Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Supreme Court justice’s solution to gun violence: Repeal Second Amendment
The Washington Post ^ | May 28, 2022 | Frederic J. Frommer

Posted on 05/28/2022 9:06:56 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican

Four years ago, when — as now — the nation was reeling from the horror of a mass school shooting, a retired Supreme Court justice suggested a radical solution: getting rid of the Second Amendment.

John Paul Stevens issued the call after 17 people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in February 2018. The attack prompted hundreds of thousands to demand action the next month to end gun violence at the March for Our Lives.

In a March 27, 2018, New York Times op-ed, Stevens praised the protesters and their call for stricter gun control laws. “But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,” he wrote, about a year before his death at 99. “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 78minutesstooge; abagofburritos; acaseofbeer; banglist; fredericjfrommer; johnpaulstevens; johnpaulstoogens; oneweirdtrick; scotus; stevens; supremecourtstooge; wellbye
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: MinorityRepublican

Its perfectly fine to feel that way.....so long as a judge does not take the position that they can rule however they personally feel like.

There is a means the Founding Fathers provided to amend the constitution. 2/3rds, 2/3rds and 3/4ths. Get that and you can repeal the 2nd Amendment. Go ahead. Convince enough of your fellow citizens as to the rightness of your cause.

If you can’t get that, then you don’t get what you want. Its as simple as that.


61 posted on 05/29/2022 2:36:03 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm

I am stealing this entire post.

I have never seen this laid out so clearly.

Thank you!


62 posted on 05/29/2022 2:43:51 AM PDT by CTyank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Repeal the Second Amendment = Instant Civil War


63 posted on 05/29/2022 2:48:02 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (We are being manipulated by forces that most do not see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm
Well-regulated means well trained and well equipped. It does not mean "controlled"or other modern definition that you seem to be implying. See https://bearingarms.com/bobowens-bearingarms/2014/06/24/well-regulated-n19250
64 posted on 05/29/2022 2:57:17 AM PDT by palmer (Democracy Dies Six Ways from Sunday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

“The next move is to register all firearms.”

One billion (Canadian) dollars later, Canada has deemed its long-gun registration a total waste.


65 posted on 05/29/2022 2:57:51 AM PDT by Does so (https//youtu.be/3PxEWB6W8ig ......Uke's Independence Day Parade. Anthem starts at 15:00)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CTyank
It's an incorrect understanding of well-regulated. See the link in my previous comment
66 posted on 05/29/2022 2:59:46 AM PDT by palmer (Democracy Dies Six Ways from Sunday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The far left Wapo uses a far left, hack former justice for a propaganda story aimed at taking the rights of the people it hates. Such a surprise.


67 posted on 05/29/2022 3:18:11 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Let teachers defend themselves and the children they are teaching. If that doesn’t work, abolish the public schools.


68 posted on 05/29/2022 3:29:37 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The leftist endgame is confiscation.

Yet, you will not see Mayor Beetlejuice walking into West Garfield locked arm in arm with Durbin, Duckworth and Danny Davis knocking on doors with the intent of confiscating those weapons.

You won’t see Pelosi and Breed out knocking on doors in Bayview.

They don’t care about crime, they care about squashing political opposition.


69 posted on 05/29/2022 3:32:35 AM PDT by CTyank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm
Discussion of the militia was captured throughout the Federalist Papers. A "well regulated militia" meant the people-at-large, who were properly armed and trained. "Necessary to the security of a free state" meant that the armed and trained people were to oppose a standing army controlled by a despotic tyrant in use against the people.

See for yourself.

Here is the debate from the Federalist Papers on how a 2nd amendment militia was needed to prevent a tyranny powered by a standing federal army. It is clear that the militia was intended to be armed in the same way as the standing army.

The debate from the Federalist Papers:

In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.

quote:
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.


The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.



A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government:
quote:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."


Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.

quote:
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army.
quote:
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army.
quote:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes.
quote:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?


If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.


In Federalist #46, James Madison writes about how the states would fight back against an encroaching federal government. Note the reference to militias as a counterforce against tyranny.

I'm reposting a deconstruction of mine of Federalist 46 that I posted in October 2013.


But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole...

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism...

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence...

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.


It is clear from this passage that the 2nd amendment was specifically intended to prevent a tyrannical government from forming, for fear of an armed populace. That populace would be armed in the same way as the standing army.


And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.


The argument here is that the people will rise up in arms against a federal government that encroaches beyond its limited, enumerated powers. And knowing that, it would be madness for the federal government to even try to engage with force, knowing that death and destruction that would naturally follow.

And it all comes from the people-as-militia being similarly armed as the standing army.

-PJ

70 posted on 05/29/2022 3:42:16 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The long term solution to reducing mass crimes of hate is to eliminate the teaching of hate and resentment as a political strategy by the democrats.

The way to do that is to outlaw and eliminate the democrat party.


71 posted on 05/29/2022 3:42:26 AM PDT by Iron Munro ( Joe Biden - Inventor Of The First New Language since Esperanto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

” Gun violence is a national health crisis “ That’s coming next, they’ve already told us.


72 posted on 05/29/2022 3:42:32 AM PDT by saturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

How quickly in tragic events like this they immediately go to disarm. Never let a controlled crisis go to waste. The mid terms are coming and they are about to lose their control they need their go to agendas with help from their friends at the FBI and DOJ


73 posted on 05/29/2022 4:10:23 AM PDT by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm

Thank you for a well written and helpful response.

Democrats always want to twist things around to suit their own agandas.


74 posted on 05/29/2022 4:20:19 AM PDT by airborne (Thank you Rush for helping me find FreeRepublic! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Where’s he buried, I need to take a leak.


75 posted on 05/29/2022 4:33:21 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Freedom isn't free, liberty isn't liberal and you'll never find anything Right on the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states.


Uhhh, hello, McFly.....is anybody home?


76 posted on 05/29/2022 4:36:31 AM PDT by nesnah (Infringe - act so as to limit or undermine [something]; encroach on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten
when will anyone point out the obvious timing and wonder what they did to spin up these people into becoming shooters

I'll do it for ya.

77 posted on 05/29/2022 4:40:31 AM PDT by Lazamataz (ELON MUSK IS THE CORPORATE VERSION OF DONALD TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

The best part about the original article, was the reminder that John Paul Stevens is dead.


78 posted on 05/29/2022 4:48:23 AM PDT by Lazamataz (ELON MUSK IS THE CORPORATE VERSION OF DONALD TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Read my tagline. the 2nd is the only right that protects all of the rest. “Once the power of a gun is removed from the populace the only ones with power will be the ones with a gun” LStar.


79 posted on 05/29/2022 4:54:45 AM PDT by Qwapisking ("IF the Second goes first the First goes second" LStar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm

Amen!


80 posted on 05/29/2022 4:55:41 AM PDT by Theophilus (Convoy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson