Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[XenaLee]

Yeah, as I have said before, there are some good guys in the legal profession, but the 99% are giving the 1% a bad reputation.

The stunning thing about this controversy is that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear if you consider the historical context.

***

There is an important axiom of hermeneutics:  Context determines meaning.  Unfortunately, the liberals use this axiom in a dishonestly, disrespectfully stupid way.  They say that the final clause of the Amendment is interpreted in the light of the introductory clause, and they point out [correctly] that the first clause is emphasizing a collective right.  That's fine.  But the liberals go on to claim that this near context of the final clause narrows the final clause so as to render it as NOT affirming in any legally useful way an UNALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL right. 

This supposedly gives THEM the RIGHT to take away our guns if they want to do so.  (Well, how's that for an unalienable right?) They are delighted to mock the idea of a modern-day militia and to use this mockery to take away our unalienable rights to self defense.  But the truth is, they are performing this legal sleight-of-hand precisely because they are afraid of a modern counterpart of a militia being able to block their murderous Marxist revolution--which is the anti-democratic end game of a Marxist takeover.   

Make no mistake about it, the Marxists want guys like us dead.   A "progressive" college professor actually informed me that he and his ilk were surely going to kill me.  When we grasp this, we need to notice that the Marxists are overruling the entire 2nd Amendment--overruling BOTH clauses.  That, in turn, proves that their hermeneutic is phony.  Their position is diametrically opposed to the most important context of all--the historical context of the 2nd Amendment.

See Eugene Volokh's research on the legal documents of the period.  The Framers were following the rhetorical tradition of their own day.  They were introducing their Constitutional affirmation of an individual right to self defense by citing one of perhaps many corollary benefits of that legal doctrine of self defense presented in the dramatic final clause.  In other words, the entire Amendment is definitely, even fiercely upholding the individual right.

We must not budge an inch.  We must not make unnecessary and therefore counterproductive concessions to liberals, including even "Republicans" like that reprobate John Paul Stevens.  We must stop the ongoing and worsening infringements--no matter what form they take.  Our arguments must openly defy those who say we need to "clarify" a Constitutional right to bear arms.  The SCOTUS has already "clarified" it--by simply noticing and proclaiming that the individual right is integral to the 2nd Amendment.       

The more I have mused over the 2nd Amendment, the more I am inclined to say it is perhaps the most important Amendment in the entire Bill of Rights.  The more the political war rages, the more prepared we have to be for its escalation.

 

[XenaLee]

This, too, is idiotic.   What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility.   For that you advocate a bloodbath?

Reading comprehension challenged, as usual?  Or ... just the usual leftist twisting of someone else's words. 

Ya know... you are constantly telling posters you disagree with "don't be foolish, don't be a
fool, do you realize how idiotic/foolish you sound", etc..... you are essentially .... in a reach-around manner...calling us fools. 

The reality is...

since you are, in reality, constantly calling us fools....

you're the biggest fool on the forum.  We've got your number... good & plenty.

Congrats.

[Cyber Liberty]

This, too, is idiotic.   What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility.   For that you advocate a bloodbath?

That's not the limit of what you've been suggesting since we first broached this subject, many moons ago.  You want all guns registered, and you want people to pay some unspecified amount for insurance.  All the while you insist that "registration does not equal confiscation,"  that your demands are "reasonable," and the insurance will not price the weapons out of the hands of poor people.

Jazz, we just don't trust government as much as you seem to.  Simple as that.  Because I don't believe the assurances given by people who have killed citizens like Randy Weaver and Lavoy Finicum, I will not comply.

[the_doc]

Jazz, we just don't trust government as much as you seem to.  Simple as that.  Because I don't believe the assurances given by people who have killed citizens like Randy Weaver and Lavoy Finicum, I will not comply.

I am afraid my friend @Jazzhead is in for a great big shock.  We have one of the most corrupt governments in the entire world.  I think he will eventually see that--hopefully starting before the year is out.

Here's one example:  What was Fast and Furious all about?

[roamer_1]

This, too, is idiotic.   What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility.   For that you advocate a bloodbath?

That infers first that we are not being responsible, which is a falsity.

[the_doc]

That's not the limit of what you've been suggesting since we first broached this subject, many moons ago.  You want all guns registered, and you want people to pay some unspecified amount for insurance.  All the while you insist that "registration does not equal confiscation,"  that your demands are "reasonable," and the insurance will not price the weapons out of the hands of poor people.

Jazz, we just don't trust government as much as you seem to.  Simple as that.  Because I don't believe the assurances given by people who have killed citizens like Randy Weaver and Lavoy Finicum, I will not comply.

Minor correction:  It was actually Randy Weaver's wife and son who were killed at Ruby Ridge.  It was a cold-blooded murder of an innocent, non-threatening civilian woman.  The federal sniper didn't actually shoot her.  He had a clear shot and took it because he could. 

This happened under Bush 41.

The Waco debacle was even worse.  More than 80 men, women, and children were deliberately murdered in a show of federal might.  President Clinton laughed about it.

BTW, both of these scenarios of murder were about firearms.  Crooked feds have been telegraphing their intentions to kill "rednecks" and "kooks."   

[Cyber Liberty]

Minor correction:  It was actually Randy Weaver's wife and son who were killed at Ruby Ridge.  It was a cold-blooded murder of an innocent, non-threatening civilian woman.  The federal sniper didn't actually shoot her.  He had a clear shot and took it because he could. 

This happened under Bush 41.

The Waco debacle was even worse.  More than 80 men, women, and children were deliberately murdered in a show of federal might.  President Clinton laughed about it.

BTW, both of these scenarios of murder were about firearms.  Crooked feds have been telegraphing their intentions to kill "rednecks" and "kooks."   

You are correct, I was typing fast.  I didn't want to bring up Waco because some folks had dismissed them all as religious nuts who got what they deserved.

[INVAR]

This, too, is idiotic.   What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility.   For that you advocate a bloodbath?

It is your harebrained ideas of rendering an inalienable right into a government-granted permission and privilege that is IDIOTIC.

I suggest you take responsibility for your own advocacy of tyranny, because your stupid ideas, if ever adopted and attempted be imposed, will be responsible for initiating that bloodbath.

Test us if you think we're just going to roll over and go along with your bullshit schemes.

[Suppressed]

Slightly off topic... my friend in Houston hasn't seen any UN trucks or vehicles since Trump became president.  Before that, he saw them a lot.  Wonder why?   

The US had contracts to manufacture UN vehicles, and were doing so until a few years ago, driving them on US roads for delivery.  Are you saying we've lost the contracts under Trump?

[Elderberry]

A Structural Interpretation of the Second Amendment: Why Heller is (Probably) Wrong on Originalist Grounds

Richard A. Epstein

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/4116/

[Elderberry]

Slightly off topic... my friend in Houston hasn't seen any UN trucks or vehicles since Trump became president.  Before that, he saw them a lot.  Wonder why?   

[txradioguy]

This, too, is idiotic.   What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility.   For that you advocate a bloodbath?

We already take personal responsibility for the firearms we own and use. Nothing more needs to be put on the law abiding citizen where the 2A is concerned.

You're advocating for government over reach and an abridgement of a basic right granted to us in the Constitution.

We fought a war with England over a .02 cent increase in a tax.

Why is something like the natural right of self defense and our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms not worthy of fighting for as well if that right is violated and taken from us?

[XenaLee]

The US had contracts to manufacture UN vehicles, and were doing so until a few years ago, driving them on US roads for delivery.  Are you saying we've lost the contracts under Trump?

I'm saying he hasn't seen them (UN vehicles) anywhere for the past year... and he has a mobile repair service, so he gets around A LOT.

[INVAR]

You're advocating for government over reach and an abridgement of a basic right granted to us in the Constitution.

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!

The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms.  Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.

A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.

Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.

[txradioguy]

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!

The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms.  Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.

A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.

Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.

But you get my point right?

I mean we're talking about a Constitutional Amendment that was so important to the ratification of the Constitution that several states...including New York refused to ratify the Constitution unless the 2nd Amendment was included in the original Bill of Rights.

If it was that important back then...it shouldn't be any less important to ALL Americans today.   And we should resist any and all attempts to take away our RKBA.

Does that mean armed rebellion against the Government...no there are other ways before it gets that far despite what our resident leftist Liberal lawyer tries to claim we want.

[Cyber Liberty]

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!

The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms.  Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.

A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.

Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.

This would be a good place to mention what the Framers themselves thought about the Bill of Rights.  As a group, they didn't like the notion at all, or they would have written them into the body of the Constitution itself.  Madison and others were compelled to draft the first ten Amendments in order to get the Constitution ratified.  The States wanted them written in.  Here's a reference I found in Wiki Answers, which is an admittedly poor source, but sufficient to make my point.

The anti-Federalists did not approve of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution since there was no Bill of Rights. James Madison himself did not like the Bill of Rights for 2 reasons. One, he thought they were unnecessary because the Constitution had not granted the Federal government the powers that the Bill of Rights would guard against. Second, he thought they were dangerous because any rights not listed might be thought to be unprotected.  In the end, the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791 just three years after the ratification of the Constitution itself.

Considering the tortuous interpretations being given the words of the Second Amendment in service of infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and the twisting away from plain language, I'd say they should have listened to Madison and the rest of the Framers.  The argument being made here is the right does not exist at all but for one SCOTUS decision.  Additionally, we are told a word, a predicate, renders the individual right, IOW the right of the people, null and void.

Then there is the issue of practicality.  The people simply will not permit it, they will resist.  Blood will be spilled.  We have a very long history in this country of resisting disarmament, back to before the Revolutionary War.  The first battles in that war were over this very subject, not collection of taxes.  I am not the only person who will not comply.

[Sanguine]

But you get my point right?

I mean we're talking about a Constitutional Amendment that was so important to the ratification of the Constitution that several states...including New York refused to ratify the Constitution unless the 2nd Amendment was included in the original Bill of Rights.

If it was that important back then...it shouldn't be any less important to ALL Americans today.   And we should resist any and all attempts to take away our RKBA.

Does that mean armed rebellion against the Government...no there are other ways before it gets that far despite what our resident leftist Liberal lawyer tries to claim we want.

I'm not sure that this is a point that @INVAR is making, but, the right to self-protection, being a natural, God-given right, I don't think this amendment could be repealed.  It is merely a statement of fact, not a right given to us by the government.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not sure that this is a point that @INVAR is making, but, the right to self-protection, being a natural, God-given right, I don't think this amendment could be repealed.  It is merely a statement of fact, not a right given to us by the government.

That right was not "given by the government."  It's a natural right, given to us by the Almighty, and can't be taken away by anybody else.  Another point lost on lawyers attempting to argue the right out of existence.  In a sense, it requires a denial of the existence of an Almighty to think men can take it away.

[INVAR]

But you get my point right?

I get your point, but we have to be insistent in the accuracy of informing tyranny advocates that the rights they think can be *reasonably regulated* under the color of 'law', do not come from the parchment they say grants us our rights.  Neither is their argument that a court can infringe upon them *reasonably* under the guise of public safety and security.

Our Rights are above the institutions of men to mess around with.  When they do step into doing as is being suggested by our resident advocate of tyranny - then such government is no longer a Protector of Rights, but Destructive of those Rights.  At such time, we have an obligation to alter and abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed and create new guards for our future security.  They have NO legal or moral authority to touch or limit our Rights.

Because when they do - we should no longer consent to be governed by such people or institutions so corrupted into evil that they evince a plan rendering us under absolute despotism.

If it was that important back then...it shouldn't be any less important to ALL Americans today.

But it is not.  That is the reality as we see JH prove daily.  As with all Leftists and Tyrants desiring power and control, the entire Constitution and especially our Rights are an obstacle they seek to regulate, neuter or abolish for the population they hate and fear and want to subjugate.   

And we should resist any and all attempts to take away our RKBA.

Yes.  But the only way they 'take it away' is if we let them, or we submit to the abolition under the color of 'law' - which is illegal in itself.

Does that mean armed rebellion against the Government...no there are other ways before it gets that far despite what our resident leftist Liberal lawyer tries to claim we want.

We are past the point of reasoning with such people and they have no intention whatsoever to back off their demand that our right to arms is rendered into a privilege that is regulated by the permission of government to grant or take away at their discretion.

At this point - they simply need to be reminded what it is going to cost them by continuing down the path they are on.

It may be the only thing to give them pause.

And if not - then the tree of liberty needs watering.

[Cyber Liberty]

At this point - they simply need to be reminded what it is going to cost them by continuing down the path they are on.

It may be the only thing to give them pause.

And if not - then the tree of liberty needs watering.

^^^^^^This.  I've argued the point I made a few posts up from this one of yours until I'm blue (sometimes red) in the face with people insistent upon putting "reasonable" restrictions on my God-given right to protect myself from society's predators.

Having given up, I have simply punted the ball, and informed them I simply will not comply.  End of discussion.

[Sanguine]

^^^^^^This.  I've argued the point I made a few posts up from this one of yours until I'm blue (sometimes red) in the face with people insistent upon putting "reasonable" restrictions on my God-given right to protect myself from society's predators.

Having given up, I have simply punted the ball, and informed them I simply will not comply.  End of discussion.

Yep.

[Suppressed]

Ungrammatical by 21st century rules.  It's like the Oxford Comma, they're still fighting a war over that.

@Cyber Liberty

I believe the Oxford Comma should be used throughout the United States and its territories, Canada and Mexico.

[jmyrlefuller]

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! WRONG my friend!

The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Constitution PROHIBITS government from infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear arms.  Infringements like the harebrained tyranny our resident Leftist is pushing we embrace.

A citizenry of able-bodied males, well-equipped and trained in the use of their own weapons being necessary for the security of a free and sovereign people, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms may not be infringed.

Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.

Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.

I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.

[XenaLee]

Show me in the Bible where there's a God-given right to keep and bear weapons that kill.

I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.

It says thou shalt not kill.  It does NOT say thou shalt not save your own life by taking another.  If that were true, it would make lemmings and victims of all Christians.... faith-bound to just roll over and be killed by God-less heathens.  Defending your own life is not forbidden by God.

So...

surely you can see the difference.  Or maybe not.

[edpc]

If angels can carry flaming swords, I’m comfortable packing my Kimber.