Former member of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens
TTAG
“The liveliest (and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010,” Paul Barrett writes at Bloomberg Businessweek. “Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with.” God, I hope not. Stevens utterly rejects the Heller ruling establishing an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, this is how he’d amend the Second Amendment: “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 justification for the change is predictably short-sighted . . .
“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”
Emotional claims? Someone hasn’t been reading his history books . . . “James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population,” David E. Vandercoy writes in The History of the Second Amendment.
The awesome success of The Truth About Guns has really gone to the head of its founder Robert Farago. He seems to think he knows the law better than a former Justice of the Supreme Court. And his reasoning is so weak it's embarrassing.Madison's explanation that an armed populace is necessary to prevent government from becoming tyrannical worked pretty well when the weapons owned by the citizenry were EXACTLY the same as those owned by the government. Nowadays, as anyone with half a brain knows, it's a different story. But that doesn't prevent the thoughtless gun nuts from spouting this nonsense over and over again.
After calling Justice Stevens' justification "short-sighted," Farago goes on to repeat this tired old nonsense as his own justification. Then, of course, the sycophantic commenters fall into line, nearly two hundred of them.
This is a good example of why the gun-rights movement is doomed to failure. There's usually no substance in what they say. It's smoke and mirrors, often making little or no sense, but repeated by legions of unthinking followers until it takes on a life of its own.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Resistance to tyranny is one legitimate reason for owning and carrying firearms, but that's only one, and given the current nature of our society, our gun rights serve solely as a reminder. But just because gun control freaks have no problem with tyranny is no proof that the argument here is weak.
ReplyDeleteIt is weak, Greg, and I told you why in the post.
DeleteNo, you repeated the ridiculous claims that Laci loves to make, ignoring the facts that asymmetrical warfare is effective for the ostensibly weaker side and that many personnel in our militiary would refuse to fight against Americans.
DeleteSadly, in many ways, we have the best military for fighting a transition from the Cold War into a hot war that money can buy. The fact that such battles are unlikely doesn't seem to enter into the calculations of military planners and procurement officers.
DeleteOf course it's never gonna happen, Greg. That only makes you gun nuts all the nuttier for continually saying it. But, IF it did happen, the disparity in available weaponry makes it ludicrous to say your little guns would be enough to defeat government tyranny.
DeleteExcept that it hasn't been ridiculous in all the places where asymmetrical warfare has worked or has fought militaries, including two of the most powerful, to a standstill.
DeleteGreg, your examples cannot compare to the military might of the US. Stop playing dumb.
DeleteUmmm...I believe he was talking about the U.S. military there...
DeleteNo, I think he was referring to Afghanistan vs. Russia and another example like that. Greg, would you clarify.
Delete"including two of the most powerful"--what other very powerful military has been faced by and ground to a halt by insurgencies? US in Vietnam--US quagmire in Afghanistan--US even lost momentum it had to work hard to regain in Iraq, which has become an utter shithole after we left.
DeleteSo if one were to say that the current legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as decided by the Supreme Court is that there is an individual right to own guns regardless of whether or not you belong to a militia would they be correct? Is this what Judge Stevens would say?
ReplyDeleteYep, that's what Stevens is saying here. You'd have to rewrite the 2A to include that new line for it to be a collective right tied to militia service.
DeleteNo rewriting is needed only an honest interpretation of what it says now INCLUDING the first four words.
DeleteThen why is Stevens saying that line should be added?
DeleteBut those first four words don't require militia service. They only identify the reason that the amendment was seen as necessary.
DeleteI can remember a symposium I once attended while Heller was being deliberated. The university brought in two of it's own professors from the law school and 3 or 4 from other law schools to speak on the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe professors chosen for this were not conservatives, and yet all of them agreed, more or less, with what Farago is saying. You could tell at least one of them didn't like the implications and wanted to change things so that the right could be limited and regulated more, but he still admitted that the history was pretty clear and that the arguments against an individual right were wanting.
The agreed that gun ownership would be sufficient to prevent government tyranny?
DeleteThey agreed that that was a factor in the rationale, but most of the discussion was spent on discussing whether the right is collective or individual, and each of them agreed that it was properly understood as individual. They also speculated that that was how the court would decide Heller.
DeleteIt was a lecture on legal interpretation, so they were talking about that side of things. They weren't going into speculating on the usefulness of a militia to restrain a government--that's something that they, Stevens, and Farago would likely be on the same level of expertise on.
Do you think you know better than the majority of justices who decide that it's an individual right? There's no problem if you do, but it sorta ends the validity of your claim against us
ReplyDeleteActually, even Justice Scalia said restrictions are permissible. There went your "shall not be infringed" nonsense.
DeleteShow me where Scalia named what restrictions specifically are permissible--beyond making felons and the dangerously insane be prohibited persons and the like. He didn't give life to your demands.
DeleteLets not forget that former Justice Stevens was part of the minority on this case. If Farago favors the majority opinion, then while he might not be as knowledgeable as the former justice, it doesnt discount the decision.
ReplyDeleteThere might even be one or two people who disagree with Miranda, but its the law of the land and must be respected as such until it is overturned.
My problem with Farago was his unabashed arrogance in calling Stevens' justification "short-sighted." Then following that up with a really short-sighted justification of his own.
DeleteSo you Mike, Laci, Doggone and your other company doesn't show this "unabashed arrogance" in your opinions? And this short sightedness doesn't exist with you and your company either?
DeleteReally??