-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2015
- Messages
- 18
- Likes
- 8
Well, as someone who values the Constitution, that would be the only legitimate form of gun control I could support. And if two-thirds of the House and Senate, as well as three-quarters of the State legislatures agree, then by all means make that a reality I cannot argue with.
I ain't holding my breath though.
I ain't holding my breath though.
"For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
It was uniformly understood by oppressive government officials....not by free thinking Americans. Isn't it strange the exact items the founding fathers said were off the table for the government are the exact freedoms they attack.
"During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
An organization telling people who live in a free society that their rights are being infringed by the government is "fraud". Telling people to go out and exercise your constitutional freedoms is somehow fraud....coming from a government official.....let that sink in...
Burger is/was wrong and Stevens is an idiot.....The Second Amendment guarantees that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms has no limitations.
It was uniformly understood by oppressive government officials....not by free thinking Americans. Isn't it strange the exact items the founding fathers said were off the table for the government are the exact freedoms they attack.
"During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
An organization telling people who live in a free society that their rights are being infringed by the government is "fraud". Telling people to go out and exercise your constitutional freedoms is somehow fraud....coming from a government official.....let that sink in...
Burger is/was wrong and Stevens is an idiot.....The Second Amendment guarantees that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms has no limitations.
2a is as good as people who are willing to back it up (meaning no "sensible" compromises)
Soviet Union's constitution was f***ing great, read it and it's friggin liberty paradise, right to work, freedom of religion, speech, assembly, you comrades have no idea how oppressive US constitution is in comparison ... on paper. Of course paper is paper, if there are no people who are willing to stand up to POS like Burger and this idiot, there is really no point.
namedpipes
NES Member
All of that is superseded by another document, so even if the 2A were repealed through a Constitutional amendment it would have no effect on the right to keep and bear arms.
This is the part that is lost today. Now the youth have been brainwashed into begging the government to take away rights. Every kid should instead be bringing a firearm/other weapon to school to protest the ineptitude of certain law enforcement officials like those exposed in Florida. But instead they have been taught to light candles and hold vigils and beg for infringements on their freedom and the freedoms of all Americans.
Last edited:
Stevens has selective vision. While yes, connections to service in a militia was a key element of the intent of the second amendment, the right of private self defense had a longstanding tradition from English law and was worded into several state constitutions. The only fraud being perpetrated is the idea that the 2A is only connected to service in a militia.
This article goes through many of the nuances:
Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense
Excerpts:
PA:
The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MA:
Massachusetts was the first state to protect a right to “keep and bear arms.” In Massachusetts the right was linked to “common defense.” In contrast to Virginia and Pennsylvania, Massachusetts submitted a draft of its constitution to individual towns for comment. Although many towns commented on various aspects of the new state constitution, particularly those dealing with freedom of religion, the right to bear arms prompted little commentary. Two towns did express some concern that the formulation of this right was too narrow. The response of the western town of Williamsburg faulted the constitution’s exclusive focus on common defense and proposed the following alternative: “1st that we esteem it an essential privilege to keep Arms in Our houses for Our Own Defence and while we Continue honest and Lawfull Subjects of Government we Ought Never to be deprived of them.” No action was taken on this suggestion.
Individual vs. Collective:
Pennsylvania’s language, emulated by Vermont, is more ambiguous. Some modern commentators have interpreted the phrase “defense of themselves and the state” as protecting a private individual right and others see the language as more collective, an effort to protect the people acting together to protect community, not individuals, acting in isolation for private purposes.
This article goes through many of the nuances:
Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense
Excerpts:
PA:
The first state to protect a right to bear arms was Pennsylvania, which drafted its own constitution and declaration of rights in the same year. Pennsylvanians framed the right in the following terms:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MA:
Massachusetts was the first state to protect a right to “keep and bear arms.” In Massachusetts the right was linked to “common defense.” In contrast to Virginia and Pennsylvania, Massachusetts submitted a draft of its constitution to individual towns for comment. Although many towns commented on various aspects of the new state constitution, particularly those dealing with freedom of religion, the right to bear arms prompted little commentary. Two towns did express some concern that the formulation of this right was too narrow. The response of the western town of Williamsburg faulted the constitution’s exclusive focus on common defense and proposed the following alternative: “1st that we esteem it an essential privilege to keep Arms in Our houses for Our Own Defence and while we Continue honest and Lawfull Subjects of Government we Ought Never to be deprived of them.” No action was taken on this suggestion.
Individual vs. Collective:
Pennsylvania’s language, emulated by Vermont, is more ambiguous. Some modern commentators have interpreted the phrase “defense of themselves and the state” as protecting a private individual right and others see the language as more collective, an effort to protect the people acting together to protect community, not individuals, acting in isolation for private purposes.
Parker Duofold
NES Member
The comments section is interesting reading to say the least.
We got it, first they went after our women and tried to cover them with pink pussy hats. Then, they decided to go after our kids with bunch of Cuban guerrillas in making. Now they are trying to line up retirees against us. What else is out there? How about animals?
If you want to repeal 2A, there are two ways to do that, and good luck to you. If you are successful, since we now apparently get to decide what laws to follow, well, I know not what course others may take, but as for me...
HARRYM
NES Member
We were one Hillary Clinton away from the Liberal Majority on the SCOTUS. Ruth Ginsberg spoke openly that she couldn't wait to dismantle Hella.
IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED FOLKS
An actually appeal no, but it would have been regulated to the point where not even my 1962 Red Ryder would be legal anymore.
We'll see if the Trump Presidency is simply just a stay of execution for the 2A, until the next Democrat get elected, or can this country, on the verge of Socialism, can be turned around.
Gun Owners in America have been granted a re-boot button. I want you all to seriously think about how close we came to Hillary in the WH and her appointing another Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In light of events what do you think gun rights would look like today?
The question is NOT if there would be MORE restrictions, of course they would be. The question would be how severe would the restrictions be.
Gun Owners have been given one final chance to truly come together and become a larger power. I hope the gravity of the situation finally allows us all to find common ground and become a united front. To this point, it's something gun owners haven't been very good at.
IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED FOLKS
An actually appeal no, but it would have been regulated to the point where not even my 1962 Red Ryder would be legal anymore.
We'll see if the Trump Presidency is simply just a stay of execution for the 2A, until the next Democrat get elected, or can this country, on the verge of Socialism, can be turned around.
Gun Owners in America have been granted a re-boot button. I want you all to seriously think about how close we came to Hillary in the WH and her appointing another Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In light of events what do you think gun rights would look like today?
The question is NOT if there would be MORE restrictions, of course they would be. The question would be how severe would the restrictions be.
Gun Owners have been given one final chance to truly come together and become a larger power. I hope the gravity of the situation finally allows us all to find common ground and become a united front. To this point, it's something gun owners haven't been very good at.
Last edited:
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
Yup... exactly... I'm thinking "yes, please... bring it. Let's get this party started.... "
...Then I think of Mortal Kombat, and scorpion firing the spear into the other guy's chest and pulling him close so he can smack the shit out
of them.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
COME HERE! -Mike
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
Most states, pretty close to 3/4 have large cities that are mostly liberal enclaves, the states Trump won he won by a slim margin. You need 13 states to say no, the Northeast and the coasts are gone, Florida is gone Texas is close to it. We would need flyover states to say no, most if not all would
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2015
- Messages
- 18
- Likes
- 8
Which one is that?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2015
- Messages
- 18
- Likes
- 8
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is respected enough that we wouldn't have to worry. Otherwise, we are a minority of opinion in a Republic that has confused it's citizens that it is a Democracy. And that's just bananas.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
NOT ME, I WANT A FULLY SEMI-AUTOMATIC MUSKET
namedpipes
NES Member
This might ring a bell:
Not suggesting or recommending it. Just pointing out that the DoI and C both acknowledge that they protect us, not subject us.
Similar threads
