Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[the_doc]

The first few times they peel off a civilian, yes.  Not so much once everybody gets word of it.

My concerns is that "peacekeepers" would not "peel off" a civilian or two.  They would mortar an entire town to "pacify" it.  So, we would have to throw together a militia to mobilize outside our homes.

[Cyber Liberty]

The comments to Jazz so far only serve to buttress his point. Everyone seems to have a different perspective on the meaning of the second amendment as written. I’ve heard these same arguments now for decades.

Seems to me if someone finds it necessary to quote writers from the day to explain what the second amendment means to say, and if we want to make the second amendment immune from liberal misinterpretation, we might want to correct the sentence structure to clarify and strengthen the language protecting the individual right to KABA.

Good idea.  Let's allow lawyers to rewrite the Second Amendment.  That way, they can use legalese to parse it to the point of being meaningless.

[Cyber Liberty]

My concerns is that "peacekeepers" would not "peel off" a civilian or two.  They would mortar an entire town to "pacify" it.  So, we would have to throw together a militia to mobilize outside our homes.

They might even get away with that...until the members of the military start activating themselves and start mortaring the UN troops, and trying the ones not killed in the barrage for the murder of US citizens.

[mountaineer]

Some clown on Facebook just attempted to remind me that prohibition once was in the Constitution and then it was repealed.
Oh yes, I can see how prohibition is essential to the rights of Americans vs. a tyrannical government. 

[the_doc]

They might even get away with that...until the members of the military start activating themselves and start mortaring the UN troops, and trying the ones not killed in the barrage for the murder of US citizens.

Perzackly.

[aligncare]

Some people have a hard time understanding life outside their sheltered environment.

And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.

[Cyber Liberty]

Some clown on Facebook just attempted to remind me that prohibition once was in the Constitution and then it was repealed.
Oh yes, I can see how prohibition is essential to the rights of Americans vs. a tyrannical government. 

Prohibition has stood for nearly a century as an example of why we don't do crap like that.  Do it again with firearms and the non-compliance will make Prohibition look like a church ice-cream social.

[roamer_1]

And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.

The difference being that as a rule, the country isn't imposing itself upon the city - Quite the other way around.

[thackney]

And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.

We have multiple clear demonstrations of strict gun control and the results against homicide and violent crime in Chicago, Detroit, DC, as well as others.

Decades of failure seems to only bring continued ignorance.

In 1980, the US and Brazil had similar homicide rates.  Since then we have done a lot to give more individual rights of arms and Brazil went the other way with strict control.  Now the US homicide rate is about half while Brazil's has tripled.  They are finally beginning to see the light.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309715.msg1643656.html#msg1643656

 

[Cyber Liberty]

And some people in the sparsely populated countryside have a hard time understanding the problems that folks living in the asphalt jungles of America face every day. It goes both ways.

That would be a reasonable comparison if the country folk were demanding the right to drive around the city sans license and registration, or were demanding the city-folk assume similar rules as country-folk and abolish all registration.

That's not happening, your argument is invalid.

[LMAO]

Prohibition has stood for nearly a century as an example of why we don't do crap like that.  Do it again with firearms and the non-compliance will make Prohibition look like a church ice-cream social.

At the same time,look at the near police state we’re getting when it comes to the drug war. Hard to say how much our country has learned from the experiment called Prohibition

[Cyber Liberty]

At the same time,look at the near police state we’re getting when it comes to the drug war. Hard to say how much our country has learned from the experiment called Prohibition

It would appear we have not learned.  Instead, grabbers have decided that's the path they want to take with guns.

[LMAO]

It would appear we have not learned.  Instead, grabbers have decided that's the path they want to take with guns.

 I don’t know if you have Netflix but there’s a Ken Burns Documentary  about Prohibition  and it’s history. The rhetoric used to Outlaw alcohol is the same rhetoric people use to outlaw firearms

[Jazzhead]

The difference being that as a rule, the country isn't imposing itself upon the city - Quite the other way around.

Not on this issue, though.   On the subject of guns,  country folks want their values imposed on the city.     

[Cyber Liberty]

I don’t know if you have Netflix but there’s a Ken Burns Documentary  about Prohibition  and it’s history. The rhetoric used to Outlaw alcohol is the same rhetoric people use to outlaw firearms

No, don't have Netflix.  I had it, but after months of not finding anything worth watching I nixed it.

Did they call for "common sense restrictions on booze" and insist they weren't going to take anybody's away from them?

[thackney]

Not on this issue, though.   On the subject of guns,  country folks want their values imposed on the city.   

We want the Constitution upheld, not ignored.  The same Constitution applies to us all.

[edpc]

That was an anomaly.  It will never happen today.  Remember repeal only happened because the women got the vote, Pretty much and everything went to hell after that.  So, while our boys was overseas fighting the Kaiser, they got prohibition enacted all because the men folk weren't here to control the hussy's.  It was a sad time. A dark time when drinking and gambling and whoring were declared unlawful.

Not exactly.  The 18th Amendment was enacted in January 1920.  Women got the right to vote 8 months later in August with the 19th Amendment.  WWI had been over almost 2 years, by that time.

[txradioguy]

Somewhere between 16-20,000 laws from the local to the federal level in this country regulating guns and their use...and not one of the people advocating for even further regulation can tell us what one more law would accomplish.

It's an open question I'll continue to post in these debates until one of the gun grabbers decides to quit ignoring to question and actually try to explain why one more law will make a difference.

[roamer_1]

Not on this issue, though.   On the subject of guns,  country folks want their values imposed on the city.   

No, the cities all have ineffective and constitution defying gun controls, that are not only egregious (to the point of insanity), but also, flatly, don't work. Their answer to that, as all things liberal, is more of the same, only now at a federal level - imposing their insanity nation-wide. That is without a doubt, city imposing itself on the country.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not on this issue, though.   On the subject of guns,  country folks want their values imposed on the city.   

The hazard of agreeing individual people in the city do not have the right to protect themselves from predators is the probability that governmental sentiment will spread to all other places around the country.  Take a natural right away from one person, and it becomes easier to take that right away from all people (while reserving that right to the people writing the rules).

[edpc]

If I hadn't used all my tinfoil grilling last week when the weather was nice, I'd make a hat and swear this op-ed is designed to foment a reaction from some group to seize the Harper's Ferry Armory.

[Jazzhead]

No, the cities all have ineffective and constitution defying gun controls, that are not only egregious (to the point of insanity), but also, flatly, don't work. Their answer to that, as all things liberal, is more of the same, only now at a federal level - imposing their insanity nation-wide. That is without a doubt, city imposing itself on the country.

Licensure and registration is not insanity.  Requiring all gun transactions to be documented and subject to background checks is not insanity.   These are reasonable and efficacious measures to both permit law enforcement to determine a firearm's provenance, as well as to discourage private, underground sales.   And none of these things infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves.     

[edpc]

More like the Harper Valley PTA.

Valerie would have to wear the pirate ensemble, like her Rhoda character.

[Cyber Liberty]

Licensure and registration is not insanity.  Requiring all gun transactions to be documented and subject to background checks is not insanity.   These are reasonable and efficacious measures to both permit law enforcement to determine a firearm's provenance, as well as to discourage private, underground sales.   And none of these things infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves.     

What about the instances that have been mentioned about registration turning into confiscation right here in the good old US of A?

[roamer_1]

Licensure and registration is not insanity. 

Yes, it most certainly is.

Requiring all gun transactions to be documented and subject to background checks is not insanity.   

Yes, it most certainly is - Again your citified ways do not work. Especially so out here. y'all have been doing exactly this in cities all around the country, and it is beyond ineffective.

These are reasonable and efficacious measures to both permit law enforcement to determine a firearm's provenance, as well as to discourage private, underground sales.   

No, they are nether reasonable, nor efficacious. Or gun crime would be nonexistent in the mega-cities that already employ these methods.

And none of these things infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves.     

The hell you say. A natural right is not subject to imposition. It is natural. You are making it a privilege, assigned by men. What men assign, men can take away.