Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed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 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.”

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

Poor guy lost his mind.

“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.”

What part of "not be infringed" does he not get? No faster way to start a civil war in this country, if Democrats take back control of the government and try to repeal our 2nd Amendment rights.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

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

Can people still have opinions?

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?

This. People are allowed to be as wrong as they wish.

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?

Nope. And apparently it's all those damn leftist democrats fault he has opinions!
Shame on them!

John Paul Stevens is a “relic of the 18th century.”
Try to take guns, there will be revolt as sure as the sun comes up.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Good luck with that one dumbass

a reply to: shawmanfromny

i whole heartedly hope they follow his advice
it would be the end of the dems

and at least he is HONEST about his agenda

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Glad he retired then.

Stevens wrote the dissent in DC v Heller.

In that dissent, he states that there's no way a bunch of guys who just fought a revolution against a tyrannical government using a bunch of irregular troops who largely relied on their own weapons to fight would ever have possibly written a clause that allowed people to own firearms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and that the idea of a tyrannical government is an antiquated 18th century idea.

Because we all know that no government in the world has become tyrannical since the 18th century, and we all know the framers who just fought a revolution would definitely not see any reason for the guys who just fought the revolution to be able to do so again.

I say he's a “relic of the 18th century.”

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.

He has some support among Democrats.

Linky

The survey is linked right in the beginning of the article. The question is on page 65 of the linked document.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shawmanfromny

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.

This shows you don't really understand the 2nd. The entire point of the militia was to be able to defend against the Army. So "the army is our militia" is contradictory and simply wrong.

Unfortunately South Africa is going through what looks like the start of either a civil war, a purge or at least turmoil with the land issue (among a host of others). American's are fortunate that this is happening in that it will show that the state, at times, can not or will not protect some of it's citizens and that the only thing the citizens can rely on is a "well regulated militia" and the right to own and god damn fire arm they choose, including automatics. There will be resistance to this, but the dems will dodge any debate as usual and hide behind talking points.

The fact that we have an army and national gaurd means NOTHING to the people when it is used against them. The people have the right to protect themselves in ANY manner they see fit, with no regulation in any manner. When Gov doesn't do it's job properly, the people are free to act on their own accord ESPECIALLY when it comes to their own protection.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The 2nd Amendment is meant as a check to a tyrannical government. At the time of its writing, the militia was the body of the people, not a standing army! Learn a bit more about our history before putting your foot in it next time!

Py

Why is the opinion about the 2nd amendment treated as a left vs. right thing? Does one have to give up their guns when they register as a Democrat?

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
What part of "not be infringed" does he not get? No faster way to start a civil war in this country, if Democrats take back control of the government and try to repeal our 2nd Amendment rights.

Am I right in thinking that an amendment would have to be repealed by another amendment, following the same process? How many states would they need to carry that through?
But of course he ought to know the answer to that question.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Why is the opinion about the 2nd amendment treated as a left vs. right thing? Does one have to give up their guns when they register as a Democrat?

Probably because not one single liberal (that I’m aware of) has publicly stated gun control is wrong, that Americans have an inherent right to a legitimate means of self-protection, and that everyone should please quit forgetting the comma that separates the contentious line in the 2A into two ideas...1) A well-regulated militia ... and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms ... neither of which shall be infringed.

When enough gun owning liberals who believe in 2A start publicly stating these things, it will become much less of a left versus right thing and more of an Insurrectionists versus Americans thing.

Well, I mean the guy is old enough to have seen the constitution being written........

This is the Dissenting Opinion of the landmark Heller Case:

Dissenting opinions
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[52] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[52]

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

So, it's clear that this guy has never liked guns for the people. Also surprisingly enough in his old age, he doesn't understand the language and terminology used back when the Bill of Rights was authored.

He was a danger to liberty then, and still is now.

Thats the problem with appointees, they aren't representatives of the people.