He was one of the 4 dissenters from the Heller decision. Here he is in the New York Times calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Not some arrogant ignorant kid, not some loony leftist Hollywood type....a former associate justice of the US Supreme Court saying let's repeal the 2nd Amendment. We must be winning because the commies are desperate enough to start telling the truth about what they really want.

Link

And for good measure, the photo accompanying the article:



I'm not sure what the relevance of the comparison is, other than: wow, the EBR sure looks evil.

Here is the article - I believe it is behind a paywall.

"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 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.

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.”

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.

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.

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."

quote:

Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Thank God he is a FORMER justice.
The photo comparing the two eras of guns should also show a Redcoat standing erect and unmoving opposite the musket and a present day opponent opposite the AR.
The weapons are not the only thing that's changed.

does it make me bad if I have at least one of each gun pictured???


snd Justice Stevens needs to have his meds checked

I would love the opportunity to tell FORMER Justice Stevens to go straight to hell while discussing the reality of his, and other leftists hipocricy as it pertains to the actual gun violence being ignored in this country.

I would further love to remind him that the 2nd Amendment was designed to help us protect ourselves from government tyranny and overreach- exactly the kind of abuse repealing would enable.

With all due respect, fuck off, “justice” Stevens.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

Hold on one cotton picking minute. Where the hell is the evil, bayonet lug. No evil, black rifle can achieve its maximum evilness without a bayonet lug.

Or a shoulder thing that goes up.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Thank God he is a FORMER justice.

His replacement is just as bad and is younger.

Such people show their ignorance of history and the law. Everyone should read the preamble to the so called Bill of Rights so that things are clear:

"Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Linky

As per the Declaration of Independence, our rights do not come from the government. The government can't vote away our right to self-defense or our right to abolish a tyrannical government. Logically, the exercise of such inalienable rights require that we also have the means and tools to do those things. Words are not fit for those purposes.

First, good luck getting 38 states on board with that, or even 2/3 of both houses. Second, fuck you, come and take them.

He's simply reiterating the dissent from Heller. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

He's not an idiot, though. He knows that a ban on semiautomatic rifles almost certainly would not survive a Second Amendment challenge under the framework articulated in Heller. Restricting firearms to people under 21, and a ban on so-called "assault rifles," probably would not either, although those are closer questions.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
I enjoy this video.

That's great, Arc!

Yeah, "easy"

Whatta they going to do when the Tesla Death Ray gets perfected and miniaturized for hand held use?

By calling for the repeal of the 2nd, are they not implicitly admitting that what their gun control agenda does, in fact, violate the Constitution?

These twat-waffles should be beaten with a bag full of bullet buttons.

quote:

By calling for the repeal of the 2nd, are they not implicitly admitting that what their gun control agenda does, in fact, violate the Constitution?

That is my understanding.

Constitution ponstitution, its SO old.

Fucking lawyers, it's all the same liberal jibberish they learn in law school.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
By calling for the repeal of the 2nd, are they not implicitly admitting that what their gun control agenda does, in fact, violate the Constitution?

These twat-waffles should be beaten with a bag full of bullet buttons.

The easy answer is that YES, Justice Stevens knows that.
A repeal of the 2nd would change the Constitution, (see video posted by Arc) and therefore would NOT violate the changed Constitution.

However.... it's really not so simple.
The American founding was itself a recognition of natural rights, the belief that rights are inherent, and not given by government.

It is the purpose of government to protect our individual rights, not to grant them.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

By calling for the repeal of the 2nd, are they not implicitly admitting that what their gun control agenda does, in fact, violate the Constitution?

That is my understanding.

Same here.

Without the second amendment you might as well throw out the other 9. They would not last for long.