[NYT] John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Start with the 3rd, it is as outdated as the 2nd.

And they are BOTH related to each other as to the reason they both exist.....though the NRA won't admit it or want you to know about it.

DD

 

Well, it's not like a former Supreme Court Justice would have any background knowledge to provide a reasonable opinion on the issue, right?

Where's Scalia when you need him?

 

Maybe time for a Total ReWrite of the Constitution

Rocket River

 

For me, a lot of it is that the discussion isn't happening on a blank slate.

There are over 300,000,000 guns in the USA and repealing the Second Amendment will not make all those guns disappear. There would be a very strong underground and black market.

Further, any effort to forcefully take guns away will result in catastrophic violence all across the country with many gun owners and the military.

 

Yup, my concern over repealling the second amendment is over pragmatic reasons rather than ideological reasons .

 

And it isn't even conjecture. It has already happened in the past. McVeigh said part of their reason for blowing up the Federal building was the 94 assault weapons ban. They killed 168 and wounded over 500.

 

You might well be right on this one. But did you see the segment John Oliver did on how Australia took guns out of citizens' hands? There were similar concerns then (on a smaller scale, of course), but they turned out to be unfounded.

 

I think for sure the anti-civil liberties crowd will turn their attention to the first amendment if they ever manage to take down the 2nd amendment.

 

Again, repeal doesn't mean ban. You don't have to make the guns go away with a repeal.

 

From a realistic stand point that is exactly what would happen.

The only change in the foreseeable future is through limitations to the second Amendment such as stricter gun laws and high taxes.

It is going to be a rough road, as restrictions may well be ruled unconstitutional by a Supreme Court that is leaning right.

 

You want army guys living with you?

 

Honest question: What is the point of repealing?

If we can get 2/3 of Congress to agree and then some how get 3/4 of the states to sign off only to end up to the original problem (ie: square 1); effective gun control.

If one can get 2/3 of that support (much more likely), then you can pretty much enact any gun legislation you want. We already have restrictive gun laws. We already prevent criminals and mentally ill people from owning guns (whether its being enforced is another topic). All new purchases require back ground checks. Interstate sales require back ground checks. We strictly limit possession of fully automatic weapons. We banned 'assault weapons' already and very little was accomplished. Some states have very restrictive gun laws.

Its very clear the 2A is not the issue here. The 2A is just an excuse for both sides to punt on the issue because gun laws in general are not popular on both sides .. .again, 2A or not.

Nobody wants to address the issue that the vast majority of Americans have over half a dozen (at least) sources for guns and ammo within a few minutes radius of their homes. Nobody wants to address how gun manufactures compete and try to sell as many guns as possible because the gun industry is treated as a free market enterprise. This insane gun culture in America is the problem. Not the 2A.

 

The point of trying to repeal amendments guaranteeing civil liberties is so that you can infringe upon those civil liberties without the SCOTUS striking it down.

 

We're heading in the direction of more "gun freedom" since the 2008 decision. We are not going to be able to legislate new controls, and longstanding ones will face new challenges. We even get new legislation to proactively push even where court challenges don't occur, like Texas allowing guns at universities and our school marshal program. I don't see us on the road to stricter gun laws at all because the current USSC interpretation of the second amendments is broad. And, it's part of the culture as well. We love our Constitution. And people think that owning a gun is a manifestation of American values. So the popular understanding that the Constitution enumerates guns as a sacred right contributes to our gun culture.

A ban won't happen. Hell, repeal won't happen either. But, the point of a repeal doesn't have to be a ban. It's just to get off this rubric that says the government shouldn't have a say in your gun ownership.

 

I want a tank. I think in 12 years I could afford one.

 

Then get one. You can get a beat up Russian T-72 tank for something like 50k. It would probably cost something like 30k to get it shipped and probably a few thousand more to get the proper permits for it. if you want it to look good, toss in another 20 or 30k worth of work.

You won't be able to operate it on the roads and the machine guns will be removed, the fuel costs will bankrupt you, and the main cannon will be rendered inoperable, but you can have one.

 

They are related.

That is what I'm saying. The 2A meaning, if you stick to the original intent, is utterly ridiculous. You would have to allow for anything that would enable the people to resist against the US federal (and probably state) government. Nuke included.

And so, the Court and Congress has already said fk that, and placed limits on it. And we should continue down that path. No, repeal of the 2A is not feasible and is so much less likely the path for progress toward gun ownership but with less gun violence. However, if the current state of push back on everything sensible continue while gun violence continue... it might be the only choice left.

 

By all means, push for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. It's political suicide.

 

not feasible = not pushing for it...

but that depends on how nutty are the gun nuts