Headline: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENSMARCH 27, 2018
In the CIA/ NYT
A "musket" from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today. Oh wait no I decided to include a photo of a rifle from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, a repeater with a with a 22 round magazine. And a Sturmgewehr because that is the only "assault rifle" I know of, the NYT had an AR-15 clone pictured above the article, it was oh so scary and black, the barrel shroud makes it very deadly, but Stevens doesn't just want to ban so called "assault rifles"....
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's funny, seems like it was about the same or not quite as many as Soros got out last year, is he really such a fool that he believes this was "school children and their supporters" and not Bloomberg and Soros and adults using these children as human shields? Sending them into the fray like the children's crusade? Yes everyone would love legislation that would minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others, unfortunately gun control laws and doing away with the second amendment will not accomplish that. In this case local and federal authorities doing their jobs would have prevented the massacre, not gun control, but he is not calling for that.
I can say I have never seen anything like it my lifetime, but some people have.
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.
So there it is, he is off his rocker. That should be a clear sign to his caretakers that they should enact treatment for dementia. He wants to ban all semi automatic guns! Basically every pistol! But he does not stop there, he literally calls to repeal the second amendment! This is as disturbing if not more disturbing than when Hillary called to for an Amendment to repeal the 1st Amendment at the 2016 DNC and they all cheered.
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.
This is of course false and misleading for several reasons. The founding fathers were not carving out a very narrow reason to keep and bear arms they were broadening a preexisting right, as British citizens they already had the right to bear arms!
"Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"
Bill of rights 1689, Wikipedia
So what they did was to remove the religious requirement and to make it clear that not only do individuals have a right to bear arms, individuals have a right to form militias. Remember the war was sparked when the crown tried to seize the colonists' munitions. Oppressive states are hardly a relic of the 18th century, we can find them anywhere people don't have the right to bear arms or cannot speak freely because of "hate speech" laws.
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.”
Before that, and even after, a 10 year old immigrant child could ride Boston's T to Sears by himself and buy a rifle and take it home and we didn't hear about school shootings. What they make clear in that ruling is that those weapons that are most protected are the so called "weapons of war" we hear so much about.
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.”
To be fair he never saw a Soros Bloomberg sponsored Children's anti civil rights march. This whole "movement" is a fraud on the American people by special interest groups.
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.
How could those 4 be unaware of the British right to bear arms?
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.
He just said a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple!
Then he conflated the first amendment with the second and apparently he wants to do away with free speech as well.
What could be more simple than getting 2/3 of both houses of congress or 2/3 of state legislatures AND then getting 3/4 of all states to agree on something in 2018? It wouldn't be simple to get them to pass an amendment to say the sky is blue.
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.
Great idea grandpa, just amend the constitution, then 300,000,000+ guns will disappear, "simple".
