Former SCOTUS justice calls for 2nd amendment to be repealed..

[Someotherguy]

Getting closer and closer...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-stevens-says-second-amendment-should-be-repealed.html

 

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, once the leader of the court's liberals, said the “schoolchildren and their supporters” who have been demonstrating against school shootings should “seek more effective and more lasting reform.”

“They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Stevens wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times on Tuesday.

 

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.”

Repealing the Second Amendment, he argued, is the most effective way to stop school shootings. Stevens retired from the court in 2010.

“That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” Stevens said. “It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world.”

 

Repealing the Second Amendment would be extraordinarily difficult for anti-gun activists to do. That would require both houses of Congress proposing the amendment with a two-thirds vote, or two thirds of state legislatures calling on Congress to hold a constitutional convention. It would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states or state legislatures.

In his op-ed, Stevens also railed against the 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller decision that established an individual right to bear arms.

“That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” Stevens said. “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

There has been a renewed push for gun control since February's school shooting in Parkland, Florida. But there has been no serious push by Democrats to repeal the amendment.

But speaking to conservatives last month, President Trump said he believes Democrats would try to repeal the Second Amendment if they take back control of the government.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Someotherguy

[bersaguy]

I'm sure glad in the first sentence of the second paragraph they made it clear that he was the liberials leader while on the court. If they are going to start removing the Bill of rights let them start with the 1st amendment and that will shut him up. I  myself would like to know how many of those kids in DC marching were of or near voting age? I would also like to know how many homes of those kids in the march had guns in the homes they live in?.................JMHO

[gregintenn]

That would be the correct and legal way to go about enacting gun control. Every infringement up until that happens is illegal and unconstitutional.

[Omega]

Sounds like another anti-American fool to me, probably already succumbed to Alzheimers. This is where the danger lies, with liberal justices that want to change the Constitution instead of defending it.  Good thing he is retired, anyone with this attitude should be pulled from SCOTUS or any federal court immediately!

[Chucktshoes]

I can at least respect the honesty of his position. 

[Omega]

9 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I can at least respect the honesty of his position. 

Sure now he is honest, at 97 and retired what does he have to lose?  But no, no respect from me.

[Chucktshoes]

3 minutes ago, Omega said:

Sure now he is honest, at 97 and retired what does he have to lose?  But no, no respect from me.

An honest enemy I can respect. A false friend not so much. 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

One relic commenting on another supposed relic, I suppose.

I will acknowledge his right to say such a thing.

Respect it?

Never.

It flies in the face of everyone who has taken arms, living and dead, in service to this country. That a former member of SCOTUS should say such a thing,  IMO, falls under the "aid and comfort" clause of U. S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, paragraph 2381.

SWC

[DaveTN]

It’s not getting any closer. If you look at the requirements to repeal the 2nd amendment; they could never be met. That’s why the liberals haven’t tried.

Gun control by the individual states is the closest they will ever get; and that could happen. But they still have to be reasonable restrictions.

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

An honest enemy I can respect. A false friend not so much. 

I just had an anti-gun coworker praise this article and then 10 minutes later claim "I'm not saying we should ban guns". Then he contradicted himself a 2nd time and said he didn't think we should have AR-15's. It isn't possible to have a rational discussion with someone when they are not even being honest in their beliefs. 

[Someotherguy]

30 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I just had an anti-gun coworker praise this article and then 10 minutes later claim "I'm not saying we should ban guns". Then he contradicted himself a 2nd time and said he didn't think we should have AR-15's. It isn't possible to have a rational discussion with someone when they are not even being honest in their beliefs. 

The hypocrisy of the gun grabbing left runs deep, real deep...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/al-sharptons-half-brother-charged-with-capital-murder-in-alabama-shooting.html

[peejman]

25 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I just had an anti-gun coworker praise this article and then 10 minutes later claim "I'm not saying we should ban guns". Then he contradicted himself a 2nd time and said he didn't think we should have AR-15's. It isn't possible to have a rational discussion with someone when they are not even being honest in their beliefs. 

The lack of rational discussion is the biggest problem. We can't let that go anymore. Shaking your head and walking away because you can't wrap your head around the depth of the crazy can't be an option any longer. We HAVE to talk about it. I can't say I have great ideas on how to reason with the unreasonable, as it can be akin to mud wrestling with a pig, but silence is no longer a valid response. As Jared Reston said, don't just fight the fight, win it. 

[QuackerSmacker]

I hope the left wing media and their admirers go absolutely nuts with this repeal 2A agenda, in time, energy and money.  Let them antagonize the great silent majority and exhaust themselves on the impossible.  THEY will then be the ones that find out what a slippery slope it is, and we will rejoice at the sight of them all piled up in a heap.

[btq96r]

What Stevens is suggesting is exactly how the Constitution allows us to amend it, a process which has happened multiple times.  We for sure don't agree with it, but we can't deny that it's the process by which we've consented to being governed.  Also, it's the one permissible avenue I've seen for what gun control advocates actually want.  Stevens just has the candor to voice it aloud where the rest dance around it as some kind of unmentionable...preferring to just ignore the laws applications.

 

4 hours ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

 

It flies in the face of everyone who has taken arms, living and dead, in service to this country. That a former member of SCOTUS should say such a thing,  IMO, falls under the "aid and comfort" clause of U. S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, paragraph 2381.

SWC

As someone who has taken up arms in service to the country, I'd say you're quite wrong. I couldn't even imagine who the enemy of the United States would be in your scenario, besides the mythical "them" or "the left", but voicing an opinion in a democracy is as opposite to treason as I can imagine.

[AuEagle]

This is a Representative Republic...NOT a democracy.

[mikegideon]

6 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I can at least respect the honesty of his position. 

Yep. They ALL want guns gone, and lie about it daily. Some are just now taking the honest approach. From the Soros party this weekend...  

BTW... leave the one in the yellow alone. He's mine

Edited March 27, 2018 by mikegideon

[mikegideon]

49 minutes ago, AuEagle said:

This is a Representative Republic...NOT a democracy.

Ding.

[TripleGGG]

15 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

Yep. They ALL want guns gone, and lie about it daily. Some are just now taking the honest approach. From the Soros party this weekend...  

BTW... leave the one in the yellow alone. He's mine

I'll take the couple bottom left. I like red and that guy is wearing red and pissing me off. 

[deerslayer]

And if the never-Trumpers had gotten their way, someone like this fruit loop would have replaced Scalia.  

[RED333]

17 hours ago, mikegideon said:

Yep. They ALL want guns gone, and lie about it daily. Some are just now taking the honest approach. From the Soros party this weekend...  

BTW... leave the one in the yellow alone. He's mine

None look like they could take my daughter hand to hand.

[mikegideon]

4 minutes ago, RED333 said:

None look like they could take my daughter hand to hand.

Oh. They think somebody else is gonna do it for them.

[MacGyver]

Stevens wrote the primary dissenting opinion in Heller.

It's worth noting however that Stevens was a Republican, who was first nominated to the bench by a Republican (Richard Nixon), and was later nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican (Gerald Ford).

 

[gregintenn]

17 hours ago, mikegideon said:

Yep. They ALL want guns gone, and lie about it daily. Some are just now taking the honest approach. From the Soros party this weekend...  

BTW... leave the one in the yellow alone. He's mine

Who's stopping the guy in yellow? ^^^^That sign is in "inciting a riot" territory, which is illegal. It goes well beyond peaceful protesting. Words have meanings, and as our former president says, consequences.

All of you who think you can have a rational discussion with these nuts are fooling yourselves.

Edited March 28, 2018 by gregintenn

[mikegideon]

8 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Who's stopping the guy in yellow? ^^^^That sign is in "inciting a riot" territory, which is illegal. It goes well beyond peaceful protesting. Words have meanings, and as our former president says, consequences.

All of you who think you can have a rational discussion with these nuts are fooling yourselves.

I have had a rational conversation with a few of them. Come get them. Bring bandaids. 

[MacGyver]

I'm afraid rationality is probably out when it comes to a discussion with them - or at least most of them. Most of them are just as entrenched as most of us.

Therein lies the problem.