Author Topic: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’  (Read 58413 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #525 on: April 03, 2018, 05:39:22 pm »
To wit:

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

I know that!   That's the point I keep trying to make - the individual right is protected only because of the say-so of a  SCOTUS decision.  Read the dissent about how four members of the Court took the position that the 2A has nothing to do with the individual right.   

The individual RKBA is fragile, resting as it does on a single Court decision and its progeny.  Appoint a liberal majority to the SCOTUS and protection of the right goes bye-bye.   

The lesson?  Codify Heller!   
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 #526 on: April 03, 2018, 05:39:35 pm »
Until Heller, the 2A addressed only the states' authority to maintain and regulate their militias.    Until Heller, the 2A offered no protection of the right to individual self-defense. 

And while you try to imply from Heller, the individual right to own a gun hangs on a single vote, reading dissenting opinions show that claim to be false.

 In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
 (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

BREYER, J., dissenting
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD1
Page 3

@Jazzhead

Modified to ping you Jazzhead as there seems to be some confusion about the dissenting viewpoint from Heller
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 07:32:02 pm by thackney »
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 #527 on: April 03, 2018, 05:40:34 pm »
Read the dissent about how four members of the Court took the position that the 2A has nothing to do with the individual right.   

False claim!
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

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 #528 on: April 03, 2018, 05:40:52 pm »

His standard retort is only a half truth.  And it's actually a very small part of the ruling he's hanging his hat on.

That is what ALL Leftists do in order to pervert plain language to an entirely different meaning in order to shove their agenda down our throats.

As always, they masquerade their true intentions behind *reasonablespeak* while arguing that you must submit yourself to subjugation of the State they have empowered to do their bidding because that is what 'the people' want.

The more JH posts here, the more he illustrates himself the abject enemy to liberty that I have always asserted he is.
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 Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #529 on: April 03, 2018, 05:41:45 pm »

You might trust the government, @Jazzhead, but you should also recognize that even a benevolent government may change at any moment. 

Why the hell do you think I keep urging the codification of Heller?   Because the SCOTUS can change in the future.

Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers, why not use the opportunity a GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?   
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 #530 on: April 03, 2018, 05:42:55 pm »
That is what ALL Leftists do in order to pervert plain language to an entirely different meaning in order to shove their agenda down our throats.

As always, they masquerade their true intentions behind *reasonablespeak* while arguing that you must submit yourself to subjugation of the State they have empowered to do their bidding because that is what 'the people' want.

The more JH posts here, the more he illustrates himself the abject enemy to liberty that I have always asserted he is.

Indeed.
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 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 #531 on: April 03, 2018, 05:49:25 pm »
Why the hell do you think I keep urging the codification of Heller?   Because the SCOTUS can change in the future.

Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers, why not use the opportunity a GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?
Why turn the might of an unalienable Right, Heller merely affirming that into something that needs to be codified. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then no further codification should be necessary, as it will only be another mass of verbiage for attorneys to quibble over.

The code, the basis for the Heller decision is right there. Heller was only  necessary because the Government went out of bounds in DC. Not to decide a Right existed (it did, prior to the need to shut down the DC Government on the issue), but to tell the DC Government it had exceeded its lawful authority and to cease and desist.
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 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 #532 on: April 03, 2018, 05:51:57 pm »
The individual RKBA is fragile

No.  It is not.

It is only advocates of tyranny like yourself that insist that it is. 

Our right is inalienable, immutable and not subject to the hand of man to infringe upon except by those hands that attempt to do so by force of arms.

The individual RKBA is fragile resting as it does on a single Court decision and its progeny.  Appoint a liberal majority to the SCOTUS and protection of the right goes bye-bye.

Nope.  It won't.    Your 'court' could decide tomorrow that our right to arms is null and void and it will have no authority we are obligated to acknowledge whatsoever.  In fact, if and when it does so, it will have earned the necessity to disregard and disobey anything that comes from it as wholly illegitimate and criminal.  All it and your government will have, is agents it will have to arm to force compliance - and as I told you - when that time comes, it will be time to water the tree of liberty.

The lesson?  Codify Heller!

Our rights do not come from a court decision as you keep insisting they do. Our right to arms is already codified in the restraint on government that it may not infringe upon it.    The true lesson is how much blood are you willing to spill to enforce your proposal should anyone be stupid enough to try and make them policy?
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 skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #533 on: April 03, 2018, 05:54:27 pm »
Why turn the might of an unalienable Right, Heller merely affirming that into something that needs to be codified. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then no further codification should be necessary, as it will only be another mass of verbiage for attorneys to quibble over.

The code, the basis for the Heller decision is right there. Heller was only  necessary because the Government went out of bounds in DC. Not to decide a Right existed (it did, prior to the need to shut down the DC Government on the issue), but to tell the DC Government it had exceeded its lawful authority and to cease and desist.

The breviloquent clarity of the 2A is exactly why - its opponents need an opportunity to officially redefine it.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #534 on: April 03, 2018, 05:56:46 pm »
Why the hell do you think I keep urging the codification of Heller?   Because the SCOTUS can change in the future.

SCOTUS can change...but the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights can not.

Quote
Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers,

The ONLY one continually talking about taking out peace officers is you.  So why not just STFU with that nonsense.


Quote
why not use the opportunity a GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?

Because it's unnecessary and unneeded.  The majority decision in Heller was crystal clear...

Quote
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

and also:

Quote
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

Unless you're trying to lessen the overall effect of the Heller decision in order to continue to restrict a person's right to own a firearm...there is absolutely nothing in Heller that needs to be "codified".

You're taking the position of the dissent written by Stevens who said in his dissent that:

Quote
...the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont


Stevens is the is the idiot that got this thread started with his moronic decree that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.

But then you also seem to write in support of the second dissent that was written by Justice Breyer in which he said:

Quote
"there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.


Either way you're dead wrong...they are dead wrong and at the end of the day...only Liberal gun grabbers think anything in the Heller decision needs to be codified.
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 roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #535 on: April 03, 2018, 06:25:15 pm »

The lesson?  Codify Heller!

Nope. The lesson: Shut up and buy your guns off the back of a truck.

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,121
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #536 on: April 03, 2018, 06:29:37 pm »
The 2A is a flawed amendment,  but it doesn't need to be repealed.  Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense.   Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right.   The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.
@Jazzhead Every individual is a member fo the "militia" and the Private citizens had the exact same weapons as the military.
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #537 on: April 03, 2018, 06:30:41 pm »

Rather than chest thumping about taking out peace officers, why not use the opportunity a
GOP majority gives us to once and for all codify Heller?

Because obviously, the piece of paper conveys nothing. a government cognizant of its duties would not need the piece of paper. And a government beyond its duties would ignore it.

Every man-jack of y'all should possess arms that are unregistered by any means whatsoever It's the not knowing where they are that keeps the bastards honest.

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #538 on: April 03, 2018, 06:31:45 pm »
Why turn the might of an unalienable Right, Heller merely affirming that into something that needs to be codified. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."? If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then no further codification should be necessary, as it will only be another mass of verbiage for attorneys to quibble over.

The code, the basis for the Heller decision is right there. Heller was only  necessary because the Government went out of bounds in DC. Not to decide a Right existed (it did, prior to the need to shut down the DC Government on the issue), but to tell the DC Government it had exceeded its lawful authority and to cease and desist.

Doing what JH wants to do would only "codify" and affirm that his stance is correct....

when it's not.

Which is, of course, why he wants it done. 

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 Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #539 on: April 03, 2018, 06:33:04 pm »
@Jazzhead
 What "good" do you see coming from registration?
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

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 #540 on: April 03, 2018, 06:36:03 pm »
Every man-jack of y'all should possess arms that are unregistered by any means whatsoever It's the not knowing where they are that keeps the bastards honest.

And afraid of attempting to do what Jazzhead suggests be done.

Because when the government is afraid of the people, there is liberty.

When the people are afraid of government, there is tyranny.

And I fear this government and millions of idiots who would empower it to do what they want, and I distrust it in total as evidenced by it's fruit.  Waco and Ruby Ridge notwithstanding.
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 Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #541 on: April 03, 2018, 06:37:51 pm »
I know that!   That's the point I keep trying to make - the individual right is protected only because of the say-so of a  SCOTUS decision.  Read the dissent about how four members of the Court took the position that the 2A has nothing to do with the individual right.   

The individual RKBA is fragile, resting as it does on a single Court decision and its progeny.  Appoint a liberal majority to the SCOTUS and protection of the right goes bye-bye.   

The lesson?  Codify Heller!

Perhaps I have some agreement on codification of Heller...it's similar to the anti-Federalist/Federalist debate.

But the lesson you should be taking from it is...registration is foolish.
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,121
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #542 on: April 03, 2018, 06:43:45 pm »
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.
@Jazzhead https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?
WWI Germany, Russia, Bermuda...Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia.

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #543 on: April 03, 2018, 06:58:49 pm »

For that, you and others here threaten a bloodbath?.
@Jazzhead

Finally!  A breakthrough! 
Yes...now you finally understand us. In fact, I will go one step further:  if this country ever enacts some sort of bullshit like you’re spouting here...it is WAY beyond time to merely not comply.   YOUR registration can only be enforced at the point of a gun...it will be YOU  forcing the  bloodbath which is why YOU need to volunteer to enforce this nonsense.

Now that you understand us, leave us and our means to prevent tyranny the f&@k alone. 
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 07:13:13 pm by Axeslinger »
"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 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 #544 on: April 03, 2018, 07:16:58 pm »
@Jazzhead

Finally!  A breakthrough! 
Yes...now you finally understand us. In fact, I will go one step further:  if this country ever enacts some sort of bullshit like you’re spouting here...it is WAY beyond time to merely not comply.   

Now that you understand us, leave us and our means to prevent tyranny the f&@k alone.

Succinct and to the point.

But he will ignore it and instead continue to push his inane bullshit couched in *reasonable* argumentation that our rights are not absolute.   That they somehow come by grant of a court who interprets the Constitution a certain way, and thus can be abolished in like manner.  Also noting his incredulity that if the demand of the 'people' through their 'representatives' (if we can even call them that anymore) to empower the government to do as he suggests, will be refused and resisted by gun owners, illustrates his hostile intentions towards our liberties.

His own words illustrate him to be an overt enemy to everything we hold dear on this board.

But we have done our duty to warn him of the consequences.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 07:17:39 pm by INVAR »
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 roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #545 on: April 03, 2018, 07:41:37 pm »
And afraid of attempting to do what Jazzhead suggests be done.

Because when the government is afraid of the people, there is liberty.

When the people are afraid of government, there is tyranny.

And I fear this government and millions of idiots who would empower it to do what they want, and I distrust it in total as evidenced by it's fruit.  Waco and Ruby Ridge notwithstanding.

Perfectly stated. Distrusting the government is a long held Conservative and American tradition - A tradition I intend to honor.

Like every good country boy, everything I need is at least triplicated, and distributed. Let em come. I'll cede the ground... no sense dying for it... But then I'll walk off on up the holler and have it all right back again, with my family hidden away, and a big ol chip on my shoulder.

And history repeats... As it always does.
Don't come up the holler.


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 #546 on: April 03, 2018, 08:22:35 pm »
Perfectly stated. Distrusting the government is a long held Conservative and American tradition - A tradition I intend to honor.

Like every good country boy, everything I need is at least triplicated, and distributed. Let em come. I'll cede the ground... no sense dying for it... But then I'll walk off on up the holler and have it all right back again, with my family hidden away, and a big ol chip on my shoulder.

And history repeats... As it always does.
Don't come up the holler.

Tyrannical Statists and their advocates like our resident antagonist, can not and will not permit or allow anyone to exist that they do not have absolute control over.  Thus they require *laws* to force compliance with measures designed to ensure their security and power.  This is due the fact they want the ability to impose upon us their mandated worldview.

You and I cannot be trusted with liberty in the eyes of people like Jazzhead.  You and I cannot be allowed to own an arsenal that is 'secret' and not catalogued and restrained and regulated by government via Jazzhead's own admission on this very thread.  That we own weapons that the state does not know about, frightens tyrants and snowflakes who demand a tyranny be imposed so they can sleep without the fear that their neighbors are armed with the capability to resist him and his ideas.

Above all, they want their peace of mind to know that people like us are easily subjugated when necessary and that we pose no threat to them either to speak ideas contrary to theirs or to physically have the ability to resist.

He insists we show 'responsibility' by acquiescing to tyranny and willingly comply with the act of turning an inalienable right into a government-granted privilege.  A 'privilege' that is dependent upon our ability to comply with restrictions, taxation and licensure he is advocating BEFORE being granted the permission to exercise it by the state.

The fact Jazzhead trusts the state and is aghast we distrust the government while demonstrating outrage at the expression of the actual purpose of our gun rights, more than illustrates the fact he is an unmitigated liar when he says he is a Conservative.

He is nothing of the kind, even though he continues to insist he is one.
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 GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,489
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #547 on: April 03, 2018, 08:24:10 pm »
@Jazzhead
 What "good" do you see coming from registration?

That is a good question.

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 #548 on: April 03, 2018, 08:43:44 pm »
@Jazzhead
 What "good" do you see coming from registration?
Jobs!

(To erect a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.)
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 the_doc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,171
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #549 on: April 03, 2018, 09:10:55 pm »
@Jazzhead
@Smoking Joe
@INVAR
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
@libertybele
@aligncare
@roamer_1
@Bigun   

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.   

Your first statement is actually correct, since it is at least theoretically possible that our guns will wind up getting seized.  Thus, you are correct by very the definition/nature of God's protection, which special protection happens to be infallible.  The God Whom you do not even profess to know is ultimately in complete control of everything.  (I am virtually certain that you have never figured that out.)  Your Creator often permits sinners to violate the rights of others.  He permits sin.   Amazingly, He permits people to breathe His air (for a brief interval, of course).  That even includes a temporary forbearance of spiritual reprobates.  (Let me stipulate that I am not assuming that you are one of those utterly doomed souls, even if I find your legal[istically?] narrow, anti-hermeneutical position on this thread worrisome, let's say.) 

***

Your second statement is incorrect.  This, too, is by definition, since using firearms to assert the right to use firearms will sometimes succeed to one degree or another, i.e., will obviously protect the right.  In fact, even having an arsenal, preferably a non-secret one--whether or not the arsenal is recognized as legal--will definitely afford some protection of the right.  (I will not bother to parse the difference between trying to protect the right and successfully protecting the right, although even to try to protect is to protect.  [In the case of God's protection of anything, however, this parsing doesn't work.  If He genuinely "attempts" something, He succeeds.])

***

Your third statement is incorrect, since you added the word "only."  There is a better way--the Constitutional way that is already in force and also beginning to strengthen--despite your peculiar way of second-guessing the language of the 2nd Amendment.  (See below.) 

The Constitution expects Americans (or in another sense of expectation, trusts Americans as a whole) to acknowledge and proclaim widely and loudly and clearly that the individual right to bear arms is already clear, already codified, as the SCOTUS has correctly pointed out.  We'd better push this mantra, not yours.  Your insistence on a "clarifying" Amendment actually confuses what is clear, what is already settled.  We must not even accidentally facilitate the leftists' attempt to unsettle it.  It's better to be polemically bellicose.  Right now.

[/i]Nota bene:  The SCOTUS has already recognized what I have said over and over on this thread--i.e., that the individual right to bear arms is already crystal clear in the 2nd Amendment.  You. on the other hand, have been saying No, it's not crystal clear, seen largely in the fact that the vote was close at 5 to 4.

But the fact that the SCOTUS vote was close is Constitutionally irrelevant beyond showing that many federal judges are fools who will not uphold the Constitution;  we need to face that fact.  Some are even crooks;  we need to face that fact.  John Paul Stevens is not the quintessential "reasonable man," but a scoundrel, a political reprobate;  we need to face that fact, too.  And the corruption is best seen in the fact that so many progressive politicos and lawyers are hermeneutically dishonest and therefore cannot admit that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is self-evident (there's a Jeffersonian word for you) in establishing the defense of both life and liberty (more Jeffersonian language for you).  What is especially ominous under our present circumstances of our Republic's very real peril (which fully demonic peril I am sure you haven't fully noticed), the Constitution actually presupposes corruption arising in the federal government--which is, interestingly, one of the main reasons for having an armed citizenry, not to mention a SCOTUS.   

I should separately point out that American's final defense against political corruption--including gun-grabbing Marxists--is not the SCOTUS.  It is the 2nd Amendment itself (plus or minus the heavily armed American military, which will never confiscate the firearms of ordinarily law-abiding American citizens even if the SCOTUS authorizes such a gun-grabbing order, since the military is sworn to protect the Constitution against even its domestic enemies--and since the military appreciates the proper role of firearms in defense of America].)   

***

What I mainly want to show you in this post is that your claim that the 2nd Amendment is flawed is actually disrespectful of both the Constitution and the SCOTUS.  The Bill of Rights is clear enough to be workable as it stands even if a lot of people WANT to misread it (as they do with several Articles in the Bill of Rights).  At worst, the Amendment only seems to be a bit arcane (?) in its rhetorical style.  Legal scholars who do not notice that the Amendment is clearly asserting both the individual's right to self-defense and the corporate right to use firearms in the defense of liberty are just too lazy to be honest.  (Or, as I have already intimated, their dishonesty is what makes them lazy.)

Finally, I will say that I believe that we are at a tipping point as a nation.  We must defy the progressives at every turn.  We need to destroy the Deep State.  We need to expose the Mockingbird propaganda set-up.  The Marxists have mounted their most desperately aggressive public campaign to date against firearms.  Miscellaneous restrictions are just the first step.  They want us dead.  One of them has told me so.  (They even want you dead, @Jazzhead--and you're not all that "conservative.")
 
One thing I would have done a few years ago if I were POTUS would be to prosecute the Democrat Congressman who angrily said "I don't care what the Constitution says!"   

If push comes to shove, the whole mess could turn into a civil war.  As a matter of fact, this is what the Deep State Marxists (whether soft- or hardcore in their ideology) have been planning for decades.  The apparent murder of Antonin Scalia was supposed to give them a quantum leap forward with respect to gun control, but even the RINOs refused to approve Obama's nominee to the SCOTUS.

At the bottom line, the crucial feature of our mess is the Deep State itself.  If we fail to destroy the Deep State that is trying to destroy our Republic, we may very well wind up in the minority on the bench of the SCOTUS.  The SCOTUS might even overturn a legally sancrosanct precedent like the Heller decision.  But if things get that bad from the Deep State, your proposed clarification of the 2nd Amendment would be irrelevant anyway.  The Marxists will quit feigning allegiance to the Constitution.  And our unalienable right to bear arms, even with an unlawfully shredded Constitution, will be our final defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  In an unabashedly pagan manner of speaking, we will make Thomas Jefferson proud.

That is what the flamethrowing guys and gals have been trying to tell you on this entire thread.  It's the polemical bellicosity of Patrick Henry and John Stark and William Barrett Travis attacking you all at once for so much as taking a soft stance on the intent and continuing importance of the 2nd Amendment.