Nobody wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment, right?

[Westside Steve]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Image

A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

By John Paul Stevens

March 27, 2018

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides 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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

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.”

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.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

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

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Correction: March 27, 2018

An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion TodayOCT. 5, 2017

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Site Index

Go to Home Page »

NEWS

OPINION

ARTS

LIVING

LISTINGS & MORE

Site Information Navigation

• © 2018 The New York Times Company

• Contact Us
• Work with us
• Advertise
• Your Ad Choices
• Privacy
• Terms of Service
• Terms of Sale
• Site Map
• Help
• Subscriptions

50% off one year of The Times. Ends soon.

 

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[tiamat63]

Good luck with that. 

[jbluhm86]

45 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Good luck with that. 

Its not going to happen, nor would it happen even if proposed by Congress. Any potential Amendment (or repeal thereof) has to be approved by 38 of the 50 states. That'll never happen, so this story is just fodder for the conservative outrage machine.

[FairHooker11]

nope, no outrage - watch the opposite effect take place

as is true lately - any left bent hit piece like the old coot judge writes here, 

 might send a spike in gun sales? 

 

[Westside Steve]

These cork soakers will stay on life support until 2020

WSS

[JAFBF]

[The Cysko Kid]

Of course that's exactly what every rabid leftist really wants. I'd respect them more if they manned up and said it straight up. 

[Westside Steve]

9 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Of course that's exactly what every rabid leftist really wants. I'd respect them more if they manned up and said it straight up. 

So would I but they never will. The stock response is "well I'm a gun owner but"

WSS

[calfoxwc]

it's a political war with all those they have contempt for. They don't care about diddly.

"We must DO SOMETHING"...

except those kids do NOT want clear backpacks. or a ban on backpacks.

Those who demand their illegal drugs...how many kids have died from overdoses?

Anybody think they want to raise the driving age to 21 to get license? A background check before a license? A limit of eighty HP because "nobody needs more than 80 to move forward" You ask them if they want a speed governor on their car...

how many young kids in hs have died from car accidents of their own driver's fault?

Illegal immigrants commiting violent crimes right and left. You think the liberal want to curb illegal immigration? nope.

They don't care - they just want to fight the status quo fight. As long as they don't have to sacrifice anything, then they are good.

With mmgw - it would give the left huge $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to buy more dependent votes. fund the socialist state.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment is exactly the same type of fight - they want a political win over all those who aren't just like them.

The first time a permanent RIGHT is "repealed" - all rights are gone. Rights are established as FACT,

and PERMANENT. There is no undoing permanent rights.

Liberals don't think, they emotional knee jerk.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/27/wasserman-schultz-proposes-bill-targeting-ammunition-you-do-not-have-the-right-to-bear-bullets

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/27/wasserman-schultz-proposes-bill-targeting-ammunition-you-do-not-have-the-right-to-bear-bullets

They once tried to outlaw Black Talon bullets because they do so much damage. That didn't go anywhere either legally. But Winchester felt enough pressure that they stopped manufacturing them. I still have a box of the originals for 9mm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[Westside Steve]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/assault-weapons-ban-bad-policy-arguments-against/

[calfoxwc]

6 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

They once tried to outlaw Black Talon bullets because they do so much damage. That didn't go anywhere either legally. But Winchester felt enough pressure that they stopped manufacturing them. I still have a box of the originals for 9mm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

huh. I think I'll look for those at the auctions we go to.

[TexasAg1969]

16 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

huh. I think I'll look for those at the auctions we go to.

The "claws" peel outward and perpendicular from the bullet rather than just "mushroom". It's like having the mushroomed bullet with six little claws sticking out in a circle around it. Vicious little things.

[Tour2ma]

I assume it was a rhetorical question, Steve. Clearly there's faction that wants an Amendment added to supersede the 2nd.

So what?

It's the process provided for in The Constitution... a Constitution that did not codify the original Bill of Rights as being exempt from modification or elimination.

[Westside Steve]

5 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

I assume it was a rhetorical question, Steve. Clearly there's faction that wants an Amendment added to supersede the 2nd.

So what?

It's the process provided for in The Constitution... a Constitution that did not codify the original Bill of Rights as being exempt from modification or elimination.

Oh I think I've stated many times I don't give a rat's butt about the Constitution. I've made the point before about  the Animal rules painted on Farmer Jones Barn . Sorry I realized that drives some people off the edge.

Just making the point that it's BS when somebody shouts out nobody wants to take away your guns. There are plenty of people who do.

WSS

 

[JAFBF]

https://truepundit.com/dem-lawmaker-we-dont-want-to-confiscate-guns-we-want-to-seize-them/

 

Just one of many I've been seeing lately   .   .   .  

 

 

 

[Canton Dawg]

[calfoxwc]

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/antigun-activists-assault-long-guns/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b6a79826de-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-b6a79826de-20770865#axzz5BEoPns1s

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[calfoxwc]

Libs, even on this board, have denied it for years.

We knew all along- of course they want a total ban - they want a total political victory - which they nearly had,

if higgardly had gotten in to continue solidifying their deep state hold on our gov. That is why they are

enraged, that is why the deep state is fighting their war of survival and control on the federal level.

I believe they were waiting for one more school shooting to happen...

and the FBI and local cowards of Broward police "dept" LET IT HAPPEN, by continually not stopping

the murderer, and the biggest coward, "Sheriff" Israel, with his high level political ambitions and high dem contacts, refusing

to enter the school to stop the murdurer.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180330/so-they-re-not-coming-for-our-guns-eh-we-call-bs

Why do we even have a Second Amendment? 

Because British tyrants came for the Founders’ guns, and the Founders knew, given the chance, overreaching officials in the U.S. would do the same thing. 

Now, some believe that chance has finally come. 

In the wake of the terrible crimes in Parkland, Florida, gun control activists and progressive social justice warriors have found their scapegoats in the National Rifle Association and its five million members. And as they always do when they feel emboldened, they are revealing the true agenda they usually try to downplay to the American public in less emotionally-charged times.

One media outlet after another has praised the activism and passion of those who marched for gun control last Saturday. We must listen to them, we are told.

Okay, in that spirit, here is just a sampling of the marchers’ own words.

Some of the lines that drew the biggest applause and cheering from the crowd during the speeches at the march included the following:

“When they give us that inch ... we will take a mile!”

“I have a dream that enough is enough. And that this should be a gun-free world. Period!”

“Welcome to the revolution … The people demand a law banning the sale of assault weapons. The people demand we prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines.”

And no wonder the crowd cheered. The placards they carried in D.C. and elsewhere expressed similarly extreme sentiments and vicious ill-will toward those who disagree with their prohibitory agenda. Some were also of questionable suitability for a supposedly youth-themed march.

Meanwhile signs using the universal circle and slash of prohibition targeted handguns, rifles, and the NRA itself.

Okay, so the protestors want to ban guns, they hate the NRA, and many enjoy profanity.

Trust us, we get the message.

And so did none other than former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the very man who was one vote away from writing the individual right to keep and bear arms out of the Bill of Rights forever with his dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Addressing the protestors in a New York Times editorial, he encouraged them to “demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.” It would, he wrote, move them “closer to their objective than any other possible reform.”

At that point, however, the gun control apparatus realized it had overplayed its hand. Adults that only the week before had been insisting that all of America must listen to the gun control wisdom of the protesting youth suddenly began trying to steer their message back to a politically safe space.

“[N]o one calling for a 2A repeal,” insisted anti-gun media personality Chris Cuomo in a tweet the day after the Stevens editorial was published. “top with the bogeymen.”

Yeah, echoed law professor and gun control advocate Adam Winkler, “There’s not a snowflakes chance in hell we are going to repeal the Second Amendment … . ” But then he added, “anytime soon.”

Politifact – the progressive advocacy organization posing as a “fact checker” – also tried to contain the damage. It handed out a “pants on fire” rating to the claim that legislation already pending in Congress which would expansively ban semi-automatic firearms does in fact prove “they are coming to take away our guns.”

Politifact, however, created a strawman by insisting, “Gun owners would not be required to give up any of their guns as long as they were legally purchased before the ban.”

But their analysis ignored the fact that many of America’s most popular firearms would no longer be available under the legislation, that parts for the banned firearms would also be banned, and that places which have enacted similar bans have repeatedly reneged on the original grandfather provisions. The pending legislation is also significantly broader than the federal “assault weapons” ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, displaying an obvious tendency toward gun control mission creep.

So who are you going to believe? The protestors themselves, history, and your lying eyes?

Or are you going to believe the media damage control?

We know how we would answer that question. And we think the Founders would agree.

[calfoxwc]

[calfoxwc]

I see plenty of adult democrat hate Trump people.

wonder how long it took to make that wooden gun ban sign.

This was arranged way before the shooting.

No more denying it. It's a radical movement, a party like the "anti-war" rallies used to be at Kent.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180330/bunkum-from-buncombe-sheriff-s-candidate-threatens-disobedient-gun-owners

"It’s fitting then that on March 7, Buncombe County, N.C. Sheriff’s candidate R. Daryl Fisher was the one to set a new standard for political bunkum. At a meeting with members of the Michael Bloomberg front group Moms Demand Action, Fisher expressed his support for a raft of gun control measures and said that he would have no problem taking firearms from gun owners’ “cold dead hands.”

After expressing a desire to ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, Fisher told the gathered gun control advocates, “I’m gonna tell you now don’t buy into the scare tactics. Don’t believe the scare because you’ve heard people say ‘you’ll have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands.’ Ok.” Following the candidate’s “Ok,” the anti-gun zealots erupted into applause. Several seconds later, perhaps realizing the gravity of what he just admitted, Fisher added, “Whenever you pass away, we'll come get it.” 

Gun rights supporters have taken Fisher’s words as a threat that he is willing to kill in order to seize their firearms. Clips and summaries of the sheriff’s statement have been widely circulated on the internet and the story has been picked up by several national news outlets."

[calfoxwc]

reckon it's time to buy more bullets:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180330/antigun-democrat-introduces-partisan-ammunition-control-bill-claims-no-right-to-bear-bullets

[calfoxwc]