Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[roamer_1]

Isn’t that what he said?

But, I guess you misinterpreted Jazzys comment.

See how easy it is?

I thought he made an astute observation, Jazz did. Don’t leave it up to future courts, make the amendment clear enough even an addled liberal Justice can understand it’s meaning.

A senseless endeavor when judges can pull penumbras out of their asses any time they want to.

[Cyber Liberty]

You know that is a false claim.  Cars, trucks, etc are only registered based upon where they are used, not how.



It isn't because of a lack of danger, that those above are not registered nor carry liability insurance.

Those cars are clearly being used for their intended purpose, yet are not licensed.  Huh.  How can this be?

[thackney]

Those cars are clearly being used for their intended purpose, yet are not licensed.  Huh.  How can this be?

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

[Cyber Liberty]

A senseless endeavor when judges can pull penumbras out of their asses any time they want to.

Judges can pull entire arguments not made by litigants standing in a courtroom before them.  That's how Obamacare turned into a tax.

[INVAR]

Licensure and registration hasn't led to the confiscation of cars.   

Apples and bowling balls.   Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.

We do not trust you with the assurances you make.

Quite the opposite.

When you tell us that such 'regulation' will not end up with bans and confiscation, we assert and assume for a fact that it will, and will treat it the same ay we would a confiscation order.

[Jazzhead]

Apples and bowling balls.   Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.

Simply not true.   Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation.  Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.   

[LMAO]

Apples and bowling balls.   Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.

 It may not necessarily always but licensing and registration firearms do make it easier if, God for bid, a true dictator ever comes to power.  An unarmed citizenry is easier to subjugate that an armed one. I don’t mean citizens going toe to toe with their 30-30 rifle’s  with the United States Marine Corps.  It’s just historically speaking,  citizens are easier to control and manage when they are disarmed

 I guess it boils down to how much do you trust the government.   Is government honest and trustworthy enough to not abuse a registration lists?

[the_doc]

Apples and bowling balls.   Licensure and registration has led to confiscation of arms 100% of the time.

We do not trust you with the assurances you make.

Quite the opposite.

When you tell us that such 'regulation' will not end up with bans and confiscation, we assert and assume for a fact that it will, and will treat it the same ay we would a confiscation order.

The only good news I can offer is that only the U.S. military is an American entity powerful enough to confiscate the millions and millions of civilian firearms in the USA--and they will not obey an order for wholesale confiscation of firearms based on registration data.

U.N. troops on American soil would be another story.  If you were  to hunker down in your house to resist the U.N., they would stand off and blow you and your home to smithereens.

[Jazzhead]

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

But what's your point?   So there's a narrow exception for folks who only drive their cars off road.   Who cares?   The vast majority of cars are bought and intended for use on public roads, where the danger of harming others is obvious.   Such use requires licensure and regulation - and no one, to my knowledge, goes cock-eyed barmy threatening to start an armed insurrection.   

[Jazzhead]

The only good news I can offer is that only the U.S. military is an American entity powerful enough to confiscate the millions and millions of civilian firearms in the USA--and they will not obey an order for wholesale confiscation of firearms based on registration data.

Makes sense to me.   So, no,  licensure and registration will not lead to confiscation. 

[Cyber Liberty]

The only good news I can offer is that only the U.S. military is an American entity powerful enough to confiscate the millions and millions of civilian firearms in the USA--and they will not obey an order for wholesale confiscation of firearms based on registration data.

U.N. troops on American soil would be another story.  If you were  to hunker down in your house to resist the U.N., they would stand off and blow you and your home to smithereens.

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

[INVAR]

Simply not true.   Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation.  Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.

Look bub, I'll make this simple so even and idiot can understand it: any stupid scheme to license or register the inalienable exercising of a right, is a tyrannical affront on liberty and will be dealt with accordingly.

Because if one must comply with government licensing and registration before one is permitted to exercise a Right - then you have confiscated and stripped us of our rights and replaced them with govenment-granted privileges.

If you want to get started with watering the tree of liberty - by all means, keep pushing this garbage of yours.

[thackney]

Simply not true.   Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation.  Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.

Switzerland has a license to buy a handgun from a dealer.  It is not required to buy from an individual.  It is not required to buy a rifle or shotgun.  The registration is not required for hunting rifles.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

[the_doc]

Makes sense to me.   So, no,  licensure and registration will not lead to confiscation.

There is still a problem with the remote but non-zero probability of U.N. peacekeepers on American soil (or, say, Chinese troops in China, perhaps).

Also, local police forces might be corrupt enough to use thug tactics at a local level--perhaps in coordination with leftover Deep State thugs in our 75 non-military but militarized federal agencies (like the Bureau of Land Management).

So, registration is still a problem.  Again, however, gun confiscation would be the final stroke of a Socialist takeover by a corrupt federal government using foreign resources (like happens in a typical Communist takeover of a free state).

[Cyber Liberty]

Makes sense to me.   So, no,  licensure and registration will not lead to confiscation.

Creeping confiscation, just like boiling a frog.  Get people who are not objects of sympathy first.  Going on right now:

In Hawaii, they passed a "reasonable restriction" that anybody with a Medical Marijuana card could not possess a firearm.  They used the gun registration database, matched it to the medial card database and showed up at their houses with warrants to seize the weapons.  it's also happened in CA to vets who were accused of having PTSD.  Your assertion that registration doesn't lead to confiscation has already been firmly refuted in modern-day United States.  It clearly does.

[thackney]

But what's your point?

That you continue to make a false analogy.

So there's a narrow exception for folks who only drive their cars off road.   Who cares?   The vast majority of cars are bought and intended for use on public roads, where the danger of harming others is obvious.

Are you trying to claim the other locations don't have such a danger?  They do.  Be honest.  The primary reason for license and registration is government revenue and control, to identify individuals.

Such use requires licensure and regulation

Only on public roads.  Not because of ownership.

- and no one, to my knowledge, goes cock-eyed barmy threatening to start an armed insurrection.

The second amendment was written by people who just led an armed insurrection against their lawful government.  The first incident of armed rebellion began with the attempted confiscation of the peoples' firearms.  To pretend this wasn't part of the intent is just silly.

[INVAR]

Creeping confiscation, just like boiling a frog.  Get people who are not objects of sympathy first.  Going on right now:

In Hawaii, they passed a "reasonable restriction" that anybody with a Medical Marijuana card could not possess a firearm.  They used the gun registration database, matched it to the medial card database and showed up at their houses with warrants to seize the weapons.  it's also happened in CA to vets who were accused of having PTSD.  Your assertion that registration doesn't lead to confiscation has already been firmly refuted in modern-day United States.  It clearly does.

He knows that.  It was mentioned before on this subject.  He willfully chooses to ignore it in order to push his own 'reasonable regulation' schemes.

Today he will insist he is not for gun bans or confiscation and his plan will do no such thing.

Tomorrow he will tell you that gun bans and confiscation and limits on who is allowed to have a weapon are 'reasonable'.

His ideas and advocacies are the very definition of tyranny and what is unreasonable to anyone who values liberty.

[Meldrew]

any stupid scheme to license or register the inalienable exercising of a right, is a tyrannical affront on liberty

Unquestionably and the infringement on a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution makes it so.  This is not a privilege like driving a car on public roads.  What is the purpose of registration if not to document ownership and location? Why would you want to help a tyranny take your rights? And even assuming you do, what do citizens get in return other than more tyranny?

[Cyber Liberty]

Also, local police forces might be corrupt enough to use thug tactics at a local level--perhaps in coordination with leftover Deep State thugs in our 75 non-military but militarized federal agencies (like the Bureau of Land Management).

That's what Civil Asset Forfeiture is good for.  Look for it to be used by "local authorities" to bolster their armories this way.

[truth_seeker]

Licensure and registration is appropriate whenever a gun or a motor vehicle is to be used for its intended purpose.

In CA a separate license/registration category for vehicles is available, for non-operation. It could be used, for a long-term restoration project as one example. Or a site used to display a collection, not driven on the highways.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/forms/reg/reg102

[the_doc]

That's what Civil Asset Forfeiture is good for.  Look for it to be used by "local authorities" to bolster their armories this way.

Right.

[Cyber Liberty]

In CA a separate license/registration category for vehicles is available, for non-operation. It could be used, for a long-term restoration project as one example. Or a site used to display a collection, not driven on the highways.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/forms/reg/reg102

Curious:  Does the State of California require licenses for NASCAR vehicles?

[aligncare]

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.

[GrouchoTex]

Simply not true.   Licensure and registration exists in several states - and have not led to confiscation.  Countries like Switzerland, which have long standing traditions respecting both the shooting sports and self-defense, nevertheless require licensure and registration - again without confiscation.

But this is not 100% of the time, in 100% of the cases.
Switzerland is unique among European countries, and you know this.

Other European countries require Licences and registration for gun ownership, but do not actually allow the gun owner to keep the firearm at home.

It allows the "owner" to kept their firearms in a government sanctioned gun club, where the owner may "visit" his firearms from time to time, rendering the whole idea of "ownership" in these countries as useless and preposterous.

So, you can draw the conclusion that most countries that require licenses,registrations, and insurance will not be like Switzerland. They are not now like Switzerland, but rather like the gun club example.

[edpc]

Apples and bowling balls.

Good thing Newton was under the right tree.