Author Topic: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’  (Read 58319 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,599
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #475 on: April 03, 2018, 01:25:08 am »
It says thou shalt not kill.   

The literal translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #476 on: April 03, 2018, 01:32:14 am »
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.

Actually, it says 'Thou shall not murder'.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #477 on: April 03, 2018, 01:33:17 am »
I believe the Ten Commandments explicitly says otherwise.

No, that is not true.

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #478 on: April 03, 2018, 01:34:25 am »
The literal translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

Right.  But there are certain factions out there that would translate that to mean that even killing another in defense of your own life is against the 6th commandment.  Not so.

No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,328
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #479 on: April 03, 2018, 01:58:50 am »
This, too, is idiotic.   What is being suggested is merely that you take responsibility.   For that you advocate a bloodbath?
When will you answer the question on the licensing and registration of knives @Jazzhead ?

More people die due to knives than guns, so why not go after the greater gain?

All your posturing on accepting responsibility and covering by insurance should be for the weapon of choice used in a lot more killings than guns.

No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #480 on: April 03, 2018, 02:02:56 am »
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.

Your understanding of scripture and mine is decidedly different.  The word is murder - not kill, which often God ordered His entire nation to do to other nations who came against Israel, down to every last man, woman and child, not to mention their flocks and herds.

I can find no scripture that says a Believer may not bear a sword or bow or slingshot or any other weapon.  I also can find no scripture that says we may not defend ourselves by use of deadly force when attacked or oppressed.

But let's say for sake of argument that your understanding is correct - and that bible believers are expressly forbidden of God to keep and bear weapons of any kind. 

Why then, did God bless a people who shot and killed the agents of the lawful, legal authority of the Crown of England and rebel via warfare to refuse them their object to disarm them at Lexington Green and Concord Hill?  How did He bless this nation to become the most powerful in all the world's history - if at it's inception, His Followers sinned by using weapons God commanded they not keep or bear?  To believe that the Commandment forbids a person to keep or bear arms means that God rewarded sin with a blessing unlike any in world history.

Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #481 on: April 03, 2018, 02:03:36 am »
@Cyber Liberty

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

I hearby challenge you to a duel.



Shall we say, pistols at dawn?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:04:22 am by Cyber Liberty »
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,574
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #482 on: April 03, 2018, 02:09:08 am »
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.

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

The Biblical View of Self-Defense

Introduction

This study examines the Biblical view of self-defense. We're looking at questions such as, Is it right to employ lethal force to protect the life of yourself and others? Is it right to take measures that might kill an attacker who is wrongfully threatening your life or the life of another?

Self-defense here is defined as "protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others." Self-defense is not about taking vengeance. Self-defense is not about punishing criminals. Self-defense involves preserving one's own health and life when it is threatened by the actions of others. When we speak about using potentially lethal force in self-defense, we're talking about using weapons to protect ourselves and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker.

Now why in the world would we take time to look at this subject? First, as Christians, we want to know how to apply the Bible to current issues in society. We live in a country with approximately 250 million guns and approximately 300 million people. Furthermore, in our country, it is estimated that law abiding citizens defend themselves using guns approximately one million to two million times a year. Almost 200,000 people in this state alone have a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun. What does the Bible have to say about that many guns actively being used for self-protection?

We live in a time where the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, current possibilities of economic and societal collapse, and crime have people buying guns and ammunition in large quantities for self protection. What does the Bible say about that? What does the Bible say about so-called "assault weapons"?

As always, we want our hearts and minds to be ruled and informed by Scripture--not by our emotions, not by our experiences, and certainly not by the World. And because the Scriptures have much to say about this topic, it is relevant and worth examining in the Church.

The focus of this study is specific. I am not dealing with whether lethal force can legitimately be used in wartime. I am not dealing with capital punishment. I am not dealing with Biblical principles involved in the American Revolution or the War Between the States.

This study is organized in five sections. First, we will look at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. Secondly, we will look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. Thirdly, we will look at passages dealing with the application of lethal force in self-defense. Fourth, we will look at what the Bible says about possession of weapons and skill in using weapons. Finally, we look at limitations and warnings about self-defense.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #483 on: April 03, 2018, 02:39:08 am »
I hearby challenge you to a duel.



Shall we say, pistols at dawn?

! No longer available
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #486 on: April 03, 2018, 04:10:39 am »
I don't normally recommend Wikipedia unless caution is exercised, but this part was pretty good, for those of us who need a refresher:

Quote
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was first documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. It was then alluded to in the Bible, from which it was subsequently developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. In the Renaissance, notably the School of Salamanca further contributed. During the Age of Enlightenment, modern era natural law theories were further developed, combining inspiration from Roman law, and alongside philosophies like social contract theory. It featured greatly in the works of Alberico Gentili, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Matthew Hale, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, Emmerich de Vattel, Cesare Beccaria and Francesco Mario Pagano. It was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.

Contemporarily, the concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Indeed, many philosophers, jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights (Latin: ius naturale), or natural justice.[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #487 on: April 03, 2018, 11:46:49 am »
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/

Thanks for finding this most interesting article. Well worth a read, folks.   Prof. Epstein sees the 2A as protecting the sovereign right of the states to maintain their militias.   The prohibition against "infringement" is directed toward the federal government vis a vis the states.   What the 2A does NOT do, however, is protect the natural right of individual self-defense.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #488 on: April 03, 2018, 11:56:12 am »

Our Right comes from God, not the parchment.

That's right.  And so do the natural rights of privacy and self determination.

The issue isn't the source of the right.   The issue is whether the Federal Constitution recognizes and protects that right.   It took the Heller decision to extend the 2A's protection to the individual RKBA, just as it took decisions of the SCOTUS to recognize the Constitution's protection of the right of privacy.   Just as social conservatives agitate to change the composition of the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade,  so do leftists now see the way forward to eliminating the Constitution's protection of the individual RKBA. 

The right isn't protected by God.   Nor is it protected by your guns.    It will only be protected by action taken by the peoples' elected representatives to codify Heller or otherwise to modify the 2A to fix its flaw.   


« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 11:57:35 am by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #489 on: April 03, 2018, 11:57:12 am »
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.

Accurate translation of the old testament show the commandment is not to Murder.  It did not say, thou shall not kill.  Clearly in ~100 places of the Bible, God instructed people to explicitly kill.

Quote
“Perhaps you would give a couple of paragraphs to the misconception (and the mistranslation) of the Sixth Commandment [in Exodus 20:13], ‘You shall not murder,’ as ‘You shall not kill.’ The original Hebrew, lo tirtsah., is very clear, since the verb ratsah. means ‘murder,’ not ‘kill.’ If the commandment proscribed killing as such, it would position Judaism against capital punishment and make it pacifist even in wartime. These may be defensible or admirable views, but they’re certainly not biblical.”

https://forward.com/articles/6091/on-language/#ixzz3UVUsv589
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #490 on: April 03, 2018, 12:03:03 pm »
More people die due to knives than guns, so why not go after the greater gain?

I believe you are mixing up the claim that knives kill more than rifles, not guns.  Even that claim is difficult due to the number of death by Firearms not identified.



http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60,555
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #491 on: April 03, 2018, 01:23:47 pm »
The flaw in the meme is that you believe you had the cake in the first place.   

Heller needs to be codified.
The only codification necessary is a sound interpretation of the individual right that needs the unconstitutional infringements removed.

The very idea that the right to not only self-defense, but to possess the means to conduct that defense needs to be written in a law somewhere is ridiculous, and that is why the Founders didn't spell it out.

SOme things were just understood, such as unalienable rights. But all the codification needed is found in another Amendment:
Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(9th Amendment).

Recall, if you will, the Constitution is not a document granting rights and powers owned by the Government to the People, It is instead a document delegating certain specific and limited powers and duties to the Federal Government, BY THE PEOPLE, who retain all not specifically ceded.

For some reason, that seminal concept seems lost.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #492 on: April 03, 2018, 02:23:04 pm »
The only codification necessary is a sound interpretation of the individual right that needs the unconstitutional infringements removed.

The very idea that the right to not only self-defense, but to possess the means to conduct that defense needs to be written in a law somewhere is ridiculous, and that is why the Founders didn't spell it out.

SOme things were just understood, such as unalienable rights.

Actually,  the concept of the Court acknowledging unalienable natural rights not explicitly found in the Constitution itself is of rather recent vintage.   You know, that "living Constitution" thing you tend to disparage.    The right of privacy was first acknowledged as protected by the Federal Constitution in a case from the fifties or sixties, I believe (it may have been Griswold),  to invalidate a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives.  Later, that natural right (and its corollary, the natural right of self-determination) was held to invalidate state laws that banned abortion.

And so it is with the natural right to self-defense, unconnected with the militia.    State laws that would deny that right are now subject to invalidation on the basis of Heller's holding that the 2A protects the natural right as well as the states' rights to provide for service in the militias.   

That, sir, is the product of a "living Constitution" that is more expansive in its protection than the words of the document explicitly provide.   The problem, of course,  is that the gun right is subject to intense political debate,  and a significant minority of the Court believes that the Heller decision was wrongly decided.   Unless codified, it risks being gone with the political winds.       
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:24:26 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #493 on: April 03, 2018, 02:31:04 pm »
@Jazzhead
You were the <Nope> who got locked in your locker in high school weren’t you?

That’s the only explanation for why you are so deliberately obtuse.  The shitshow you are selling here ISNT SELLING. We will NOT comply!

And as I said earlier...make sure YOU are volunteering to be at the front of those raids to confiscate all those guns...otherwise you’re still just a <nope>...and another in a long line of wanna be despots.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:38:15 pm by Mod1 »
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #494 on: April 03, 2018, 03:00:48 pm »
Quote
That, sir, is the product of a "living Constitution"

No it's not.  You're wrong yet again.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #495 on: April 03, 2018, 03:05:32 pm »
No it's not.  You're wrong yet again.

He's actually got a few things correct in that last statement, but I don't have time right now to tease them out of the incorrect stuff.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #496 on: April 03, 2018, 03:09:05 pm »
The right isn't protected by God.   Nor is it protected by your guns.   

Test us and see if our guns don't protect our rights, tyrant.

Go ahead, I dare you.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #497 on: April 03, 2018, 03:10:21 pm »
He's actually got a few things correct in that last statement, but I don't have time right now to tease them out of the incorrect stuff.

What I have issue with is his false assertion that the natural right of self defense is the result of a "living Constitution".  The only ones that believe in that are Liberals...the Constitution was never intended to be a living document subject to changes at the whims of politicians who don't like the fact it limits their power.  Obama used to referred to what he thought was a "flawed document" as a list of "negative Liberties".

Our resident Liberal seems to share the same belief.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #498 on: April 03, 2018, 03:26:36 pm »
@Jazzhead
You were the <Nope> who got locked in your locker in high school weren’t you?

That’s the only explanation for why you are so deliberately obtuse.  The shitshow you are selling here ISNT SELLING. We will NOT comply!

And as I said earlier...make sure YOU are volunteering to be at the front of those raids to confiscate all those guns...otherwise you’re still just a <nope>...and another in a long line of wanna be despots.

No one is confiscating your guns.  What is proposed is registration, so that a gun can be linked with the owner who is responsible for its custody and care.   

For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath?  Are you nucking futs?   

You may have a "God-given" right to defend your person and property,  but you don't have a right to keep a secret arsenal.   If the peoples' elected representatives of the nation of which you are a citizen decides that gun owners like yourself need to be responsible for the guns they own,  you may indeed decide to shoot peace officers dead,  but don't give me this crap that you have a "God-given" right to do so.  You will simply be a common murderer.   For that, as @jmyrlefuller  points out,  check the Ten Commandments.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #499 on: April 03, 2018, 03:29:24 pm »
What I have issue with is his false assertion that the natural right of self defense is the result of a "living Constitution".  The only ones that believe in that are Liberals...the Constitution was never intended to be a living document subject to changes at the whims of politicians who don't like the fact it limits their power.  Obama used to referred to what he thought was a "flawed document" as a list of "negative Liberties".

Our resident Liberal seems to share the same belief.

I trust that you're not surprised re: that.  He has been showing his true colors for quite some time now.
No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.