Former Supreme Court Justice: Second Amendment Must Be Changed

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

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.

My point is that even the most ardent pro-gun voice and most authoritative conservative voice on the Supreme Court acknowledges that the 2nd Amendment is limited, but the problem then lies in how do we as a society along with the highest court in the land, decide on what existing and future gun legislation is constitutional? Heller did not end the debate on what laws are constitutional as some gun advocates believe. It did set a precedent that state and local laws that outright ban guns whose main purpose is for protection (self defense) are unconstitutional. I happen to agree with that decision, but for those gun advocates who label other gun laws as unconstitutional and point to Heller as confirmation are mistaken.

The debate over gun laws seem to fall under two camps - for the protection and safety of the public, and whether they are constitutional or not. Some gun advocates believe that any argument, valid or not, over the protection and safety of the public is moot because, according to them, any legislation restricting the use of guns would be unconstitutional. That sentiment has been expressed here in this forum on many occassions, by various different posters. If we can come to a consensus that most state and local gun laws currently on the books would in fact pass consitutional muster in the Supreme Court should they ever be challenged to that point, then we can focus the debates around the protection and safety of the public, as Scalia points out in his court opinion from Heller.

Justice Scalia explained in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are likewise subject to appropriate regulation in order to enhance public safety.”

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/second-amendment

Edited February 25, 2014 by Porterhouse

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Of course it is. The Heller decision has shown that.

[Sousuke 1,214]

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

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.

I was being civil. Meatwad is character on a television show call "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". I just having a bit of fun since your username is a piece of meat lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatwad

Though I do think its funny my post apparently had to be edited as a result rofl.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Sousuke 1,214]

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

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.

Also if we are taking usernames SO seriously, I'll just give you a heads up and let you know you can call me a failure of a star anytime.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I was being civil. Meatwad is character on a television show call "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". I just having a bit of fun since your username is a piece of meat lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatwad

Though I do think its funny my post apparently had to be edited as a result rofl.

Don't sweat it..You are a victim of drive by moderation

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Don't sweat it..You are a victim of drive by moderation

Thou shalt not mock the moderators.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Thou shalt not mock the moderators.

Yes trust me.. I know