[NYT] John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

If you have been around here for more than a few days, you should know my stance on gun control. I have serious issues with our current gun control policy... or the lack of. 2A does not mean 'guns for all' mentality.

You have those who think a 'tyrannical' government is Obama or Trump somehow convincing the right leaning military to somehow overthrow our government and start using tanks, jets and drones against a poorly formed militia out in the middle of Montana. The idiocy of this logic is not worth discussing.

But yes, the Balkanization will eventually happen one day. I don't foresee it in my life time or our childrens lifetime, but it doesn't take much for it to happen.

A much more realistic scenario would be the collapse in a region for whatever reason and citizens need to defend themselves, not against a centralized form of government (the US), but against local militias taking power into their own hands. This is the purpose of the 2A.

 

I just hope they are honest about their goals, there would be nothing that would kill the anti-civil rights movement more quickly than that....and IMO that's why you won't see them be honest about their goals in all but rare moments where they slip up.

 

That's not an argument supporters even entertain. You're right, but that's not an argument.

The amendment is about freedom. Its not about weapons. A lot take it for granted. We live in a world where lots of people don't have freedom

Edit: just read it this morning and never realized I never read it

"To maintain a free state" is it's purpose. I wasn't being corny when saying it's about freedom. That's literally it's purpose as written. It's important therefore it's #2

 

We don't have a well formed understanding of what the temperature in the room is for gun control in this country, or even this movement.

My guess is we will start to see this come into view in the coming years as shootings get more frequent and deadlier (and they will).

The gun lobby stifling research into gun violence can only stem that tide for so long.

I'm not so sure that a stated goal would lead to the backlash you're expecting, unless you're simply constructing a strawman in your head that everybody upset with gun legislation in this country wants an outright ban on firearms.

Edit: aye I found some granular polling data!

 

Congrats.... you found ONE person on the left that even brings this up as a option (removing the 2nd amendment from the Constitution). Again... For some reason this is the ONLY part of the constitution that the Right seems to care about.

How about ARTICLE ONE of the Constitution that ONLY grants Congress the ability to "raise army's"??.... What do you have to say about numerous REPUBLICAN presidents abusing the Constitution by going to war without Congressional approval? Did Trump get congressional approval to go to war in Niger?

I'm just so sick of the Constitutional Outrage all the damn time about one amendment, while abandoning the entire rest of the document when its convenient.

No... NOBODY I know seriously think we should rip up the 2nd amendment. That's ridiculous, and people discussing it are simply trying to have a debate they think is interesting to explore. Nobody is serious about doing this so stop being a Paranoid Android for the GOP Fear/Hate Machine.

 

I personally don't think this is true. However, especially during the Obama administration, conspiracy theory that wasn't too far from this seeped into the mainstream with Jade Helm. Governor Abbott played into these ludicrous concerns by deploying the Texas State Guard to "monitor" the federal training exercise. A portion of our fellow Texans were so paranoid about a tyrannical federal military under President Obama that our Governor indulged them by deploying the state guard. It was theatrical and validating for the dumbest among us. But, thanks for the insult!

I don't disagree! In fact, I think it could take very little to set this off now. Large portions of the country genuinely hate each other.

Back to the topic of military might: how long could these "local militias taking power into their own hands" conceivably hold onto power and terrorize their fellow citizens before the US military, backing the people who "need to defend themselves," swoops to destroy them all rather quickly?

 

The goal that those behind the anti-civil rights movement are working towards is the repeal of the 2nd amendment...then they'll probably go to work on the 1st amendment by trying to push for "hate speech" laws like exist in the UK. Their goals will always be to take from the people in order to empower the government to strike at those who disagree with them.

Now that's not to say that everyone caught up in the emotion of school shootings supports an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment, but that's what those behind the movement are looking to get. If they were honest about that, it would drive people away from them in that emotion can only blind people to reason for so long...even if children are being exploited in order to work up as much emotion as possible.

 

Oh my god. I forgot about Jade Helm.

What a ludicrous display of politically motivated, hate-filled, delusional paranoia.

 

Funny you'd say this given that the current anti-civil liberties movement is entirely based on fear and hate.

 

I don't even know what you guys are talking about right now. I just like saying repeal & replace.
"The constitution" what is that? sounds like a Guns & Roses album.

 

To generalize...

Right to guns for hunting, self defense... is generally supported by the left as well.

The key difference is regulation. This fall in line with many things conservative vs liberal with conservative wanting less regulation. But conservative are paranoid about any regulation and restriction on guns. However, that is changing, but there is a still a fundamental lack of trust, understandably so, that regulation and restrictions are done properly and correctly.

...having a different measurement system from the world isn't normal or effective, but that's the arrogant that we are

...Australia gun culture, which still continue today after strong restriction and regulations, gives me hopes that the US can get there

 

Has the second amendment ever been up for debate before the last thirty years. We aren't living anywhere near the most violent times of this country. Not an argument just an observation. I really don't know

Has it come for debate because of recent assault rifle technology. I don't know much about guns either.

 

There is so many purpose of the 2A today...

but the original intent was pretty clear... having just escaped, fought and won against Great Britain, they wanted to make sure that the federal government does not get to be another "great britain". The purpose was for the people to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. And with that, you can argue there should be no restriction at all, including machine guns and any "arms" to have a chance to fight back...

The original intent vs today needs are different and outline a need for a "modern" and appropriate interpretation and handling of 2A. We started down that path (restrict machine guns...) and should continue down the path...

 

I'm personally for a repeal of the second amendment since it would reduce gun violence if federally enforced. Regardless of personal stance on this issue, it would be a fact that gun violence in the USA would go down. Maybe knife or other means of violence would go up proportionally in turn negating the intention of the repeal. If that ends up being the case, then gun enthusiasts can push for the re-enactment of the second amendment, just like with prohibition.

If the will of the people don't like it, then simply add it back in. It's been done before. It sets a precedent that it can be done again. That'd be real compromise. We've tried it with the gun enthusiasts vision of America. Let's try it without and see if the U.S. is better off for it.

Because the half measures we currently try now are not effective.

Whether you think the lives of American citizens that die from gun violence are worth less than some words on a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago by people who fired muskets and had no way of predicting firearm technology improvements in the future is up to you. Clearly SG and Bobby think the lives of fellow Americans are less than the words of a flawed Constitutional Amendment. Bobby doesn't even want the slightest bit of regulation because he thinks it would be an effect of if you concede an inch of regulation, dem crazy libs will go for a mile. SG so far seems to think minor modest regulations will lessen gun violence. I personally consider it a half measure band aid fix that won't do much to lessen gun violence. All or nothing is where I stand.

That said, I'm more concerned with what would compel a segment of the population to become career criminals and force some upstanding citizens to feel the need to arm themselves for protection.

While I do suspect some people are just bad apples that just "want to watch the world burn," I suspect a lot of it has to do with social upbringing and economic variables.

A kid raised poor and from abusive parents is likely to run away from home and try and survive by any means necessary. This kid will not have the tools or education necessary to function in a law abiding society. It also makes them perfect recruiting material for organized crime. Instead of being up in arms over protecting yourself from nefarious people, I think the focus should be again on what drives people to crime.

Abusive parents likely from poor economic status. Parents unable to pass along the skills necessary to make it in this world, while being financially strapped. So then you ask, what kind of stuff did the abusive parents go through in their lives to think that being pieces of **** to their kids would be a good parenting method of success?

Likely abuse and again economic hardships from their upbringing. Multiple generations of families caught in a perpetual state of poverty and domestic violence.

Providing counseling and encouraging social activity through local communities be it through neighbors, coworkers or social extra-curricular activities that fosters healthy relationships would help mitigate the abusive issue. Actually having an economic environment that encourages upward financial mobility for even the poorest citizen would also help counter the segment of population that choose to become career criminals. This too, would significantly reduce gun violence and also lessen the need for gun owners to feel unsafe and require guns.

Because then it just becomes a single issue of guns being there for recreational value and no longer defense. I've shot guns. I have friends with guns that go hunting on their ranches in Lampasas and Copperas Cove. Outside of military combat, none of them have ever been in an escalated situation where a firearm would have made their situation better. Nor have I. I suspect a significantly large portion of the population haven't been in a situation where having a firearm on hand would improve even the most hostile personal moments in their life. I've personally never been in a situation where I thought, "Gee, if only I had my gun then this situation I'm in would be all better." Maybe I've just been lucky. Maybe I enact protective measures that minimizes the kind of exposure to gun violence other people are unfortunately subjected to while living on one of the safer
sides of Austin.

99% of the time I really think if you're not up to any nefarious activity yourself, illegal or otherwise, then you have little reason to actually arm yourself. If you live in a high crime area, likely that's also low income, I can understand the need for defense.

That again goes back to the idea that if you provide economic prosperity for even the lowest rung citizen,
then crime would go down, with or without gun regulation.

The flaw in capitalism is the dog eat dog atmosphere it encourages. While not a socialist, I do truly believe that if my neighbors are prospering, then I will be safer in turn because of it. If my neighbors, coworkers or random stranger walking past me along the sidewalk is experiencing
economic prosperity, then they're probably happier, healthier and are able to afford not only food and shelter but also the recreational leisures that keep them content. If they're content, then they'll feel no need to pursue criminal activity because they can afford what it is they desire
through legal means. That means, no need to covet my possessions and in turn try and break into my home to take what I have that they don't.

That means modifying the existing capitalistic economic model we have that encourages the most prosperity and financial upward mobility for the majority of its citizens and not just statistically a lucky wealthy few. That leads to discussions of economic philosophies of the pros/cons of regulation vs deregulation, the pro/cons of raising the federal minimum wage, doing trial and error with different economic models across all 50 states and their unique economic infrastructures that makes those states prosper and finding out what the best method of economic prosperity
for the nation as a whole is.

From stateside research we can determine that conservative philosophies do not work in the state of Kansas. Therefore we can likely determine that such economic philosophies will not lead to prosperity if federally enforced in all 50 states. Yet, we are currently pursuing economic philosophies that failed in Kansas and are applying it across the U.S. despite it being a financial disaster. I'm interested to see when state economies collapse like Kansas did, if crime by correlation will go up. It would then be a self fulfilling prophecy to feel the need to arm yourself by creating more turmoil through archaic ineffective economic philosophies.

EDIT: A wounded economy leads to crime. Kansas is a perfect example of this.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article159204444.html
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-kraske/article182346876.html
http://www.wibw.com/content/news/KBI-Murder-rate-in-Kansas-up-46-from-2014-to-2016-449327493.html
http://www.cjonline.com/news/state-...reau-investigation-faces-rising-violent-crime
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article192634289.html

I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't want to repeal the second amendment, then develop a working economic model that encourages prosperity for the most amount of American citizens possible and reduce all crime, including gun violence in turn.

 

^^^ we have not tried much of anything . But I’m with you. I rather repeal than continue doing nothing. Actually no... well really don’t know. Dammit

 

An actual legitimate attempt to repeal the second amendment will result in an actual civil war.

The opportunity cost of a impending blood bath isn't worth it.

 

Repealing the 2A and gun control are two different arguments. This thread is about the 2A.

Repealing the 2A w/out full gun confiscation and prohibition is as pointless as the current pro gun agenda and the current anti-gun agenda.

One can argue the 2A should allow anyone who is in the US to own a gun. However 95%+ of the people and eroded constitutional rights goes against this argument, so there is no point in discussing it further.

Since we already have gun restrictions, we do not need to discuss repealing the 2A, unless your argument is full prohibition.

Many of the countries have gun restrictions which requires licenses. Very few strictly prohibit gun ownership (like China).

Since we are talking about licensing and not prohibition, repealing the 2A is pointless. One of our biggest problems our country has is the ridiculous ease of access to weapons and ammo. Again, nothing to do with the 2A.

Reducing the ease of access and inventory from the market along with requiring licenses and training for all semi-automatic weapons is MUCH MUCH more likely than repealing the 2A.

If anti-gun people took it upon themselves to educate themselves more on this topic, we might have better progress.

 

Props to Stevens, though I agree with folks that this wasn't a helpful PR move. May be good thinking for governance, but not in persuading voters.

Repealing the Second Amendment is not at all the same thing as banning guns or confiscating the guns already in circulation. All a repeal would do is remove a judicial roadblock to legislative attempts to regulate guns. Right now, under the might of the 'individual right to bear arms' we were granted by USSC in 2008, what sensible controls we have are getting knocked down on the pretext of freedom. A repeal takes that cudgel away and perhaps moves us back into a position where the "common sense gun control measures" moderates want won't get thrown out by judiciary. Stevens in right, imo, they have to go beyond these little reforms. If the jurisprudence sees guns the same way it sees free speech, the minimum age of 21 won't stand, an assault rifle ban won't stand, even the ban on machine guns can only stick by dint of some wily legal gymnastics by a judge who will not follow the idea to its rational conclusion.

Of course, with a repeal, maybe somewhere down the road a ban is eventually enacted, and people look back at the repeal as the turning point. But I won't think that's a bad thing at all.

 

The first amendment is not "normal" either. Many nations have speech restrictions that would not survive judicial review in the United States, Germany not least among them. I have never seen the US having more freedom as a problem that needs to be solved, regardless of how other nations view those freedoms.