Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Progressivism

Progressivism Progressivism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree119Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 27th, 2018, 09:38 AM   #1
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,567
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Quote:

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.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/2...amendment.html
Thanks from Jimmyb
Sabcat is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 09:43 AM   #2
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
I already posted this article on another thread. You have shamelessly truncated Steven’s opinion. Why don’t you post his interpretation of the historical roots of the Second Amendment as I did ?
Thanks from Lyzza
Camelot is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 11:35 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
I already posted this article on another thread. You have shamelessly truncated Steven’s opinion. Why don’t you post his interpretation of the historical roots of the Second Amendment as I did ?
How the fuck did he truncate anything. He posted the article link. Nothing changed in it, no comments. Your not supposed to post the entire article anyway. You are supposed to post a small quote then link the rest of it. Do you not understand the rules?
Thanks from Jimmyb and Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 11:58 AM   #4
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
Stevens is a liar, always has been.
Says the guy who constantly lies about his identity.

He's a retired SC Justice. You're a Russian paid troll.
Thanks from Camelot, Lyzza and Clara007
RNG is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 12:05 PM   #5
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Says the guy who constantly lies about his identity.

He's a retired SC Justice. You're a Russian paid troll.
From the foreign operator.


Epic.
Sabcat is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 02:02 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 9,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
There is a remedy in the Constitution to do just that.
skews13 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 02:11 PM   #7
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
There is a remedy in the Constitution to do just that.
Right wingers do not want the people to know the true history of the Second Amendment that would destroy their distorted interpretation. From Stevens’ op ed.

Quote:

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. 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.”
Thanks from skews13, Lyzza and Clara007
Camelot is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 02:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 9,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Right wingers do not want the people to know the true history of the Second Amendment that would destroy their distorted interpretation. From Stevens’ op ed.
What I find amazing about all of these Constitutional scholars is how they don't seem to know that much about the Constitution.

The founders put the remedy in the document itself, to get rid of the entire document itself.

We are a government of the people. The very first principle of that government is the reason for the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which is far more important than anything contained within it. If you don't get this first, nothing within it means anything.

But, absent a full repeal of the Constitution itself, Article 5 clearly spells out how to repeal or amend any single part of it.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Thanks from Camelot and Lyzza
skews13 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 02:29 PM   #9
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Right wingers do not want the people to know the true history of the Second Amendment that would destroy their distorted interpretation. From Stevens’ op ed.
You are adorable. Something goes buzzing around the legacy media and bam...it is almost like you, yourself had an idea or something.


Quote:


The very first gun control laws in America were slave codes that banned African-Americans from owning or bearing arms. As early as 1640, the Virginia legislature passed an ordinance stating that African-American slaves — then numbering fewer than 300 in the British colony — would be exempt from mandatory militia service. The Virginia slave code of 1680 made disarmament of all black people mandatory, ruling, “It shall not be lawfull for any negroe or other slave to carry or arme himselfe with any club, staffe, gunn, sword or any other weapon of defence or offence,” a prohibition repeated in the 1705 Virginia slave code, written in more modern language, requiring that “no slave go armed with gun, sword, club, staff, or other weapon.”

The prohibition against slaves owning or carrying guns or other weapons in Britain’s American colonies preceded other gun control laws across the British empire, including the penal laws against the Irish, which in 1695 required that “All papists [Catholics] within this kingdom of Ireland shall before the 1st day of March, 1696, deliver up to some justice of the peace or corporation officer where such papist shall dwell, all their arms and ammunition, notwithstanding any licence for keeping the same heretofore granted.”

The rules against owning guns were aimed not just at those nominally deemed “slaves” in America; they were aimed at all subjected peoples. The text of Virginia’s first slave code applied the same restriction to “free” blacks and indentured servants (mostly Irish Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians, but also criminals). Nearly all other Southern slave-holding states copied Virginia’s lead, passing laws banning the ownership of guns for both slave and free African-Americans. These laws stayed in effect and were updated after independence from Britain. Georgia’s 1833 slave code required that “the free persons of color, so detected in owning, using or carrying fire-arms, shall receive on his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.” Alabama’s 1833 slave code was nearly identical, with exactly the same punishment. North Carolina’s 1855 slave code simply stated: “No slave shall go armed with gun, sword, club or other weapon, or shall keep any such weapon.” The state omitted the mention of free blacks, largely because North Carolina had so few free African-Americans.

Texas may have been alone among slave states not to pass an outright ban on slaves bearing arms, perhaps in part due to legislative fidelity to the 1836 state constitution that mandates, “Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic.” Though blacks were not considered citizens in antebellum Texas, the legislature was assumed not to have the power to pass legislation prohibiting any ownership of guns.

The reason slave codes denied the right to keep and bear arms to slaves is easily understandable. The whites feared the slaves would rebel. Arming slaves may have led to a revolution the slave-masters did not want. But that didn’t explain the ban on free blacks owning guns. The deeper purpose behind the ban on owning and bearing arms was to take away any thought that those people had individual rights. And it went far beyond the practical denial of a long-held individual right among Anglo-American people; the deeper issue had to do with placing the master as a god above the slave, with the power of life and death.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...n-control-laws
Sabcat is offline  
Old March 27th, 2018, 03:26 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
The Supreme Court case upholding a ban on sawed off shotguns is based on a big lie by the government. Such weapons were widely used in the trenches of the Great War, and prior wars as well. Stevens supports that lie. Stevens authored a book a number of years ago which targeted the 2nd, and he proposed other changes to the Constitution, including forcing state officers to follow federal mandates.
Correct!

Combat Shotguns of the Vietnam War
Thanks from caconservative and Jimgorn
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Progressivism

Tags
amendment, john, paul, repeal, stevens



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paul Ryan’s plan to sabotage Trump’s desire to repeal Obamacare seems to have worked. johnwk Current Events 11 March 25th, 2017 01:13 PM
Paul Ryan’s repeal and replace allows restraint of trade and price fixing to continue johnwk Current Events 10 March 10th, 2017 04:22 AM
Rand Paul hits back at John McCain excalibur Current Events 3 February 19th, 2017 06:53 PM
Sen Rand Paul Introduces Amendment To Make Obamacare Apply To Congress & President pana8 Current Events 5 November 1st, 2013 12:18 PM
Pope John Paul II RidinHighSpeeds Religion 27 September 6th, 2009 06:56 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.