Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[Axeslinger]

@the_doc
Excellent post!  I would only add that many of us fear/believe that there is very little to no chance of reining in the deep state and the tipping point has already been breached.  Hence the reason why that other fools are notions are so strongly resisted.

[Cyber Liberty]

@the_doc
Excellent post!  I would only add that many of us fear/believe that there is very little to no chance of reining in the deep state and the tipping point has already been breached.  Hence the reason why that other fools are notions are so strongly resisted.

One does not need to be a "deep state" conspiracy theorist to distrust a government capable of murdering Lavoy Finicum, the Weavers and all those children at Waco.

[Smokin Joe]

@the_doc  Outstanding Post and a very good assessment of the situation, inho.

[roamer_1]

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.

What would be comical if it weren't so deadly, is the attitude - the urban sophistry, the bare hubris accompanying the posts... Imagine the frame of mind that would assume his 'way', authored in an urban shithole, would be agreeable and work for me, two thousand miles away, and back up in the sticks. I'd like to leave him 50 miles off the gravel, with nothing but his wits, and see how long it took for the truth of things to hit him.

Folks been tellin me my whole damn life to mind my betters, and that ain't ever worked out very well.

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.

But what's he going to DO about it? meh.
I ain't got time for his bullshit lawyering, and bullshit laws, and won't pay em no mind even if he were to get his way. Won't change a ding dang thing, except maybe I have to poach my game, which I will surely do.... Not that it will get that far, because my state (and SoDak, NoDak, ID, WY, UT, AK, w/ eastern OR and WA) and every county in her will give him the flying finger of bellicosity...

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.

Not ever gonna happen while my blood is still in me and mine. That is a guarantee.

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.

Like I said. I won't pay it no mind. I will continue to buy unpapered guns off the back of a truck, and ammo too, if the need arises. Uncle Nanny will never know. Ever.

What he doesn't get is that there will always be a truck. the only difference being that given his proclivities and my own, heck, I might just be driving it one day.

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.

TRUE.

[roamer_1]

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.

That's right. Only with more emphasis.
Great post.

[Suppressed]

Jobs!

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

Excellent point!

...covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions . . . beginning that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of property and produce.

[Suppressed]

What would be comical if it weren't so deadly, is the attitude - the urban sophistry, the bare hubris accompanying the posts... Imagine the frame of mind that would assume his 'way', authored in an urban shithole, would be agreeable and work for me, two thousand miles away, and back up in the sticks. I'd like to leave him 50 miles off the gravel, with nothing but his wits, and see how long it took for the truth of things to hit him.

An interesting point, considering the original intent of the Constitution/BoR was to deal with the Federal government, not putting any restriction on state or local governments who might determine that restrictions on gun ownership were appropriate for their local conditions.

Then...our whole system was turned onto it's head.

[roamer_1]

An interesting point, considering the original intent of the Constitution/BoR was to deal with the Federal government, not putting any restriction on state or local governments who might determine that restrictions on gun ownership were appropriate for their local conditions.

Then...our whole system was turned onto it's head.

That's right. And true. To this very day, it is illegal to open carry in a logging camp in the state of Montana.

[the_doc]

@Jazzhead
@Smoking Joe
@INVAR
@Sanguine
@Cyber Liberty
@libertybele
@aligncare
@roamer_1
@Bigun   

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 need to correct the above statement, produced as a response to Jazzhead's declaration that God is not protecting our gun rights.  I agreed with Jazzhead.  Now, I feel that I ought to change my statement as follows:

God has not promised to protect our gun rights (which is the main point that I wanted to make in agreement with Jazzhead).  Moreover, our Creator has not protected our gun rights from the miscellaneous infringements that have been implemented against us (too numerous to list).  Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that God will never allow a complete collapse of the 2nd Amendment or, for that matter, our entire Constitutional Republic.  In short, we cannot dogmatically, simplistically say that He is protecting our gun rights.

The good news, on the other hand, is that our Creator has been protecting our most basic rights thus far.  For that much, we can be thankful to Him.

[Sanguine]

I need to correct the above statement, produced as a response to Jazzhead's declaration that God is not protecting our gun rights.  I agreed with Jazzhead.  Now, I feel that I ought to change my statement as follows:

God has not promised to protect our gun rights (which is the main point that I wanted to make in agreement with Jazzhead).  Moreover, our Creator has not protected our gun rights from the miscellaneous infringements that have been implemented against us (too numerous to list).  Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that God will never allow a complete collapse of the 2nd Amendment or, for that matter, our entire Constitutional Republic.  In short, we cannot dogmatically, simplistically say that He is protecting our gun rights.

The good news, on the other hand, is that our Creator has been protecting our most basic rights thus far.  For that much, we can be thankful to Him.

Yes, we can.

[INVAR]

I need to correct the above statement, produced as a response to Jazzhead's declaration that God is not protecting our gun rights.  I agreed with Jazzhead.  Now, I feel that I ought to change my statement as follows:

God has not promised to protect our gun rights (which is the main point that I wanted to make in agreement with Jazzhead).  Moreover, our Creator has not protected our gun rights from the miscellaneous infringements that have been implemented against us (too numerous to list).  Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that God will never allow a complete collapse of the 2nd Amendment or, for that matter, our entire Constitutional Republic.  In short, we cannot dogmatically, simplistically say that He is protecting our gun rights.

The good news, on the other hand, is that our Creator has been protecting our most basic rights thus far.  For that much, we can be thankful to Him.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry

If our Founders understood that Liberty was the gift of God, and that liberty required vigilant and jealous safeguarding - it is obvious that God left the protection of our Rights and Liberties up to ourselves.  Like the Ancient Israelites before us, we always had the ability to discard our liberties for the dominion of men over us rather than the governance of God.  Our own Founding teaches us this.  God did not just dump liberty in our laps without a fight to protect it from tyrants.  We had to rise up to defend it each and every time it was threatened.

Now it is threatened from within, and by our own government empowered by a population who does not trust you or I with liberty. They trust only themselves and the government.

God has little to do with protecting our liberties other than keeping a Hedge about the nation.  He left liberty up to us to safeguard that gift.  It is up to us whether or not we surrender it to clever and devious men who have nefarious intent and pretend to be benefactors and peacemakers.

[verga]

@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.

@Axeslinger  TESTIFY brother, I say TESTIFY!!!!!!

[verga]

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.

@roamer_1 finished processing the first bach of "Fire Cider" over the weekend. It bites going down.

[Jazzhead]

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

We must be reading different opinions, @thackney.   Justice Breyer, on page 1,  explicitly joins in Justice Stevens' opinion that "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense related, interests.  . . .  But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern."

The passage you cited, btw, merely relates that the right is enforceable by individuals.  BUT WHAT RIGHT?  According to Justice Breyer, the right is concerned solely with militia-related objectives.   

I'll say it again, with the understanding that whatever I say is poison and will be mocked, that it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense.  It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous.   We possess the means to address that fragility,  by means of the legislature or the Constitutional amendment process, to place the stamp of authority on the majority's opinion in Heller.   

We had better do so while we still command GOP majorities.   You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.   

[thackney]

We must be reading different opinions, @thackney.   Justice Breyer, on page 1,  explicitly joins in Justice Stevens' opinion that "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense related, interests.  . . .  But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern."

The passage you cited, btw, merely relates that the right is enforceable by individuals.  BUT WHAT RIGHT?  According to Justice Breyer, the right is concerned solely with militia-related objectives.   

I'll say it again, with the understanding that whatever I say is poison and will be mocked, that it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense.  It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous.   We possess the means to address that fragility,  by means of the legislature or the Constitutional amendment process, to place the stamp of authority on the majority's opinion in Heller.   

We had better do so while we still command GOP majorities.   You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

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.

You seem to be skipping some of the words written by Justice Breyer.

[Jazzhead]

@thackney,  Justice Breyer is addressing a procedural point.   The right may be individually possessed and individually enforceable,  but that does not expand the right in his view to individual self-defense unrelated to the militia. 

Indeed, he explicitly joined in Justice Stevens' opinion that the 2A does not relate to the individual, natural right of self-defense.   

[INVAR]

The militia is every single able-bodied male in the country.

Their right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

[thackney]

@thackney,  Justice Breyer is addressing a procedural point.   The right may be individually possessed and individually enforceable,  but that does not expand the right in his view to individual self-defense unrelated to the militia. 

Indeed, he explicitly joined in Justice Stevens' opinion that the 2A does not relate to the individual, natural right of self-defense.   

From the first page:

The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE
STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects
militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These
two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18thcentury
citizens that they could keep arms for militia
purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep
arms that they could have used for self-defense as well.
But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related
objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

I can agree that the second amendment is not detached from a militia-related objective.  As many of us has stated, it wasn't about hunting and it wasn't only about self defense.  It was put in place to be a restriction of the power of the federal government.  That all able body citizens can stand against a tyrannical government attack.  And that is regardless if the attack is foreign or domestic.

This is part of why I could not support an attempt to modify the second amendment. 

[Sanguine]

The militia is every single able-bodied male adult citizen in the country.

Their right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

I don't think there is a right for non-citizens.  And, we have decided that women are people too.

[INVAR]

I don't think there is a right for non-citizens.  And, we have decided that women are people too.

The Right extending to women and all citizens of the nation is self-evident, except to traitors and tyrants.

[txradioguy]

it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense.  It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous.

Actually Heller reinforces what is clearly written in the 2A and approved as part of the Bill of Rights.

Funny how you keep saying that there is no correlation between the natural right of self defense and the 2A and ignore some very important parts of the majority opinion that show you're premise is patently false.

Here...I'll put them out there for you again.

The Supreme Court held:

(1) 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.

  (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

  (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

  (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

  (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

  (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century   also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

  (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.


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.

[Sanguine]

The Right extending to women and all citizens of the nation is self-evident, except to traitors and tyrants.

Women, yes, non-citizens - no. 

[Elderberry]

Women, yes, non-citizens - no.

Non-citizens have the same Natural Rights that we have. Our Constitution just does not protect their rights.

Our govt doesn't do a very good job of protecting Our Constitutional Rights.

[Sanguine]

Non-citizens have the same Natural Rights that we have. Our Constitution just does not protect their rights.

Our govt doesn't do a very good job of protecting Our Constitutional Rights.

Yes, you said that better than I did.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We must be reading different opinions, @thackney.   Justice Breyer, on page 1,  explicitly joins in Justice Stevens' opinion that "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense related, interests.  . . .  But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern."

The passage you cited, btw, merely relates that the right is enforceable by individuals.  BUT WHAT RIGHT?  According to Justice Breyer, the right is concerned solely with militia-related objectives.   

I'll say it again, with the understanding that whatever I say is poison and will be mocked, that it is myopic to assume that the 2A protects your natural right to self-defense.  It does so only because of a SCOTUS decision that was far, far from unanimous.   We possess the means to address that fragility,  by means of the legislature or the Constitutional amendment process, to place the stamp of authority on the majority's opinion in Heller.   

We had better do so while we still command GOP majorities.   You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I agree with your analysis here regarding the Opinions, but I don't quite understand the bolded.  "We" (and by that I mean the Republican Party) do posses a majority in Congress (albeit a tiny one in the Senate), but that is not nearly enough for the passage of a revised Second Amendment that more explicitly protects individual rights.  And passage of the legislation to codify Heller could be reversed just as easily as we passed it the very next time the Democrats control the political branches.  So a legislative "solution" really is just a temporary band-aid at best.