MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, December 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 30.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Huckleby » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:03 pm

We're not going to outlaw guns in the U.S. of A.

We already outlaw certain weapons. The real issue is where that line of legality should be drawn.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7227
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby snoqueen » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:15 pm

He was saying they should be regulated ("like cell phones and car batteries"). Nobody suggested prohibiting. I am (for once) agreeing with Huck.

I wouldn't have picked those particular analogies but the basic idea was pretty clear. Prohibiting people from any broad categories of activities or objects hasn't worked too well in the past.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Ned Flanders » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:27 pm

How should we "regulate" free speech, then?
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13533
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:31 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:How should we "regulate" free speech, then?

Are you claiming the Supreme Court has never upheld regulations on speech?

Tell that to jurors, as well as those who hold top secret clearances. Time, place and manner restrictions on speech have been upheld numerous times.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Gentle Man » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:51 am

Detritus wrote:Justice Stevens wrote a piece suggesting five words that could "fix" the Second Amendment to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

His reasoning is based on the original intent of the amendment, on the sovereignty of states, and the misunderstanding of the scope of the right to self-defense.

Full piece here.

Personally, I would rather see the Second Amendment go the way of Prohibition, but I find his discussion interesting.


Good thing the word "fix" is in quotation marks. The Second Amendment isn't broken, but something is inside Stevens' head, i.e., his ability for rational thought. This is clear from his bizarre and tortured dissents in the Heller and McDonald cases. Stevens contorts the plain meaning of words to try to show there's no individual rights protected by the Second Amendment. In order to do so, he argues that there's nothing in the First Amendment that is clearly an individual right. After all, he reasons, who has a right to free speech or freedom of religion isn't mentioned in the First Amendment. Only the right to assemble is described as a right of "the people." And since an individual cannot "assemble" it is a "collective right." So, therefore, "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment must only be a collective right. And hell, if just one individual petitions the government, it won't be effective, therefore the right to petition the government must be a collective right. Seriously, this is how he thinks.... read it! Stevens doesn't think there are any individual rights. He doesn't even seem to think anyone has a right to self-defense. Very hard to take him seriously, it's so sad.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Huckleby » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:41 am

Gentle Man wrote: The Second Amendment isn't broken, but something is inside Stevens' head, i.e., his ability for rational thought. This is clear from his bizarre and tortured dissents in the Heller and McDonald cases. Stevens contorts the plain meaning of words to try to show there's no individual rights protected by the Second Amendment.

How can you call Stevens nutty when he is simply stating the prevailing interpretation of the Supreme Court throughout most of our history? You need to read-up from sources other than NRA literature.

I find his proposal of amending the 2nd Amendment to be nutty, we do have that common ground.

Gentle Man wrote: In order to do so, he argues that there's nothing in the First Amendment that is clearly an individual right. After all, he reasons, who has a right to free speech or freedom of religion isn't mentioned in the First Amendment. Only the right to assemble is described as a right of "the people." And since an individual cannot "assemble" it is a "collective right." So, therefore, "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment must only be a collective right. And hell, if just one individual petitions the government, it won't be effective, therefore the right to petition the government must be a collective right. Seriously, this is how he thinks.... read it! Stevens doesn't think there are any individual rights. He doesn't even seem to think anyone has a right to self-defense. Very hard to take him seriously, it's so sad.

Unless you read something elsewhere that you can provide a link to, everything you claim here is baloney. Stevens neither stated nor implied any of these things. The gun advocates at WashPost all are big on that "collective rights" phrase, so it must come from gun advocacy world.

It's true that the Supreme Court long held that there is no individual right to own a gun, except for purposes of participating in a militia. Whether that was the original intent of the founders is debatable. The SC has adopted more pro-gun positions of late.

As to self-defense, it is far more complicated than saying that somebody doesn't believe in self defense. The question is whether a *state* can prevent an individual from keeping particular firearms at home for purposes of self defense.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7227
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Gentle Man » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:43 pm

Huckleby wrote:How can you call Stevens nutty when he is simply stating the prevailing interpretation of the Supreme Court throughout most of our history? You need to read-up from sources other than NRA literature.


Well, first of all, because he ISN"T "simply stating the prevailing interpretation of the Supreme Court thoughout most of our history." That's BS.

The Second Amendment has been in effect for going on 223 years. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Not until Miller in 1939 did the Supreme Court even rule on a Second Amendment case. Let me repeat that: 148 years passed before the Supreme Court ever issued an interpretation of the Second Amendment. What did the Miller decision do? Did it say there was no individual right to bear arms? No. Did it say one only had a right to bear arms in connection with membership in the militia? No. It simply ruled oddly (and erroneously) that the sawed-off shotgun Miller owned wasn't something in common use by the militia and wasn't protected by the Second Amendment. That's quite a ruling because by that logic our ownership of machineguns would be protected because they are without doubt in common use by the militia. The next Second Amendment case came 69 years later with D.C. v Heller. And as you know the Supreme Court ruled in that case that it is an individual right. Stevens dissented from the majority opinon.

Unless you read something elsewhere that you can provide a link to, everything you claim here is baloney. Stevens neither stated nor implied any of these things. The gun advocates at WashPost all are big on that "collective rights" phrase, so it must come from gun advocacy world.


Baloney huh? Then why not read the actual words of Stevens' dissent in Heller, which includes the very passage I paraphrased in my earlier post:

"The Court also overlooks the significance of the way the Framers used the phrase “the people” in these constitutional provisions. In the First Amendment , no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of “the people.” These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert."

Read the whole damn thing if you want some baloney:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby snoqueen » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:18 pm

It simply ruled oddly (and erroneously) that the sawed-off shotgun Miller owned wasn't something in common use by the militia and wasn't protected by the Second Amendment


The Supreme Court does not rule "erroneously." What they say, goes. If the people want to change it, they seek new legislation. If the court wants to revisit or revise an old ruling (or sort out conflicts among rulings) they take an appropriate case and issue a new ruling.

But saying they rule "erroneously" is nonsensical. If you disagree with their ruling, you say you disagree. For instance, I disagree with Citizens United. But it is not erroneous. The law is now exactly what the court says it is.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Gentle Man » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:42 pm

snoqueen wrote:
It simply ruled oddly (and erroneously) that the sawed-off shotgun Miller owned wasn't something in common use by the militia and wasn't protected by the Second Amendment


The Supreme Court does not rule "erroneously." What they say, goes. If the people want to change it, they seek new legislation. If the court wants to revisit or revise an old ruling (or sort out conflicts among rulings) they take an appropriate case and issue a new ruling.

But saying they rule "erroneously" is nonsensical. If you disagree with their ruling, you say you disagree. For instance, I disagree with Citizens United. But it is not erroneous. The law is now exactly what the court says it is.


I see. So if the Supreme Court issued an opinion that contained the statement "the Sun revolves around the Earth" that would make it so? You have an odd view of truth and falsehood if that's your opinion. Sounds like a strange religious faith to me! Is the Pope also infallible Sno, or only the Supreme Court?

Me? I don't care what the court says about the earth and sun, the truth is that the earth revolves around the sun--- court opinion be damned.

Also, the fact that there were around 14,000 sawed-off shotguns in use by the military at the time of the Miller opinion indicates that guns of the type Miller owned were indeed "in common use by the militia." This fact escaped the court, possibly in part because "Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling." (Wiki)
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:48 pm

Like sno, I too am a judicial realist. The law is what judges say it is. And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our Constitution. This has noting to do with "the Sun revolving around the Earth."

I also note that DMan has rebranded himself as GMan.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby nutria » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:58 pm

Gentle Man wrote:I see. So if the Supreme Court issued an opinion that contained the statement "the Sun revolves around the Earth" that would make it so? You have an odd view of truth and falsehood if that's your opinion. Sounds like a strange religious faith to me! Is the Pope also infallible Sno, or only the Supreme Court?


I know you are more intelligent this.
nutria
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Gentle Man » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:00 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Like sno, I too am a judicial realist. The law is what judges say it is. And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our Constitution. This has noting to do with "the Sun revolving around the Earth."

I also note that DMan has rebranded himself as GMan.


There are matters of fact and matters of law. You are aware that there is a difference? This was a factual error by the court.

Clearly I side with Copernicus and Galileo, while you're in lockstep with the Roman Inquisition. No surprise there.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Gentle Man » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:02 pm

nutria wrote:
Gentle Man wrote:I see. So if the Supreme Court issued an opinion that contained the statement "the Sun revolves around the Earth" that would make it so? You have an odd view of truth and falsehood if that's your opinion. Sounds like a strange religious faith to me! Is the Pope also infallible Sno, or only the Supreme Court?


I know you are more intelligent this.


One doesn 't need to be particularly intelligent to see that Sno is absolutely out of her mind if she believes mathematical facts are determined by court decree.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:03 pm

Gentle Man wrote:This was a factual error by the court.

If so, it wouldn't be the first time. But no matter, as the law is the law and the Supreme Court bats last.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby nutria » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:07 pm

Gentle Man wrote:One doesn 't need to be particularly intelligent to see that Sno is absolutely out of her mind if she believes mathematical facts are determined by court decree.


Oh, for fuck's sake, she said no such thing:

snoqueen wrote:..The law is now exactly what the court says it is.


law =/= mathematical fact

You're approaching Ned/JFH/Sandi territory.

[tangent]
Besides, this:
Gentle Man wrote:Me? I don't care what the court says about the earth and sun, the truth is that the earth revolves around the sun--- court opinion be damned.


Is a context-dependent statement, and is in no way an absolute truth.
[/tangent]
Last edited by nutria on Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nutria
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar