Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Meldrew,  thanks for restating your questions.   I disagree with you that I "ignored" them;  to the contrary I've already addressed most of them.   But this weekend when I have time I'll return and reply specifically to you.   

I don't believe it is unusual at all for a 2A supporter to also see the wisdom in the reasonable, efficacious regulation of firearms.   What may be the disconnect is that I support Constitutional protection of the individual right to defend one's person, family and property,  while most  of the others here see the right as a bulwark against "tyranny" - and not King George,  but the American community that is concerned about gun violence and dares to take the position that gun owners have an obligation to act responsibly!   

 You apparently see the concerns of your fellow citizens as tyrannical,  and you refuse to  comply with their reasonable request that you account for and register your arms.   You see registration as inevitably leading to confiscation,  and I think - in the American context - that that's a slap in the face to our Constitutional Republic,  the greatest experiment in representative self-government that has ever been devised.   

What is your objection to the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men?  I simply do not understand the legitimacy of this claimed gun-owner's veto.   Yes, an armed man can refuse to comply with the laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives,  and shoot dead the peoples' representatives sent to enforce such laws.   But I can think of few attitudes more fundamentally un-American.   

Fundamental to your problems.

We were not a nation of laws but of men when those men decided by arming themselves to build this country.

Those men constructed laws to live under, but fundamentally, those laws serve the men, not the other way around.  We do not exist to live under laws, but of our own freedoms.

Those men can take this country back by using arms to use against those who disobey those 'laws' for their own purposes when required.

Under your premise of laws being our king, we would still be under the yoke of others.

[Jazzhead]

@Meldrew I see he did it again.  Ignored all your points and questions and simply restated his positions.  You really did give it a good try, trying to push a piece of spaghetti through a keyhole.

Give me a phuckin' break, CL.   I said I would address his questions, when I have the time to do so this weekend.  Do you have a job?  Well, I do.  I participate on this board in good faith and to the best of my ability.   Stop it with your nanny act. 

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Give me a phuckin' break, CL.   I said I would address his questions, when I have the time to do so this weekend.  Do you have a job?  Well, I do.  I participate on this board in good faith and to the best of my ability.   Stop it with your nanny act. 

 

There really isn't any point in bothering, he's not going to buy it anyway.  While everybody is scrolling up to reread posts, reread the last one he sent.

[Jazzhead]

There really isn't any point in bothering, he's not going to buy it anyway. 

You're probably right - that's what I was suggesting in my most recent post above: some of the folks here think any regulation by the community of the gun right, no matter how reasonable or efficacious, is an "infringement" on the right to rebel against "tyrannical" government.  Even government constrained under the confines and protections of our Constitutional Republic!   

Frankly,  I think that's ridiculous.

 But I don't participate on this board just to stir up trouble.   I know my views are outliers here and I do try to engage as best I can with those who respond.   But because I'm outnumbered, I sometimes can't respond to everyone and in the sort of detail folks demand.  All I can do is my level best.   

[Sanguine]

...

 But I don't participate on this board just to stir up trouble.   I know my views are outliers here and I do try to engage as best I can with those who respond.   But because I'm outnumbered, I sometimes can't respond to everyone and in the sort of detail folks demand.  All I can do is my level best.

That's an interesting point, Jazz, and an outlier is what?  It's an aberration, a mis-measurement, an error, something that doesn't fit.  Or - according to Wikipedia:

In statistics, an outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations.[1][2] An outlier may be due to variability in the measurement or it may indicate experimental error; the latter are sometimes excluded from the data set.[3] An outlier can cause serious problems in statistical analyses.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That's an interesting point, Jazz, and an outlier is what?  It's an aberration, a mis-measurement, an error, something that doesn't fit.  Or - according to Wikipedia:

A dermatologist would say an outlier is something on the skin which needs removal.

As an economist, I would say it is a statistical anomaly, which should be rejected as not meaningful.

[Jazzhead]

My views are an outlier on this board, but not among gun owners generally.  A quick google search will lead you to polls that find that majorities of both gun owners and gun owners who are NRA members support universal background checks and the elimination of loopholes that permit gun sales off the back of trucks.  And even a significant minority of gun owners (about a third if I recall)  support the idea of a firearm registry.

Again, and I keep coming back to this:  The federal government is not King George.  Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution.  In such a setting, the chest-thumping here that folks "will not comply" with the community's decision to require gun owners to account for their firearms, and even to shoot peace officers dead who do their jobs to enforce such a requirement, strikes me as profoundly un-American.       

[Cyber Liberty]

We don't live in a Commune, sir.  We live in a Republic.  This is a way in which we differ considerably. 

[Jazzhead]

We don't live in a Commune, sir.  We live in a Republic.  This is a way in which we differ considerably.

I never suggested we live in a "Commune", sir.  Why do you object to the word community?   I mean, of course, the citizens of your State and of the United States generally, who vote for their elected representatives.  Laws are not handed down from on high by tyrants, but by those elected representatives who can be turned from office at the next election.  We are indeed a Constitutional Republic - so why do you insist on disrespecting it by declaring you "won't comply" its laws?   

[Cyber Liberty]

I never suggested we live in a "Commune", sir.  Why do you object to the word community?   I mean, of course, the citizens of your State and of the United States generally, who vote for their elected representatives.  Laws are not handed down from on high by tyrants, but by those elected representatives who can be turned from office at the next election.  We are indeed a Constitutional Republic - so why do you insist on disrespecting it by declaring you "won't comply" its laws?   

I don't object to the word, I object to the way it is used to infer that my rights are inferior.  We are a Republic to prevent mob rule, where the majority in the "community" can run roughshod over the rights of a minority.

[Sanguine]

My views are an outlier on this board, but not among gun owners generally.  A quick google search will lead you to polls that find that majorities of both gun owners and gun owners who are NRA members support universal background checks and the elimination of loopholes that permit gun sales off the back of trucks.  And even a significant minority of gun owners (about a third if I recall)  support the idea of a firearm registry.

And, this is why the Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a democracy in favor of a Republic.  The whims of the public do not determine our laws. 

Again, and I keep coming back to this:  The federal government is not King George.  Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution. 

See my point 1, above. 

In such a setting, the chest-thumping here that folks "will not comply" with the community's decision to require gun owners to account for their firearms, and even to shoot peace officers dead who do their jobs to enforce such a requirement, strikes me as profoundly un-American.       

Interesting, you want to protect the rights of minorities, but do so by popular opinion.  Do you see the contradiction?

You seem genuinely disturbed by the idea of individual sovereignty and limited government. 

[Meldrew]

no matter how reasonable or efficacious,

Jazz I have been asking you to tell us all what's reasonable about your proposed registration and what about any of its details make it reasonable.  You have been wholly unable to do it either because you don't know how or because you don't really want to.  Merely saying it's reasonable and efficacious doesn't make it so. I've asked you to explain how your proposal is different from the other thousands of laws regulating the Second Amendment but you got nothing just like the other gun control advocates whose objective is surreptitiously confiscation. 

I came to you with questions in good faith. I didn't use snark or invective.  You didn't reciprocate that good faith so, as @Cyber Liberty said, I no longer have interest in anything you might have to say.  Ducks and bubbles...

[Jazzhead]

Jazz I have been asking you to tell us all what's reasonable about your proposed registration and what about any of its details make it reasonable.  You have been wholly unable to do it either because you don't know how or because you don't really want to.  Merely saying it's reasonable and efficacious doesn't make it so. I've asked you to explain how your proposal is different from the other thousands of laws regulating the Second Amendment but you got nothing just like the other gun control advocates whose objective is surreptitiously confiscation. 

I came to you with questions in good faith. I didn't use snark or invective.  You didn't reciprocate that good faith so, as @Cyber Liberty said, I no longer have interest in anything you might have to say.  Ducks and bubbles...

Fine, suit yourself,@Meldrew.    I was really going to take the time this weekend to respond seriously to your questions.  I thought your were a decent guy, and I felt bad about overlooking your posts.   Substantive analysis regarding the nuts and bolts of a reasonable and workable liability and insurance regime for firearms can't be dashed off while I'm here at work.   

Thanks for letting me know in advance you don't give a damn anyway.   

[DCPatriot]

Give me a phuckin' break, CL.   I said I would address his questions, when I have the time to do so this weekend.  Do you have a job?  Well, I do.  I participate on this board in good faith and to the best of my ability.   Stop it with your nanny act. 

 

 

And then they don't have manners to 'ping' you when they're dissing you.

@Cyber Liberty
@txradioguy

@Meldrew ....a special shout-out for your quality posts/points/argument(s)   

[Cyber Liberty]

Fine, suit yourself,@Meldrew.    I was really going to take the time this weekend to respond seriously to your questions.  I thought your were a decent guy, and I felt bad about overlooking your posts.   Substantive discussions regarding the nuts and bolts of reasonable and workable liability and insurance regimes can't be dashed off while I'm here at work.   

Thanks for letting me know in advance you don't give a damn anyway.

 

He did until you started BS'ing him.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

And then they don't have manners to 'ping' you when they're dissing you.

@Cyber Liberty
@txradioguy

@Meldrew ....a special shout-out for your quality posts/points/argument(s)   

 

(I think)   

Happy Good Friday!  (Thought it sounds odd to celebrate the day Jesus was nailed to a cross.)

[Jazzhead]

He did until you started BS'ing him.

I didn't BS him.  I told him I'd respond to his questions this weekend when I had the time.  I intended to do so.  But it turns out he's just another pr*ck.   

[DCPatriot]

(I think)   

Happy Good Friday!  (Thought it sounds odd to celebrate the day Jesus was nailed to a cross.)

Why??   Hadn't you heard?   The Pope just decided "ex cathedra" (from the chair) that there is NO Hell!!   

[Jazzhead]

Happy Good Friday!  (Thought it sounds odd to celebrate the day Jesus was nailed to a cross.)

If He hadn't been nailed to a cross, He wouldn't have fulfilled His destiny to die for the sins of humanity.

Happy Good Friday and Easter to all!   

[Cyber Liberty]

Why??   Hadn't you heard?   The Pope just decided "ex cathedra" (from the chair) that there is NO Hell!!   

 
Yeah, I've read that (except not the "ex cathedra" part.  I'll have to ask the Missus).  I'd think having body parts nailed to something would feel like Heck.

[Meldrew]

I didn't BS him.  I told him I'd respond to his questions this weekend when I had the time.  I intended to do so.  But it turns out he's just another bleep.   

I beg your pardon??  Seems the leftist circle is now complete. Let me get this straight, I ask a question - no response, I ask another question - no response, I ask several more questions, response asking what my questions are but no actual answers.  Lot's of vague innuendo about how I and others are rabid right wing gun nuts who don't respect "the community" but nothing substantive.  Then when told nevermind it's suddenly me who "doesn't give a damn" and is now a "bleep".  (Please note that I have yet to call anyone names but it's difficult).

So I tell you what Jazzhead, I still do have an intellectual interest in your line of reasoning so please, for my edification and the good of us all, PLEASE DO WRITE OUT DETAILED ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS over the weekend as you said you'd do. I would only ask that you make it understandable to a portly suburbanite - no legalese please.  I'll check back Sunday to see how you're getting along.  I encourage all participants in the thread to do the same. 

And for @DCPatriot who informs me that you need to tag folks you're talking to even though you've been posting to them for a couple pages, @Jazzhead.

Happy and blessed Easter everyone!

[Sanguine]

I beg your pardon??  Seems the leftist circle is now complete. Let me get this straight, I ask a question - no response, I ask another question - no response, I ask several more questions, response asking what my questions are but no actual answers.  Lot's of vague innuendo about how I and others are rabid right wing gun nuts who don't respect "the community" but nothing substantive.  Then when told nevermind it's suddenly me who "doesn't give a damn" and is now a "bleep".  (Please note that I have yet to call anyone names but it's difficult).

So I tell you what Jazzhead, I still do have an intellectual interest in your line of reasoning so please, for my edification and the good of us all, PLEASE DO WRITE OUT DETAILED ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS over the weekend as you said you'd do. I would only ask that you make it understandable to a portly suburbanite - no legalese please.  I'll check back Sunday to see how you're getting along.  I encourage all participants in the thread to do the same. 

And for @DCPatriot who informs me that you need to tag folks you're talking to even though you've been posting to them for a couple pages, @Jazzhead.

Happy and blessed Easter everyone!

Thanks, @Meldrew.  @Jazzhead, would you include me in your response also?  I'm very interested in what you have to say in response to Meldrew's and my questions. 

[roamer_1]

My views are an outlier on this board, but not among gun owners generally.  A quick google search will lead you to polls that find that majorities of both gun owners

You have no idea who the gun owners are... Not even a pittance of them.

Again, and I keep coming back to this:  The federal government is not King George.

Oh hell yes, it is.

Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution. 

No they don't.  They work to abrogate those very rights and spend us into oblivion.

In such a setting, the chest-thumping here that folks "will not comply" with the community's decision to require gun owners to account for their firearms, and even to shoot peace officers dead who do their jobs to enforce such a requirement, strikes me as profoundly un-American.       

You do not represent 'the community'.
Whole STATES will not comply, to include my own. And righteous rebellion is as American as apple pie.

[the_doc]

@Jazzhead
@roamer_1
@INVAR
@Sanguine

Again, and I keep coming back to this:  The federal government is not King George.

Actually, it is worse than King George.  I have been watching the deterioration of the U.S. government into monumental corruption since JFK's murder in 1963, but I'm afraid that too many things are flying well below your radar, Jazzhead. 

The American Republic is surely one of the finest nations, if not the very finest nation of all in world history; however our U.S. government has (paradoxically?) become one of the most corrupt in the world.  The reason why you haven't noticed this is that our Constitutional form is being used by sophisticated conspirators in both major parties to keep most of their malicious corruption under your radar while they walk us off a cliff into a Global Socialist disaster. 

The necessary last step in their increasingly more desperate plan is war on American soil.

I think that a lot of TBR folks have begun to realize this--which would explain their impassioned responses against what I confess are your seemingly reasonable posts.  I would suggest that we quit bickering on this thread and see what happens this year--probably ramping up soon.   

[Sanguine]

@Jazzhead
@roamer_1
@INVAR
@Sanguine
Actually, it is worse than King George.  I have been watching the deterioration of the U.S. government into monumental corruption since JFK's murder in 1963, but I'm afraid that too many things are flying well below your radar, Jazzhead. 

The American Republic is surely one of the finest nations, if not the very finest nation of all in world history; however our U.S. government has (paradoxically?) become one of the most corrupt in the world.  The reason why you haven't noticed this is that our Constitutional form is being used by sophisticated conspirators in both major parties to keep most of their malicious corruption under your radar while they walk us off a cliff into a Global Socialist disaster. 

The necessary last step in their increasingly more desperate plan is war on American soil.

I think that a lot of TBR folks have begun to realize this--which would explain their impassioned responses against what I confess are your seemingly reasonable posts.  I would suggest that we quit bickering on this thread and see what happens this year--probably ramping up soon.   

@the_doc, regarding the level of passion on this subject, you are correct.  Most of us recognize the real and significant dangers we are facing from an extra-Constitutional and corrupt government.  And, we don't take it lightly when someone here pooh-poohs the dangers and tells us we are just imagining things.