John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

[politux]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opini...dment.html 

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.”

[dueda]

Why repeal the text that says people can have arms? It doesn't say who, what, how; let ordinary law define the details.

The problem with law is that it must be very clear, like a computer program, or there'll be loopholes - Hard to plug in a Constitution.
Case being the U.S.A. got a very short text for the 2nd, maybe because it was too controversial a matter.

Then comes the Senate and Congress responsibility: It's their job to regulate what is in need. But for centuries, they didn't.
As a note, in some countries law must be written to detail, there should be no interpretation to avoid corruption or mistake.

One reason being the United States were a collective; not one nation, but more like an archipelagus, so the name.
Well, they were. Now they say "the USA is" (not are). No need for those militias, apparently.

Other being the definition of arms themselves; in "The Militarization of the American Rifle", Hoyt Williams talks, although in a prose unworthy academic study, about what has been a U.S. tradition. And while I remember surplus tank sales (decomissioned barrels) on Popular Mechanics, it was the adoption of the M-16 for the Viet-Nam war that boosted the trend. A better reference could be the following - but not blindly:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf

As the subject is controversial, one needs to check on many sources, including police shooting / gun carry trainning videos, hunting techniques, weapons for warfare and self-defense.

My opinion is the U.S.A., or any country, could use controls on wich kinds of guns and ammo should go when/where/what for and, most important, to who.
There is a saying somewhat like: "Guns don't kill people, humans do" and it's true; we can use a gun, knife, pencil, car, rat poison, pillow, bare hands, whatever.

Welfare, justice and freedom are the keys to avoid violence in the first place. Iceland has the highest gun carry per capita in the world, yet one of the lowest gunshot rates; Canada has a relatively high sports gun ownership yet ridicule low criminal levels. Most countries that ban guns are intrinsically violent, and it doesn't solve the problem in the end.

Last, remember: The first thing to do as one seizes power is to disarm the population, when the citizens then become captives.

[contrail]

Not gonna happen, and doing this would cause other unimaginable issues.

[Mr.Masami]

...

Last, remember: The first thing to do as one seizes power is to disarm the population, when the citizens then become captives.

From what I've seen in the news, USA citizens are more enslaved by their right for everyone to bare arms.
If it would be more strict who can have a gun like in other parts of the world, then cops wouldn't shoot people at every occasion.

Last thing I remember from news was a prank called "swatting" (fake call to police that will trigger SWAT team to come at your house)
Guy walked out of his house as instructed by police with his hands up and got shot in the head because of a scared cop.
(from my observation dude made a hands gesture "what???" fraction of a second before being shot)

There are many news with unnecessary police involved shooting, all because anyone can have a gun.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=547_1514597848
(shitty quality video, there was a better copy somewhere on the net)

It looks like the government can kill anyone they want with no consequences.

Anyway, USA citizens should be more worried about their sugar levels than gun assault, that's what kills them the most at the moment
Real killer has no gun and wears a clown suit.

BTW:

For example, in Vermont it’s legal to sell a handgun or rifle to someone over 16.
In Maine, Alaska, Minnesota or New York State you can sell a rifle to someone over 16.

LOL, most of the 16yr olds are virgins with lot of complexes, if my country would sell guns to kids this age I would surely move away to other place.
I rather live in a country where only cops and hardcore criminals have guns so I don't have to worry that I'll be killed on the next routine police stop or by some 16yr old virgin.

To be clear, I'm not against guns but I'm against "everyone" to have guns.
In most cases like the one with swatting, pro-gunners are usually commenting "if he complied to the officers orders he would live!"
Mkay, so police is now also a judge and the executioner and better tip-toe around every cop ? USA, land of the free...

Not gonna happen, and doing this would cause other unimaginable issues.

I could imagine a lot of grown up man crying like little bitches. But yeah, not gonna happen - government likes to give them fake freedom in form of firearms.

Why repeal the text that says people can have arms? It doesn't say who, what, how; let ordinary law define the details.

Because of the retards like in the video below who will always try to find double bottom where there isn't one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AU1uyzglc

Try watching him for 2min. "the right of the people, if you are people"... reminds of the psycho "free inhabitant" thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zHRQn_IShw

@update: just seen this vid on the main page of LL, cop shooting an unarmed guy because he resisted arrest, in my country they would just grab him, put him to 24/48h cell after which he must pay the fine.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kMZNV_1522077132

Another "land of the free" example, this cops are just lazy and scared of anything that moves.

Bare in mind that LL is 98% a Pro-gun & Pro-cop community, weird coincidence.. so most comments will be like "Civilized people don't attack the police."
plus some random racist ramblings, omitting the fact that this was just another mafia style execution on the street.

US citizens are fighting for the right to have guns in case of government tyranny, I see the tyranny but I don't see the guns being used.
Most of the owners will probably never use the gun in their life other than practice shooting and collecting the dust, lets not forget about the happy gun industry making bucks with every new model.

Never been in the USA, I'm just telling my opinion based on what I see from the news and all I see is a bunch of scared people with false sense of security with their boom-sticks that cause more trouble than good.

[dueda]

It looks like the government can kill anyone they want with no consequences.

Yes, kinda like. It is the principle of power. Not saying it is right, but a fact, like bullies in school.
Humans will be humans. and leaders are the first to break or disregard the laws (they created for us to obey).

Most cops are well trained but it will take a lot of time and money to get in prime shape. Even veterans make mistakes and any human can fail on a "bad day".
Just some professions require a lot of regulation and control systems, like cops, pilots, surgeons, etc to prevent it.

UK police don't usually carry guns, but they may even confront an armed criminal bare-handed.
Brazil police carry guns and they shoot a lot of people, but not out of fear, even knowing one cop in the precinct will be killed every week.

For example, in Vermont it’s legal to sell a handgun or rifle to someone over 16.
In Maine, Alaska, Minnesota or New York State you can sell a rifle to someone over 16.

Although illegal, countryside families here will issue, or let acessible, guns to their teens. It is dangerous out there.
Seems Alaska is like it. But NY ? Well, the Brooklin must be very dangerous for kids.

To be clear, I'm not against guns but I'm against "everyone" to have guns.
In most cases like the one with swatting, pro-gunners are usually commenting "if he complied to the officers orders he would live!"

I agree not everyone can behave properly with a gun, but those were cops, unless you go like Japan the problem is trainning and correction of failures.
Here everyone can buy a gun after medical and psychological evaluation, plus a trainning course including basic legal aspects. Like a driver license.
Theres a few days waiting period to get the papers but the government will delay for one year, law or not, just because they can.


I could imagine a lot of grown up man crying like little bitches. But yeah, not gonna happen - government likes to give them fake freedom in form of firearms.

Picture the government trying to find and confiscate all those guns in America; the gun sector companies out of business and unemployed people;
And the billions in guns the U.S. will no longer sell - Thats a lot of taxes and votes.


Because of the retards like in the video below who will always try to find double bottom where there isn't one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AU1uyzglc
Try watching him for 2min. "the right of the people, if you are people"... reminds of the psycho "free inhabitant" thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zHRQn_IShw

Yes, he sounds awful and some of his logic is just bullshit, imo. But the principles aren't.
First, it is clear that one may choose to defend if need comes; some things can't wait and by logic you better be prepared.
This alone doesn't mean to carry a gun, one can learn martial arts, escape, prevention, negotiation, use knives, batons, sprays, etc.
But I'm a believer in this old saying: "If you want freedom, prepare to war", and guns are very effective. But that's not what the 2nd is intended to achieve.

@update: just seen this vid on the main page of LL, cop shooting an unarmed guy because he resisted arrest, in my country they would just grab him, put him to 24/48h cell after which he must pay the fine.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kMZNV_1522077132

A wrong situation but who will confront at gunpoint? If you don't want to be shot, better think wisely. There was a warning, guy made a wrong choice.
I don't know there but here cops and security guards are instructed to use what they have (spray / taser if available, gun if only) and never give a chance to any offender to take the gun from them: Warn, point, fire a warning shot, fire to hit; all steps as possible due time and risk constraints.

Another "land of the free" example, this cops are just lazy and scared of anything that moves.

Very likely. But unproper police action isn't the same as civilian bearing arms (wich, btw, is not so common in the U.S.) or regulated militias.
I'm betting in NY less than 10% will be loaded on their day to day basis.

Bare in mind that LL is 98% a Pro-gun & Pro-cop community, weird coincidence.. so most comments will be like "Civilized people don't attack the police."
plus some random racist ramblings, omitting the fact that this was just another mafia style execution on the street.

Civilized people sometimes do all kinds of uncivilized things. It is a bad doctrine to put mankind or any model of society on a pedestal.
Black lives matter apart, that guy was aggressively walking towards the police officer even under warning, it was a bad idea.
A taser shock would be in order, not a shot, but I don't know the details. Looks like cops have different ways for different kinds of citizen.

But it doesn't fit in the armed civilian matter, I believe. Unless you mean to take the police guns away.

US citizens are fighting for the right to have guns in case of government tyranny, I see the tyranny but I don't see the guns being used.
Most of the owners will probably never use the gun in their life other than practice shooting and collecting the dust, lets not forget about the happy gun industry making bucks with every new model.

The final point is the key: Americans have guns for everything BUT to prepare militias and to refresh the tree of liberty with blood (Jefferson).
Modern populatons are too comfortable with their lives, SUVs, smartphones, etc. Everybody talks about election frauds, bank frauds, DoD frauds, etc.
None acts. What Snowden told should've caused a world war, but nothing happened.

Well, there are some white power, survivalist, religious and other weird groups; but most americans don't care as far as superball is on.

Never been in the USA, I'm just telling my opinion based on what I see from the news and all I see is a bunch of scared people with false sense of security with their boom-sticks that cause more trouble than good.

The number of gunshots in valid conditions (defense) vs. the other number are ?
I'll have to research but that is the kind of info almost every government on Earth will hide or distort.

[Mr.Masami]

But it doesn't fit in the armed civilian matter, I believe. Unless you mean to take the police guns away.

Yeah that was a bad example, police without guns would be a very bad idea in the USA(or any other place) but they surely need some psychological tests made and more training.
I guess it comes to the attitude and law that give you the right to use gun on anyone attacking you, in my country you can use only "adequate" force, so if someone attack you unarmed and you shoot him, you can go to jail.
That's why Police don't shoot at unarmed suspect but use their techniques to tackle a guy.

Police brutality is a whole another subject but in the USA it all comes to that second amendment and the "right" to "defend" yourself.

So basically in the USA you can get shot by an old lady who was frightened of you in the dark alley, or by some fat fuck who shit himself when you wanted to kick his ass for being an asshole.
And if there are no cameras or witnesses, no one will pay for it.
Old lady will say you tried to rape her, You will say nothing coz you're dead, your family gets notice that you died trying to rape old lady...
Fat fucks lie even about how much they eat, so there's that, you're fucked anyway. Maybe paralyzed from head down because of some scared burger terminator.

The number of gunshots in valid conditions (defense) vs. the other number are ?
I'll have to research but that is the kind of info almost every government on Earth will hide or distort.

Don't know either and yeah finding real info would be probably impossible..
But judging from the ratio of how much news there is about misused guns and guns used truly in self defense, I think majority of people are suffering from "guns 4 all" law.

They should definitely add "adequate" force law and 21yr+ limit, 16yr olds.. common... it's unbelievable.
And they are surprised when mass shooting happens, at this age almost every kid is an anarchist with the "fuck you I won't do what you told me" attitude, I know, I was a kid too.

..My attitude didn't change a lot.. that's why psychological tests should be mandatory, not like "hmm you sir are 21yr old ? ok here's a rifle and a bucket full of ammo".

[dueda]

A quick google search tells me: There're much less defensive than offensive shootings, and there're more unarmed than gun owner americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...cdc0f6aee9

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-l...story.html

That is not the same as the number of preventively armed good citizens vs. criminals. One can carry a gun and never draw it.
Also most people with guns will not carry them, but leave at home, some in the car or office.

IF the U.S.A. decides it is better to leave guns locked at home, what will happen?

People won't carry guns except with a special permite, issued only to special people, but criminals will do what they always do: Buy under the counter.
We have a lot of that here South, and cops can stop and search (frisk or inspect) anyone, anytime, anywhere.

But seems like the americans already don't care that anyway. So maybe the guns should be restricted, at least in part.
Curiously, Canada has none of those troubles and Switzerland has a people's army and even less troubles...
Americans should fix society or that will not work.

[politux]

Switzerland is a tiny county with a homogeneous population. Canada is also tiny in terms of population. The US has a huge population and a much weaker welfare state so people are often poor and driven by desperation to commit crimes. There is also a cultural problem of violence being glorified in the US. Look at all the money we spend on our absurdly large military to maintain our global empire. You're right society needs to change. That will only happen from the grassroots. I think when the older generation dies it will move things along as well in terms of social progress.

[Mr.Masami]

I think I found a solution for the money problem mentioned by you (but not for the votes):

...
Picture the government trying to find and confiscate all those guns in America; the gun sector companies out of business and unemployed people;
And the billions in guns the U.S. will no longer sell - Thats a lot of taxes and votes.
...

In my country last year government paid almost 4 billion in USD for medical treatment of obese people, and they say each year the amount dramatically increases.
I could imagine that USA pay like 100x times more due to being much larger and having much worse obesity than my little country.

So!
Make fat people pay tax for every 1kg of overweight, very high tax like 30$ for 1kg overweight per month, as we know people care more about money than health.
Gov will lose less money each year on medical treatment due to people stop eating like pigs.
The pig-tax money and money saved on medical treatment could be then invested in more police patrols on the streets and more training.

Not only will be safer on the streets but all men will profit from tight -ass bitches walking down the streets.
People would have more sex that decreases tension = less violence on the streets.
I see only profits... TAX THEM!

BTW, I have nothing against fat people, I even think some people should be fat like J. Candy or J. Goodman,  

But THIS:



Gotta stop.

* As for the confiscation of guns, I think not many people would use a gun with a sentence of 10-15 years of prison for not having license, just make the law better.
I had couple unlicensed guns in my past and cut them to pieces after some time because law in my country is very harsh for people without license and I just couldn't sleep with that "jail" thought in my mind.
So I think many would hand over their guns, if not - they would surely not walk with it with law like this, especially with the increased patrols and random checks.

[politux]

Taxing fat people would never fly and would be ruled unconstitutional in the first lawsuit.