Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

originally posted by: pyguy
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

Get over yourself! You and your gun toting friends can't overthrow the US government with your stock pile of guns. You can only terrorise "The People".

The USA's militia is made up of those bodies I listed, that are legally ordained by "The People" and supported by the people's tax dollars and the dedication of their sons and daughters.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment doesn't address hunting rights or "Stand Your Ground" rights of homestead protection. Those kinds of laws are adressed on state and local levels.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

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Am I right in thinking that an amendment would have to be repealed by another amendment, following the same process?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.

Off the top of my head it would take 3/4 of the States to ratify any Amendments, which means Kalifornistan and NY can’t do it alone. It would also mean other Amendments could be offerred, so those two “States” should be careful what they wish for...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: pyguy
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

Get over yourself! You and your gun toting friends can't overthrow the US government with your stock pile of guns. You can only terrorise "The People".

The USA's militia is made up of those bodies I listed, that are legally ordained by "The People" and supported by the people's tax dollars and the dedication of their sons and daughters.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment doesn't address hunting rights or "Stand Your Ground" rights of homestead protection. Those kinds of laws are adressed on state and local levels.

Someone needs to study a bit more Constitutional law.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

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.

Nicely explained! Well done. Let's see if it sinks into the heads of the masses.

a reply to: Lab4Us


One man's tyranny is another man's law and order.

Who declares themselves a militia, fighting against government tyranny? Would inner city gangs qualify, as they see laws banning their businesses in drug sales, prostitution, etc., as tyranny, and are only protecting their turf when they stock pile the weapons they use to kill the enemy. Can street gangs declare themselves above the law under the 2nd Amendment, claiming to be a militia?

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.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Any other parts of the Bill of Rights that are "hundreds of years old" that you're not cool with?

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.

No those are not militias by definition. And ORLY about not being able to beat the army. In a straight up fight yes but do you think they are that dam stupid? ALso A majority of the Armed forces would also split down the middle. They are beholden to the people first not the government.

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!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lab4Us


One man's tyranny is another man's law and order.

Who declares themselves a militia, fighting against government tyranny? Would inner city gangs qualify, as they see laws banning their businesses in drug sales, prostitution, etc., as tyranny, and are only protecting their turf when they stock pile the weapons they use to kill the enemy. Can street gangs declare themselves above the law under the 2nd Amendment, claiming to be a militia?

Sorry, I do my best to avoid debating straw man arguments. If you can’t answer your own questions, I’ll stand by my first suggestion to you...study some US Contitutional law.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

OK

Lets have a constitutional convention and just ADD a few amendments. I have 2 we can start out with.

1 The federal reserve can be made illegal.

2 War actions outside of congress declaring war can be illegal.


Thats to start. If you people want a constitutional convention NOW then I can guarantee that MANY amendments will make it into the constitution.

Thats how it works. You cant have a convention to ONLY remove aspects you dont like from the constitution. In fact everyone participating could ADD amendments to actually support gun ownership. It all depends on the votes and who offers up more changes that people agree with.

So if the gun grabbers feel lucky, try to remove the second amendment and see how many new amendments you dont agree with are then added and how fast it is all done.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: pyguy
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

Get over yourself! You and your gun toting friends can't overthrow the US government with your stock pile of guns. You can only terrorise "The People".

The USA's militia is made up of those bodies I listed, that are legally ordained by "The People" and supported by the people's tax dollars and the dedication of their sons and daughters.

Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment doesn't address hunting rights or "Stand Your Ground" rights of homestead protection. Those kinds of laws are adressed on state and local levels.

Someone needs to study a bit more Constitutional law.

Suggesting they get informed is offensive and unfair. Gun control propaganda is all they need.

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.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Good thing he's retired...

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.

a reply to: Lab4Us

a reply to: yuppa

Which of these deffinitions of militia apply to the second amendment, in your opinion?

MILITIA

NOUN
1) a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2) a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
3) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

#2, right? Because, you all need your guns to fight against the US government/military, in the case of "tyranny". Right?

I don't trust peranoid doomsday gun stockpilers to form a militia that protects me any more than I trust inner city gangs to protect my nieghborhood.

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.

Only Texas can legally secede. The could do a "Texit".

originally posted by: pyguy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The 2nd Amendment is meant as a check to a tyrannical government.

Which is why it's antiquated. You want to rise up against a tyrannical government? Vote them out because you sure as he!! aren't going to shoot them out. Our right to vote is also in the constitution and it's actually sill relevant. This method, of course, would require intelligence and due diligence on the part of voters to really check into who they are voting for or against. Not just taking the word of MSM outlets. So this method, of course, will not be used for a long time which is why gun ownership via the 2nd amendment is the default reason by which people think they should own guns to overthrow a tyrannical government.

All these pro gun people have never shown anyone any proof that our government has NOT been tyrannical for a very long time. Meaning that We The People have been ruled by financial tyrants for at least 50 years now. This is the tyranny that has been going on. They keep us with the rights to vote, bear arms, peaceful assembly, free speech and all the other freedoms that we think are so importnat. They could care less. As long as they continue to leave office much richer than when they came into office,(what are the odds that you will leave this life much richer than when you came into it?) we can have all the freedoms we want. None of what I pointed out will keep the money train from rolling in their favor and out of ours. The only thing that will do that is an educated populace who see's through the bulls++t and votes in a congress and senate that actually represents US.

So yeah, keep your guns. No one wants to infringe upon those rights, and now you know why. And while you're at it, vote down the local measures that want a tax hike to put more money into our schools. Schools that educate the youth. An education that is needed to overthrow a tyrannical government. Keep your guns with the equivelant of a 6th grade education. ( A level compared to the education people received 100 years ago) Your political leaders are counting on you.

And again, if you feel strongly about the argument I just laid out, feel free to scatter it throughout the internet on sites that will get more views from more influential people.

I know I will.

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.

We were fighting against our army in the revolutionary war, as citizen militias. The 2nd ensures that we are allowed to have the means to do so again should the need arise.

originally posted by: Plotus
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.

i doubt it.
the closest thing to a revolt we would see in the united states would be a hashtag twitter rant. maybe a selfie or two.