@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.
