Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

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.

Even if its not a machine gun and doesn't function like a machine gun?

what is up with people constantly saying the constitution is a relic of the past and whatnot?

last i checked human nature hasn't somehow suddenly changed just because the time period has, in fact i'd argue under modern systems the influence of irrational emotional supported behavior has become even more dangerous than ever.

the constitution is needed more than ever to protect america from irrationality and oppression in the name of safety, prosperity and comfort, our constitution is not "obsolete" or "a relic of the past", it is needed now more than ever in the world of today.

why can't people try to work within the framework of the 2nd amendment to better influence gun regulation?
age limits
mandatory licenses for gun ownership
classification levels for licensing by tiers
an added on tax for owning a gun
mandatory training on gun safety and how to use a gun properly
mandating military service to teach responsibility with a gun and martial discipline

i could go on but my point is that why is every anti-gun proponent aiming for banning guns or "repealing" the 2nd amendment?

stop pushing so hard or nothing will get fixed and you will run the risk of triggering a civil war which strategically is not in your favor if it ever occurred right now.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

One would probably help you, the other would probably take your valuables and kill you/leave you for dead.

But they are the same thing because guns. /s

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti
.... And racing stripes on a car makes it go faster. A rifle with an adjustable stock, a detachable magazine, or a pistol grip, doesn't mean it's a military grade weapon.

originally posted by: Plotus

Try to take guns, there will be revolt as sure as the sun comes up.

Be that as it may, There still needs to be an official body who is capable of an altruistic look at the constitution, and it's specifics...or any constitution for that matter in the cold hard light of day in the 21st Century.
Had Thomas Jefferson been around now, he probably would be one of the first at the table. He certainly knew how hypercritically the application of the constitution was in the age of slavery, where the FF regarded their constitution as freeing themselves from the slavery of Britain, while black slavery was rampant in America as it was elsewhere, and indeed it was not until the 1960's that the true equality for black people was established in America, even though they were no longer slaves.

I think the judge is right, judges are pretty conservative people in regard to the law in a, if it ain't broke don't fix it way, but if they honestly see something that is not working, they will push to get it right.
As it turned out, Thomas Jefferson would have been a far more radical reformer than today's judges, but his altruism is much harder to find, a pretty confusing sort of guy it seems. The judge however, is just being honest.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

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.

The amount of people in the military are a fraction of legal gun owners in the country. The military would again split, likely down the middle, should something kick off. A fighter pilot might be ready to take off and drop some bombs on the people, but what about the guy fueling the plane up, or the guy loading the bombs? A single m1 Abrams has a crew of 4. statistically, that tank is gonna be dealing with a mutiny before it gets anywhere to fire on anyone.

I don't think the government would have a chance.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
What part of "not be infringed" does he not get?

Just thought I'd point out that if a piece of legislature is repealed then it's wording is really inconsequential.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Thats absurd.

Every civilian population on earth can over throw its government.

This isnt a movie. F22s arent going to rain down on uprising civilians. Who is flying them, robots?

In Mexico over the last decade, the federal government has had to arm and train "illegal" peasant militias that went to war with local police and Cartels...AFTER they succeeded in most cases and only to keep the peace since many LEOS were either dead or in jail in these regions after the conflicts.

Those peasants arent being terrorized anymore.

A uniform doesnt make you a legal army.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

One would probably help you, the other would probably take your valuables and kill you/leave you for dead.

But they are the same thing because guns. /s

Not because "guns", because "tyranny". And because one man's tyranny is another man's law and order. The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, it's about the people forming a militia to protect themselves against tyranny.

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.

This is why nothing gets done. Who cares about facts, when we can try to make policy based on emotion! And then whine about the NRA when even moderate Democrats won't get on board.

Dementia. How come this guy was allowed to be on the supreme court so long.

In a world where people were not so intent on deceiving others it would be nice to not have guns. But we do not live in that world and I doubt if it will ever exist in mankind. There are a lot of bad and power hungry people out there, we need guns. I would love having a world where people all lived symbiotically, but that is not what we have nowadays. Science builds better and better weapons, deceivers build better and better technology to steal what we have.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

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.

The amount of people in the military are a fraction of legal gun owners in the country. The military would again split, likely down the middle, should something kick off. A fighter pilot might be ready to take off and drop some bombs on the people, but what about the guy fueling the plane up, or the guy loading the bombs? A single m1 Abrams has a crew of 4. statistically, that tank is gonna be dealing with a mutiny before it gets anywhere to fire on anyone.

I don't think the government would have a chance.

As a former fueler I can validate this argument. People forget that when we sign up we don't take an oath of loyalty to the government. We take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of the President and the officers appointed over us. An order to violate the constitutional rights of the citizenry, even from the President, would not be a lawful order. Most of us wouldn't follow it, and the people giving those orders would become a domestic enemy.

This become a whole different discussion if the 2nd was legally repealed through the mechanism set forth in the Constitution. Then we'd be obliged to obey that, even if we didn't agree with it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

One would probably help you, the other would probably take your valuables and kill you/leave you for dead.

But they are the same thing because guns. /s

Not because "guns", because "tyranny". And because one man's tyranny is another man's law and order. The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, it's about the people forming a militia to protect themselves against tyranny.

Being in a gang and breaking laws agreed upon by the majority of society is not tyranny. Being arrested for words is tyranny.

A gang is not a militia. They do not fit any one of the definitions you provided.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

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.

The amount of people in the military are a fraction of legal gun owners in the country. The military would again split, likely down the middle, should something kick off. A fighter pilot might be ready to take off and drop some bombs on the people, but what about the guy fueling the plane up, or the guy loading the bombs? A single m1 Abrams has a crew of 4. statistically, that tank is gonna be dealing with a mutiny before it gets anywhere to fire on anyone.

I don't think the government would have a chance.

As a former fueler I can validate this argument. People forget that when we sign up we don't take an oath of loyalty to the government. We take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of the President and the officers appointed over us. An order to violate the constitutional rights of the citizenry, even from the President, would not be a lawful order. Most of us wouldn't follow it, and the people giving those orders would become a domestic enemy.

This become a whole different discussion if the 2nd was legally repealed through the mechanism set forth in the Constitution. Then we'd be obliged to obey that, even if we didn't agree with it.

Hey, my dad was a fueler too.

When I see people use that argument it seems as if they forget the logistics involved for a functioning military, which relies on people, at all levels.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I’m sorry maybe you haven’t been watching for the last 18 years how a well regulated militia “insurgency” beat the might of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan...also the Vietcong also caused chaos against the US during the Vietnam war.

There are other ways to win a war then just power in numbers hence why guerilla warfare works so well, it causes chaos and makes the opposition not want to fight it.

I strongly agree with people that there is a serious underlying reason why TPTB are trying there hardest to disarm the American public, not just take away “scary” firearms but totally disarm, it will be the end of the United States.

So, Stevens opinion remains the same as it was before and at his advanced age he's not changed his mind. It's just opinion however. He's just another bozo on the bus with the rest of us and his opinion holds equal weight.

The idea they can get 3/4 of Congress to vote yes and then 38 States to ratify, considering many Democrats are into guns, is just talk. Not going to happen now or in the near future.

I wish the founders would have had the foresight to include in the the wording of the 2nd the right to self defense by any means.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

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.

The amount of people in the military are a fraction of legal gun owners in the country. The military would again split, likely down the middle, should something kick off. A fighter pilot might be ready to take off and drop some bombs on the people, but what about the guy fueling the plane up, or the guy loading the bombs? A single m1 Abrams has a crew of 4. statistically, that tank is gonna be dealing with a mutiny before it gets anywhere to fire on anyone.

I don't think the government would have a chance.

As a former fueler I can validate this argument. People forget that when we sign up we don't take an oath of loyalty to the government. We take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of the President and the officers appointed over us. An order to violate the constitutional rights of the citizenry, even from the President, would not be a lawful order. Most of us wouldn't follow it, and the people giving those orders would become a domestic enemy.

This become a whole different discussion if the 2nd was legally repealed through the mechanism set forth in the Constitution. Then we'd be obliged to obey that, even if we didn't agree with it.

Hey, my dad was a fueler too.

When I see people use that argument it seems as if they forget the logistics involved for a functioning military, which relies on people, at all levels.

Same way they think the NRA is some abstract evil entity and not made up of millions of voters who influence their elected representatives through exercising their first amendment rights, the way our government was intended to work.

a reply to: shawmanfromny


He's just saying what those on the left are thinking.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's interesting that all the posters for gun control keep making claims we couldn't beat our military, without realizing that our military relies on air support, artillery support, and heavy armor. None of which would be usable in a war against the gun owners. Unless you don't mind all the innocents that would be killed by their use? And even with all that our military still can't hold a city they've been trying to control for 16 years. Kabul ring a bell?


So a war between us and our military(providing they actually try it) would be rifle against rifle. Our military wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell..

Roughly 10% of the population fought in our revolution against a far superior army, and won.

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's interesting that all the posters for gun control keep making claims we couldn't beat our military, without realizing that our military relies on air support, artillery support, and heavy armor. None of which would be usable in a war against the gun owners. Unless you don't mind all the innocents that would be killed by their use? And even with all that our military still can't hold a city they've been trying to control for 16 years. Kabul ring a bell?


So a war between us and our military(providing they actually try it) would be rifle against rifle. Our military wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell..

Roughly 10% of the population fought in our revolution against a far superior army, and won.

Not to mention the military gets a lot of their equipment from civilian sources. A great example is fuel. All our fuel comes from civilian refineries. The military has stockpiles but after a bit you wouldn't be able to fly planes anymore. Ground vehicles would be a problem too, eventually you're going to have to start stealing fuel from civilian sources, and that's going to turn even more of the population against you, and that's going to run out too if refineries won't supply you. Are you gonna have untrained Army soldiers go in and run the refineries?

There's a lot of problems with these scenarios.