Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[mountaineer]

you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors. 

[Smokin Joe]

Huh?  Of course it is possible to repeal an Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that, nor does the Constitution give any particular exalted status to the first 10 amendments.

The Constitution would never have been ratified without the Bill of Rights.

[thackney]

Your post piqued my curiosity, so I looked it up.   

The common law rule is the "permissive use" rule;  as a car owner you are responsible for mayhem cause by your use, or those who you expressly or impliedly permit to use your car.    So mayhem caused by a car thief is not your legal responsibility.  The thief didn't have your consent to use your car.

The common law rule has been modified by statute in some jurisdictions,  providing for the owner's liability if the owner's negligence made the theft of the vehicle reasonably foreseeable.  In New York, for example, if you leave your keys in the car with the engine running, and the car is stolen, you're on the hook.   The idea is that by leaving the keys in the ignition you have created an attractive target for theft.   As one case put it,  to depart from the principle that a car owner is not responsible for the actions of a thief "involves the balancing of a number of considerations, the major ones are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff [would] suffer injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of prevent future harm,  the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved".   Kiick v. Levitas,  (Ct. App. 1980)   

I leave it to you to apply similar principles and factors to the responsibility of a gun owner for the dangerous tool he chooses to possess.   

That makes sense to me.

If I leave a gun visible on the dashboard or seen through the open window from the public sidewalk, I have some responsibility.

If they break into my house and bust open the locked gun cabinet, not so much.

Thanks!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The hubris you display is ultimately comical.   You aren't eager to confront and shoot "tyrants", you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors. 

We are a Constitutional Republic, with our leaders chosen in free and fair elections.  If laws are passed that trample on your rights,  a system exists for impartial judges to consider the primacy of your rights under the Constitution, the political and moral compact that binds us. 
 
If the day should come where you may have to register your precious firearms,  the law will come not from a tyrant but from the American people, speaking through their elected representatives.    The system is fair, is respectful of and embodies the Peoples' will,  and provides the means for peaceful redress and justice because our Constitution, uniquely, declares the government's role is to secure our rights, not abrogate them.     

Yet you declare yourself above the law; not only will you not comply,  you are prepared for "bloodshed" against peace officers.    That is a travesty, sir,  a slap in the face to every decent conservative who believes in the goodness and potential of this nation.  IMO, you are a selfish disgrace to the good name and reputation of this board.

   

I understand your point, and in this particular context of an extremist position, it may seem reasonable. 

But -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you seem to be saying that "as long as the laws are passed in accordance with the procedures established by the Constitution, we have a moral duty to follow them."  And the related point is that we also owe a moral deference to the decisions of Article III courts in terms of interpreting what the Constitution (and statutes) truly mean.  I've highlighted the phrases in your post that I believe fairly imply both of those statements.  In other words, if the majority decides something, and the Courts say it is constitutionally permitted, the rest of us have a moral obligation to follow those laws and decisions.

Is that a fair summary of your position? 

@Jazzhead

[Jazzhead]

I understand your point, and in this particular context of an extremist position, it may seem reasonable. 

But -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you seem to be saying that "as long as the laws are passed in accordance with the procedures established by the Constitution, we have a moral duty to follow them."  And the related point is that we also owe a moral deference to the decisions of Article III courts in terms of interpreting what the Constitution (and statutes) truly mean.  I've highlighted the phrases in your post that I believe fairly imply both of those statements.  In other words, if the majority decides something, and the Courts say it is constitutionally permitted, the rest of us have a moral obligation to follow those laws and decisions.

Is that a fair summary of your position? 

@Jazzhead

Very well put, @Maj. Bill Martin .   Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my position.   The moral obligation to follow such laws and decisions derives from the voluntary nature of the political and community compact, and the existence of means of redress.   Even if the court says a law with which you disagree is good,  you can still act together with your fellow citizens to change it - without resort to violence.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Very well put, @Maj. Bill Martin .   Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my position.   The moral obligation to follow such laws and decisions derives from the voluntary nature of the political and community compact, and the existence of means of redress.   Even if the court says a law with which you disagree is good,  you can still act together with your fellow citizens to change it - without resort to violence.

I hope you understand there are ways to be non-compliant without having to shoot someone....

[INVAR]

The hubris you display is ultimately comical.   You aren't eager to confront and shoot "tyrants", you are eager to confront and shoot your own neighbors. 

My neighbors are heavily armed and are of the same mindset that I am.

You however, are not my "neighbor".  You are an advocate of tyranny devising schemes to impose and trample inalienable God-given rights as 'reasonable' and are nothing but an enemy to every single thing I am beholden in principle and belief. 

If laws are passed that trample on your rights,  a system exists for impartial judges to consider the primacy of your rights under the Constitution, the political and moral compact that binds us.

The moral compact has already been violated repeatedly and anyone stupid enough to take your advocacies up and make them policy will have completely severed any and all allegiance or respect I owe to the state and your precious government.  It will have officially rendered itself illegitimate, and an enemy of liberty just as you are and will be regarded as such.
 

If the day should come where you may have to register your precious firearms,  the law will come not from a tyrant but from the American people, speaking through their elected representatives. 

Right - so you are paraphrasing Obama's insistence that the government 'is us' and we must always bend the knee to it.

Pound sand.   Tomorrow this people could "vote" though their representatives that all white people are stripped of the right to property and must have their wealth taxed at 100% and it will not have any more legitimacy than what you propose for gun owners.  The moment you impose tyranny under the color of law - it has no authority we are obligated to respect.

And we won't.  You will have helped your government declare war on it's undesirables.

The system is fair...

No it is not.  It is corrupted and perverted beyond measure and I for one have no trust or respect for it whatsoever. 

Yet you declare yourself above the law;

The infringement and abolition of a Right into a government-granted privilege under the color of 'law' as you propose, is no law at all.

not only will you not comply,  you are prepared for "bloodshed"...

Yes, Good.  We understand one another. 

That is a travesty, sir,  a slap in the face to every decent conservative who believes in the goodness and potential of this nation.  IMO, you are a selfish disgrace to the good name and reputation of this board.

Then go and attempt to do something about it then.

Go on.

I'll be waiting.

[Smokin Joe]

If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it?   Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored,  and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?   

That's simply a matter of taking responsibility.  And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.   

What makes you think the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country aren't generally owned by responsible people who store them adequately? Those committing mayhem and personal injury overwhelmingly do so intentionally, and will not be the least bit hampered by any laws, because they are already hell-bent on breaking them.

All you propose in an increase in the layers of infringement of the RKBA for people who are already doing things right. The number of accidental shootings in paltry in comparison to those done of malice and with with forethought by people who will neither register nor insure their weapons.

If someone fails to insure their vehicle, I am not the one who should have to pay for the damage they do with it illegally, nor should my vehicle insurance company have to pay for the liability for the actions of another. What you propose is only a camel's nose under the tent, because it will be ineffective, anyway (even if everyone would go for it), and from there the tinkering with the measure to further infringe upon the Right would begin.  We have seen that strategy already. It is how the health care system was "fixed" and will likely never be as great as it was unless that ACA crap is stripped out, root and branch, as we were told it would be. If we can't trust our own liars in Government to perform the signature tasks which led to their election, how in the Hell can we trust anyone in Government to look out for our Rights?  The simple answer is that we can't. Power corrupts, and it is ever more evident.

The only counter to that power, usurped above and beyond the limitations of the Constitution by twisted interpretation of the SCOTUS,  is the overwhelming force of Americans, who by benefit of being Armed and even without martial training represent the only serious balancing deterrent to the corruption in Government. Consider it a two hundred plus year old detente.

Enough of this stupidity, please. No matter how many times you regurgitate this nonsense, the smell is the same.

[Smokin Joe]

I hope you understand there are ways to be non-compliant without having to shoot someone....

That was explained to him pages ago, with the example given of the demise of the Canadian long gun registry.

The person you are responding to is famous for ignoring real-world examples and well documented historical information which refutes his ideas.

[roamer_1]

What makes you think the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country aren't generally owned by responsible people who store them adequately?

Adequately according to whom? That's the next shoe to drop...

[txradioguy]

What makes you think the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country aren't generally owned by responsible people who store them adequately? Those committing mayhem and personal injury overwhelmingly do so intentionally, and will not be the least bit hampered by any laws, because they are already hell-bent on breaking them.

All you propose in an increase in the layers of infringement of the RKBA for people who are already doing things right. The number of accidental shootings in paltry in comparison to those done of malice and with with forethought by people who will neither register nor insure their weapons.

If someone fails to insure their vehicle, I am not the one who should have to pay for the damage they do with it illegally, nor should my vehicle insurance company have to pay for the liability for the actions of another. What you propose is only a camel's nose under the tent, because it will be ineffective, anyway (even if everyone would go for it), and from there the tinkering with the measure to further infringe upon the Right would begin.  We have seen that strategy already. It is how the health care system was "fixed" and will likely never be as great as it was unless that ACA crap is stripped out, root and branch, as we were told it would be. If we can't trust our own liars in Government to perform the signature tasks which led to their election, how in the Hell can we trust anyone in Government to look out for our Rights?  The simple answer is that we can't. Power corrupts, and it is ever more evident.

The only counter to that power, usurped above and beyond the limitations of the Constitution by twisted interpretation of the SCOTUS,  is the overwhelming force of Americans, who by benefit of being Armed and even without martial training represent the only serious balancing deterrent to the corruption in Government. Consider it a two hundred plus year old detente.

Enough of this stupidity, please. No matter how many times you regurgitate this nonsense, the smell is the same.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

That was explained to him pages ago, with the example given of the demise of the Canadian long gun registry.

The person you are responding to is famous for ignoring real-world examples and well documented historical information which refutes his ideas.

He has yet to acknowledge your example and mine about registration leading straight to confiscation right here in the modern-day US of A.

[INVAR]

I hope you understand there are ways to be non-compliant without having to shoot someone....

He understands.

He is appalled and upset that anyone would dare not comply with his "law" to turn an inalienable Right into a privilege granted by the state should something like it get passed.  He is beyond horrified that any of us would actually give thought to resisting attempts made to force compliance with what he wants done. 

Because as he has revealed, refusal to comply with his "law" should anyone be stupid enough to enact it - will be actionable and require enforcement.

Which will bring about that which he is horrified anyone would be willing to do. 

He is an advocate of tyranny under the color of law - and insists we must bend the knee.

He will be resisted.

[Smokin Joe]

Adequately according to whom? That's the next shoe to drop...

None of mine have gone running out into the road shooting at passers by. They have yet to climb out of their repose and attack anyone. I tell them "Stay!" and they do a far better job than my dog.

In the absence of any evildoing on the part of my firearms, they are adequately stored. They are in places where even the best of the climbing great grands cannot access them. But I know where they are if I need them. That is adequate. Anything which adversely affects the ability to deploy such if the need arises is inadequate, also, by virtue of being an impediment to the timely utilization of such arms in self-defense.

[Smokin Joe]

He has yet to acknowledge your example and mine about registration leading straight to confiscation right here in the modern-day US of A.

Yep. I brought up Australia's registry being used to round up the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and the peril of registering semi-automatic rifles in California, which only had to change the definition of what was prohibited to pull their roundup. And the Canadians just "saying no" to the whole long gun registration scheme--to the point where the Government threw in the towel--provides a wonderful example of non violent resistance.

If the government were to take it to the next level and surround some fellow, they might well find themselves surrounded, in turn. It has happened over grazing fees, it would be even more likely over guns. (No more Wacos).

I am not advocating violent action by anyone, just leave our Rights alone and we'll all get along just fine. If the folks who don't want guns, don't want guns, then they don't have to buy them. But leave ours the heck alone.

[Cyber Liberty]

He understands.

He is appalled and upset that anyone would dare not comply with his "law" to turn an inalienable Right into a privilege granted by the state should something like it get passed.  He is beyond horrified that any of us would actually give thought to resisting attempts made to force compliance with what he wants done. 

Because as he has revealed, refusal to comply with his "law" should anyone be stupid enough to enact it - will be actionable and require enforcement.

Which will bring about that which he is horrified anyone would be willing to do. 

He is an advocate of tyranny under the color of law - and insists we must bend the knee.

He will be resisted.

Some folks can't get their mind wrapped around this concept:  People do not obey laws, or follow Judges' orders.  A Judge will tell a man, "You are ordered to stay away from your ex-girlfriend."  What's he do?  Steals a gun and shoots her.  Surprise, surprise! 

Well, not a surprise to you or me....

[INVAR]

If the folks who don't want guns, don't want guns, then they don't have to buy them. But leave ours the heck alone.

Funny how that works when it applies to homosexuals demanding cakes be made to celebrate their lifestyle and perversity. We have been told on this very board that if we do not like homosexuality - don't practice it - but leave them alone. 

Of course they have no intention of leaving Christians alone, they are bigots who have no right to refuse someone demanding they cater to an abomination and happily use the government to punish and impoverish them.

But when it comes to guns, - you have no right to be left alone according to them, because what you own is dangerous and they want it licensed, insured and registered with the government so the state knows you have what you have when they come a'callin' for you to turn them in because it is a REASONABLE REGULATION to turn a Right into a privilege.

[Jazzhead]

The leftists think there are only two buckets.  "Comply and register" or "Come out shooting."

No, that's what INVAR thinks.   

[Jazzhead]

Your frame of mind is not only appalling, but invincibly ignorant.

Expecting a gun owner to exericse responsibility is ignorant?   The Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun, not license to act like you're above the law.


 

[Smokin Joe]

No, that's what INVAR thinks.   

Oh great swami, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and infinity.....

What is it?

[INVAR]

Expecting a gun owner to exericse responsibility is ignorant?   The Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun, not license to act like you're above the law.

The Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to own a gun(s) or arms of any kind.

The Second Amendment PROHIBITS the government and creeps like you from infringing on it.

So any "law" you make to regulate and restrict that right - is no law at all, and not one we are going to comply with.

The only way to enforce it is to put guns to our heads to force compliance - and when that day comes, it is game ON to water the tree of liberty.

[roamer_1]

None of mine have gone running out into the road shooting at passers by. They have yet to climb out of their repose and attack anyone. I tell them "Stay!" and they do a far better job than my dog.

In the absence of any evildoing on the part of my firearms, they are adequately stored. They are in places where even the best of the climbing great grands cannot access them. But I know where they are if I need them. That is adequate. Anything which adversely affects the ability to deploy such if the need arises is inadequate, also, by virtue of being an impediment to the timely utilization of such arms in self-defense.

Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?

[roamer_1]

Expecting a gun owner to exericse responsibility is ignorant?   The Second Amendment give you the right to own a gun, not license to act like you're above the law.

Your definition of 'responsibility' is ignorant, guaranteed.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, that's what INVAR thinks.   

I wouldn't say he does that but you don't.  Its a long way because we're over 300 posts on this thread, but you've been doing it too.

As another said (I think it was @Maj. Bill Martin), I'm not ready to start shooting people, but I'm not ready to comply, either.  Simply put:  I will not comply.

[XenaLee]

Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?

I have no doubt at all that if the leftists have their way, all guns will be mandated to be stored and locked up, with trigger locks, and unloaded.  Meanwhile... when the leftists' bros break into your house to rob and/or worse you.... you'll be too busy trying to load and unlock your gun to save your own life and that of your family members.   Which fits right into that leftist agenda.  It's no secret that most felons are DemocRATs, after all.  Which is why the rats want to give felons back their right to vote.  They protect their own... and disarming law-abiding citizens ... or making it more difficult to get TO your gun.... would be just one method of that protection.