Former Supreme Court Justice: Second Amendment Must Be Changed

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And I bet you have more battle scars. Great times we had back then.

I was around here before there was Capt. Ewok. I'm a fossil.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am a Noob then.

I was around here before there was Capt. Ewok. I'm a fossil.

[Pooky 3,785]

I am a Noob then.

And don't you forget it.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

One these is legal in most if not all states.

And people want to ban it just because of the way it looks.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

and

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

Sometimes purported to have been made in an "Address to the Second Session of the First United States Congress, 7 January 1790, according to the Boston Independent Chronicle (14 January 1790)", this quote is palpably bogus, as this essay at a pro-gun site makes plain. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wanna bet I get the same result if I check the rest of the quotes?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're asking him if it's his opinion, yet you're quoting someone's opinion to imply that he is incorrect. What's up with that?

Justice Scalia wrote the deciding opinion on Heller, so his opinion holds weight with the 2nd Amendment. At least, legally.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Wanna bet I get the same result if I check the rest of the quotes?

I bet you can't prove they did not say them can you!

HA

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a piece from RedState - a very Right Wing publication. A response from an article in the Daily Beast that makes the assertion that many gun advocates believe that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right. Pretty interesting response.

Over the weekend, Newsweek’s Michael Tomasky posted this on The Daily Beast, in which he claims that many conservatives view the right to keep and bear arms, as secured by the Second Amendment, to be an absolute right, by which he means that conservatives believe it can have no limitations.

Tomasky then proceeds to demonstrate how nearly every right safeguarded in our Constitution has limitations, citing an array of Supreme Court cases to support his point.

His point that our rights, as secured by the Constitution, have limits, is certainly valid. I think most conservatives agree with that notion. However. Tomasky’s point that conservatives believe the right to keep and bear arms is an ‘absolute’ right, is absurd.

Indeed, conservatives have accepted quite a bit of limitation on that right as it stands. There are no conservatives (that I know of) who are fighting for the right to keep a nuclear weapon in their basement; or to have some sarin on hand, just in case the tyrannical government we all fear does in fact come into being. It would seem then, if Tomasky’s point were true, if conservatives really do believe the right secured in the Second Amendment to be an ‘absolute’ right, then it seems to logically follow that we would be fighting for a hell of a lot more than just the right to have an AR-15 in our home, and a 30-round mag to go with it.

The truth is that, for better or worse, conservatives have accepted quite a bit of limitation on our right to keep and bear arms, limitation that liberals would rather not acknowledge.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/wyatt/2013/05/07/the-second-amendment-an-absolute-right/

Edited February 25, 2014 by Porterhouse

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Justice Scalia wrote the deciding opinion on Heller, so his opinion holds weight with the 2nd Amendment. At least, legally.

And he also voted with the majority on the decision. How does this equate with him wanting to change the Second Amendment when he voted to uphold it?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Here's the link for the 157 page ruling. It will take more than a few minutes to digest it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Ryan H 3,812]

***Post removed and restored below without the name calling. Administrative Action will occur next time if this happens again.***

Ok (name calling removed, VJ Moderation). We get it. No right is unlimited. Stop hurting my brain with posts from the Daily Beast.

(name calling removed - VJ Moderation)

Edited February 25, 2014 by Ryan H

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok m#####. We get it. No right is unlimited. Stop hurting my brain with posts from the Daily Beast.

(And I use m##### as a term of endearment)

Lets keep it civil and follow the argument. No name calling, please. The poster I was responding to believes that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. The article from RedState states that such an assertion is absurd. It's kind of difficult to even have a debate over the constitutionality of gun regulations if a segment or significant proportion of gun advocates believe that the 2nd Amendment is absolute.

As I've stated before, the 2nd Amendment has its limits as Justice Scalia qualified them:

District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) -- supreme.justia.com

[...]

1. [...]

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[...]

Now in context of what former Justice Stephens is arguing in the OP of this thread, short of redefining the 2nd Amendment, it is wide open for interpretation.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Porterhouse

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And he also voted with the majority on the decision. How does this equate with him wanting to change the Second Amendment when he voted to uphold it?

The deciding opinion on the Heller was that the District of Columbia's ban on handgun owndership within its bounderies was unconstitutional. Scalia's deciding opinion clarified that the 2nd Amendment is limited as many historical gun laws were well within those limits.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Porterhouse

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The deciding opinion on the Heller was that the District of Columbia's ban on handgun owndership within its bounderies was unconstitutional. Scalia's deciding opinion clarified that the 2nd Amendment is limited as many historical gun laws were well within those limits.

So how does that lead to gun bans, confiscations, tougher gun control laws etc? How are you trying to use this case to convince me that this decision means more gun control than we have now? What are you seeing here that supports an assault weapon ban, handgun or concealed carry ban, large capacity magazine ban etc? How is this ruling going to be used to lower death by firearms? How are you using it to support your viewpoint on tougher gun laws?

For the record, I ask this for the purpose of discussion and opinion, not as an attack on your position on the matter.