun owners' guns in the USA. I think gun ownership rights would be left to the states.

Secondly, "The People" have a well regulated militia, several actually. They are called the Army, the Navy, The Coast Guard, The Air Force and the National Guard.

Third, an most importantly, there are no weapons that are available to the public that would give a neighborhood militia the ability to defeat the United States military, in the case of claims of tyranny.

You sure? Because the Great United States couldn't defeat a bunch of natives armed with Ak-47s in Vietnam, and we can't beat a bunch of sand people armed with Ak-47s, either. Even with all our fantastically expensive planes, bombs, and electronics, we've never actually 'won' a war.

And considering the United States population is the most heavily armed force on the earth, I highly doubt if they started attacking the populous it would end well for anyone in Government. It's all fun and games and Ipads until you start taking neighborhoods.

Not to mention part of the military would inevitably split to help the population in such a catastrophic event.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: shawmanfromny

What part of "not be infringed" does he not get?

What part of

The Constitution of the United States of America

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Which part of Article 5 do you not understand?

Again, the Constitution is the limiting structure for the Government to follow (and yes people trough out recent history have let it get bloated and eroded) and limit what it can do, not to limit what Rights are imbued to the Citizens of the United States, at birth, by their Creator. They are not granted from a piece of paper or at the good will of government.

Talk about a softball

That is as soft as the opposition can get

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shawmanfromny


First of all, I don't believe that repealing the 2nd Amendment necessarily means that the government will take away all the gun owners' guns in the USA. I think gun ownership rights would be left to the states.

Secondly, "The People" have a well regulated militia, several actually. They are called the Army, the Navy, The Coast Guard, The Air Force and the National Guard.

Third, an most importantly, there are no weapons that are available to the public that would give a neighborhood militia the ability to defeat the United States military, in the case of claims of tyranny.

You sure? Because the Great United States couldn't defeat a bunch of natives armed with Ak-47s in Vietnam, and we can't beat a bunch of sand people armed with Ak-47s, either. Even with all our fantastically expensive planes, bombs, and electronics, we've never actually 'won' a war.

And considering the United States population is the most heavily armed force on the earth, I highly doubt if they started attacking the populous it would end well for anyone in Government. It's all fun and games and Ipads until you start taking neighborhoods.

Actually..The NVA regulars finished of the VC because the US had depleted them to the point where their usefulness was at a end. The New bosses betrayed the VC.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Since the shotgun thing is apparently illegal I am curious as to why you and others are not taking up arms against that.

I answered that here already.

Perhaps you think a full revolt is something one can start after work and finish up in time for bed? I know that's how most protests work. No real inconvenience, just an evening out holding signs and shouting while walking up and down irritating other people. If you ask me, that's just show with no substance. Nothing really changes, but everyone who participated feels better about themselves.

That's a little different than what we're discussing. What we're discussing is open and direct refusal to follow a law, backed up by the threat of force. In other words, the cop that first reaches for a gun gets a face full of buckshot, then both sides try their best to kill everyone on the other side. At least most succeed. Then whichever side 'lost' calls in for reinforcements and we do it all again. Rinse, lather, repeat until one side has no more reinforcements... most of them are dead.

That's called a revolt and it is typically the result of one group or class of people continuing to try and subjugate another group or class of people. It is not something anyone who knows what it is takes lightly. The 13 colonies tried repeated diplomatic efforts, protests, and economic resistance for years before taking up arms. The Confederacy tried every method they could to resolve their conflicts via the Federal government for years before seceding. In both cases, the complaints were ignored until finally, one side revolted. The result was, in both cases, horrible widespread death and destruction.

Be thankful, not just curious, that no one has took up arms yet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grimmley

I thought Trump had already banned bump stocks? Or am I mistaken?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grimmley

I thought Trump had already banned bump stocks? Or am I mistaken?

TheRedneck

He called for it, but then had a private meeting with the NRA and backed down.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The 2nd amendment is what guarantees the other 26 amendments.

There was a reason the 2nd amendment is second in line after free speech / religion / press / etc.

We use the 1st amendment to talk to and argue with our government, to effect policies / legal changes and to let our government know where the people stand on issues etc. The 2nd amendment is present on the off chance the government opts to stop listening to the people and acts in a manner that places the citizens in danger.

The Constitution and its amendments does not grant any rights to the people. The rights have always existed and as such are protected from Government shenanigans.

While we do not live in a Democracy Sir Winston Churchill hit the nail on the head with this quote -

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
-Winston Churchill