Skip to comments.John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Posted on 03/27/2018 5:35:55 AM PDT by reaganaut1
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But an M-16 does.
Yo JPS. Drop dead.
“The Left is showing its cards.”
Holding them “close to the vest” is no longer required.
The 2nd will outlast the NYT.
This is insanity. There are regular insurrections and insurgencies against governments, gangs terrorizing communities, and threats individually to self, family, or friends.
Those who would counsel disarming ourselves are first ignorant of History, next ignorant of current events and third probably members of some despotism that wants to overthrow this government.
how wrong can this guy be... good thing he has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
“Cocaine is a hell of a drug” — Rick James.
I have no idea what Stevens’ excuse is. Maybe senility.
No they dont. The demonstrators should be openly mocked at every opportunity.
No. The Second Amendment protects our right to defend ourselves.
Keep pushing, you stinking liberal sycophants.
I can already see a groundswell beginning.
The cop forums are full of those policemen that have very vocally stated that they would stand with the people if confiscation began.
And the level of violence that some folks are willing to escalate to can be found on any of the pro-gun forums and comment sections.
We are looking at another Civil War, folks.
Mark my words.
That means no more security bodyguards, no more Secret Service and the police become unarmed as well. And who the hell is John Paul Stevens anyway?
Former Justice Stevens is 97. I wonder if he actually wrote this piece.
"These demonstrations demand our respect."
JOHN PAUL STEVENS was a US Sumpreme Court justice.
Who has the mentality of a cretin.
The most amazing part of this article is that Stevens is still alive.
The concern about standing armies was addressed with financing limitations, two years.
"Militia" is the able-bodied public. The point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to persist in their ability to control, and if necessary, overthrow the government. The people had just thrown off the King, and were damn well determined to retain the ability to do so again.
Kind of makes me curious.
Seems like they are not willing to wait it out much longer.
I say we test out his theory by Making it a Felony for any Officer of the Court to use, own, possess any Firearm, Ammunition or weapon.or have any person in their employ or employed on their behalf to be in possession of any firearm, ammunition or weapon.
Stupidity on public display again at the NYT. They no not what a "semiautomatic" weapon is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.