• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment[W 403]

Spartacus FPV said:
The Heller decision was right in line with the founder's original intent, an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

You're just mad that someone openly stated your goal, which is a terrible strategy because if the frog realizes you're bringing the pot to a boil you'll never get him cooked. You silly incrementalist you.
Click to expand...

Then why did it take two centuries for them to say that?
 
haymarket said:
Then why did it take two centuries for them to say that?
Click to expand...

Because it was not challenged, and when it was, the Supreme Court ruled the first ten amendments only applied to the federal government.
 
Lutherf said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html



For those who talk about "common sense" gun control, stuff like this is why SCOTUS picks are so important. It is the one and only reason I voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in that decision.

For those that can't quite place the name, Stevens was an associate justice of the SCOTUS for 35 years until his retirement and replacement by Elena Kagen.
Click to expand...

Needs to go in the same heap as the morons who want to remove the 17th amendment. Like the Gov. of Texas.
 
haymarket said:
Then why did it take two centuries for them to say that?
Click to expand...

Was there any case before Heller regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms? They only get to opine on cases before them.

Oh, wait, Cruikshank 1876:

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
 
Rucker61 said:
Was there any case before Heller regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms? They only get to opine on cases before them.

Oh, wait, Cruikshank 1876:

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
Click to expand...

Throw in Presser v Illinois that was after Cruikshank.
 
Lutherf said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html



For those who talk about "common sense" gun control, stuff like this is why SCOTUS picks are so important. It is the one and only reason I voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in that decision.

For those that can't quite place the name, Stevens was an associate justice of the SCOTUS for 35 years until his retirement and replacement by Elena Kagen.
Click to expand...
Key word: "was."
 
danielpalos said:
thank you for ceding the point and the argument; by bothering to post your, nothing but fallacy of diversion and non sequitur.
Click to expand...

You are stuck on the well regulated militia, I bet you think "General Welfare" means government checks too.
 
Renae said:
You are stuck on the well regulated militia, I bet you think "General Welfare" means government checks too.
Click to expand...

dude; well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple. Only gun lovers of the unorganized militia have a problem with it.
 
danielpalos said:
dude; well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple. Only gun lovers of the unorganized militia have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Only uneducated people misread the 2A because they were told that makes them sound smart.
 
Tennyson said:
Because it was not challenged, and when it was, the Supreme Court ruled the first ten amendments only applied to the federal government.
Click to expand...

It took over 200 years for the Court to invent this so called individual right that nobody ever knew existed. And it came about after a quarter century of right wing legal activism that hijacked the NRA and made it their cause celebre. That tells you all you need to know.
 
Rucker61 said:
Was there any case before Heller regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms? They only get to opine on cases before them.

Oh, wait, Cruikshank 1876:

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
Click to expand...

The quote you provided does not claim any individual right.

And if it did not come from the Constitution - where exactly did they get it?
 
haymarket said:
The quote you provided does not claim any individual right.

And if it did not come from the Constitution - where exactly did they get it?
Click to expand...

You really don't get the concept of Natural Rights, do you?

Out of curiosity, if there were no Constitution and no United States; if we all just lived a tribal life as the indigenous population did when we first arrived, would one have the right to defend themselves from attack by whatever means they had at their disposal? Is government necessary to grant such a right or is government, in fact, a limiting force in the exercise of such rights?
 
haymarket said:
It took over 200 years for the Court to invent this so called individual right that nobody ever knew existed. And it came about after a quarter century of right wing legal activism that hijacked the NRA and made it their cause celebre. That tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...

Why is this alleged right not applied to All, Persons of the People in our Republic?
 
Lutherf said:
You really don't get the concept of Natural Rights, do you?

Out of curiosity, if there were no Constitution and no United States; if we all just lived a tribal life as the indigenous population did when we first arrived, would one have the right to defend themselves from attack by whatever means they had at their disposal? Is government necessary to grant such a right or is government, in fact, a limiting force in the exercise of such rights?
Click to expand...

individual rights only apply to protection of self and property.
 
Lutherf said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html



For those who talk about "common sense" gun control, stuff like this is why SCOTUS picks are so important. It is the one and only reason I voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in that decision.

For those that can't quite place the name, Stevens was an associate justice of the SCOTUS for 35 years until his retirement and replacement by Elena Kagen.
Click to expand...

Repealing the 2nd is insanity and luckily it wont be repealed in my live time. Secondly nutcases wanting it repealed alone would NEVER lead me voting for a different nutcase like Trump, just like nutcases wanting abortion banned alone never make me vote for Hilary. :shrug:
 
Lutherf said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html



For those who talk about "common sense" gun control, stuff like this is why SCOTUS picks are so important. It is the one and only reason I voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in that decision.

For those that can't quite place the name, Stevens was an associate justice of the SCOTUS for 35 years until his retirement and replacement by Elena Kagen.
Click to expand...

What he doesn't say is that no one has the right to own a gun. That I suppose could be left as a state issue, unless a new amendment was introduced.

I for one think that Justice Stevens has a very worthwhile concern about the gun issue, but I'm not for abandoning the amendment. I DO think however that in time the second amendment will go away: it's just more trouble than it's really worth when we think about a peaceful and safe society... that is to say, the far right has stirred more trouble and anxiety with this thing - as Stevens points put, than it's really worth, especially when we consider the NRA's motivations of "market share" for their industrial donors.
 
danielpalos said:
dude; well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple. Only gun lovers of the unorganized militia have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

No it's not. "Well regulated militia" is a justification for the right of the people of the people to keep and bear arms. It isn't the only justification and it is not limiting.

Rewrite the amendment as such: "Discussion of political matters being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." Does that formulation restrict free speech to only political matters?
 
Gaius46 said:
No it's not. "Well regulated militia" is a justification for the right of the people of the people to keep and bear arms. It isn't the only justification and it is not limiting.

Rewrite the amendment as such: "Discussion of political matters being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." Does that formulation restrict free speech to only political matters?
Click to expand...

The security of a free State is why well regulated militia may not be Infringed.
 
jet57 said:
What he doesn't say is that no one has the right to own a gun. That I suppose could be left as a state issue, unless a new amendment was introduced.

I for one think that Justice Stevens has a very worthwhile concern about the gun issue, but I'm not for abandoning the amendment. I DO think however that in time the second amendment will go away: it's just more trouble than it's really worth when we think about a peaceful and safe society... that is to say, the far right has stirred more trouble and anxiety with this thing - as Stevens points put, than it's really worth, especially when we consider the NRA's motivations of "market share" for their industrial donors.
Click to expand...

The NRA is far less dangerous to democracy than public employee labor unions are. How can an elected official be expected to negotiate public employee pay and benefits in good faith with those who are funding their campaign? All the NRA wants is for the government to abide by the 2A.
 
Gaius46 said:
No it's not. "Well regulated militia" is a justification for the right of the people of the people to keep and bear arms. It isn't the only justification and it is not limiting.

Rewrite the amendment as such: "Discussion of political matters being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." Does that formulation restrict free speech to only political matters?
Click to expand...

LOL - good one.

I do wish they had written that amendment differently. The wording as it is can easily be interpreted as (problem that requires solution), (solution to problem). In that light, the 2nd clause is drawn from the first.

It's all moot - Heller uncoupled the clauses, so that's the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom