Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[XenaLee]

I wouldn't say he does that but you don't.  Its a long way because we're over 300 posts on this thread, but you've been doing it too.

As another said (I think it was @Maj. Bill Martin), I'm not ready to start shooting people, but I'm not ready to comply, either.  Simply put:  I will not comply.

Neither will I.  And that goes for all of my friends, family and a few neighbors.

[txradioguy]

Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?

I believe California ready requires those things you mention.

[roamer_1]

I have no doubt at all that if the leftists have their way, all guns will be mandated to be stored and locked up, with trigger locks, and unloaded.  Meanwhile... when the leftists' bros break into your house to rob and/or worse you.... you'll be too busy trying to load and unlock your gun to save your own life and that of your family members.   Which fits right into that leftist agenda.  It's no secret that most felons are DemocRATs, after all.  Which is why the rats want to give felons back their right to vote.  They protect their own... and disarming law-abiding citizens ... or making it more difficult to get TO your gun.... would be just one method of that protection.

Heck that ain't all - I wouldn't have a chicken, nor any other critter left on this place if I had to fuss with all that. But that's what you get when ivy league idiots back east ordain what 'being responsible' is.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your definition of 'responsibility' is ignorant, guaranteed.

I'm still laughing at the "impartial Judges will protect your rights" line....

[Jazzhead]

I'm still laughing at the "impartial Judges will protect your rights" line....

Laugh all you want, but the main reason the government can't confiscate your guns is Justice Scalia.   

[edpc]

! No longer available


For the non-compliant.  Remember, the chair is against the wall and John has a long mustache.

[Cyber Liberty]

Laugh all you want, but the main reason the government can't confiscate your guns is Justice Scalia.

Do you know what most lefties called Scalia?  Biased. 

Yes, I will laugh, and laugh some more every time I hear somebody call Judges "impartial."  At the Federal level I don't think there's a damned one of those left in the country.  That "impartial" crap has been boiled out of them by the Senate confirmation process, so no truly impartial Judge can even get nominated (let alone confirmed) anymore.  That's why I don't trust ANY of them.

Oh, I forgot to mention:  The government is already confiscating guns, despite your precious Heller and Scalia.  It's been pointed out to you numerous times in the past 300+ posts.

[Elderberry]

I wouldn't say he does that but you don't.  Its a long way because we're over 300 posts on this thread, but you've been doing it too.

As another said (I think it was @Maj. Bill Martin), I'm not ready to start shooting people, but I'm not ready to comply, either.  Simply put:  I will not comply.

I have always believed that one should Not Reward Negative Behavior. If you believe that a law, rule, edict is counter to your personal beliefs of Right and Wrong, I believe you have a Moral Duty to Disobey. I remember back to Thoreau and his "Civil Disobedience".

--After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.   ---

Powerful words, and I believe that everyone has a moral duty to attempt to live by what you believe is right.

[Meldrew]

If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it?   Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored,  and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?   

That's simply a matter of taking responsibility.  And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.   

@Jazzhead  I raise my cup in your general direction for the fortitude you've shown by almost singlehandedly defending your position.  I know it's taken you time and it's not always easy.

Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis.  I fill out a form, what's on it?  Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser?  Is the purchaser the perp?  How do you know?  If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation? 

Devil's in the details. How does that work?

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead  I raise my cup in your general direction for the fortitude you've shown by almost singlehandedly defending your position.  I know it's taken you time and it's not always easy.

Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis.  I fill out a form, what's on it?  Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser?  Is the purchaser the perp?  How do you know?  If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation? 

Devil's in the details. How does that work?

Your move, @Jazzhead. 

(In case you're wondering if anybody is keeping score, I think I saw @Meldrew ask a similar question a couple hundred posts ago.)

[edpc]

I raise my cup in your general direction.....

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead  I raise my cup in your general direction for the fortitude you've shown by almost singlehandedly defending your position.  I know it's taken you time and it's not always easy.

Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis.  I fill out a form, what's on it?  Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser?  Is the purchaser the perp?  How do you know?  If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation? 

Devil's in the details. How does that work?

Thanks, Mildrew.  As you point out, I've staked out a position - a Second Amendment supporter who nevertheless advocates licensure and registration - that is profoundly unpopular here.    I can't answer every post, so please accept my apologies for missing your earlier inquiry.

I start from what I believe is the reasonable position that, presumptively,  the owner of an inherently dangerous implement is responsible for its use.  The gunowner is in the best position to make sure the gun is used safely and lawfully.   As noted in my recent post above,  laws differ regarding the liability of a motor vehicle owner regarding mayhem caused by others,  but those laws can be seen as a basic framework regarding when the owner's liability is reasonable and when it is not.

To me, the primary value of registration of firearms is to encourage gunowners to always acquire and relinquish their guns in documented transactions.   When a gun is sold,  a record of the registration changing hands is created.   When a gun is disposed of,  a record of ownership being abandoned is created.  When a gun is stolen,  it is promptly reported to the police,  so that the owner can be relieved of liability.

Registration creates a means of assigning a gun to a specific individual who is responsible for it.   That encourages safe practices, and discourages underground transactions.    The purpose of registration is NOT confiscation -  and that's where the protection of the Constitution and the rule of law comes in to protect the gun owner - like any lawful property owner - from arbitrary, illegal action by government. 

I keep making the point that if laws requiring registration are enacted,  they will come not from a tyranny, but from the community.   Laws are enacted by the peoples'  elected representatives, and citizens are protected against abuse by the rule of law.     

[GrouchoTex]

Funny how that works when it applies to homosexuals demanding cakes be made to celebrate their lifestyle and perversity. We have been told on this very board that if we do not like homosexuality - don't practice it - but leave them alone. 

Of course they have no intention of leaving Christians alone, they are bigots who have no right to refuse someone demanding they cater to an abomination and happily use the government to punish and impoverish them.

But when it comes to guns, - you have no right to be left alone according to them, because what you own is dangerous and they want it licensed, insured and registered with the government so the state knows you have what you have when they come a'callin' for you to turn them in because it is a REASONABLE REGULATION to turn a Right into a privilege.

The gay couple purposely sought out and found the baker that had objections to baking their wedding cake.
All this to impugn and punish that person, restrict their first amendment rights, and send a warning to the rest of us.
We all know good and well they knew of bakers who would make them a cake without any reservations, they did this on purpose.

The anti-gun crowd will do the same.
They will start off with some sort of comment along the lines of, "Hey, don't worry about the registration, and insurance, it's no big deal, and everybody's doing it, it is actually for your own protection."
Then, the first time some commits a Vegas or Parkland type incident, whether the criminal legally registered those guns or not, or obtained them legally or not, they will all shout "never again", and come for our guns

...and they will do this on purpose.

[thackney]

...Registration creates a means of assigning a gun to a specific individual who is responsible for it.   That encourages safe practices, and discourages underground transactions.    The purpose of registration is NOT confiscation -  and that's where the protection of the Constitution and the rule of law comes in to protect the gun owner - like any lawful property owner - from arbitrary, illegal action by government....

I have to disagree with this bolded point.  This will take current law abiding citizens to move to underground transactions.  It will grow crime, not reduce it.  Primarily by taking current legal activities that won't end, and declaring them illegal.

[txradioguy]

@Meldrew to kinda play off what you were asking...what's to stop someone wounded in a home invasion or street robbery who is shot by a gun owner in self defense from being sued. Y the thing for damages because the gun owner is "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own"?

[LMAO]

Neither will I.  And that goes for all of my friends, family and a few neighbors.

And enough would to make any registration schemes unworkable. To say registration doesn’t lead to confiscation ignores history. I’m not saying if they passed a law today demanding registration confiscation will soon follow. But as some real world examples have shown, it can. Gun owners are aware of this. Registering firearms would make confiscation easier if the unthinkable were to ever happen.

It’s our nature to believe that our worldview is everyone else’s. Not everyone who wants registration may want gun confiscation. But you can’t speak for others nor predict the future. And all this is combined with the fact that trust in government is at an all time low

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks, Mildrew.  As you point out, I've staked out a position - a Second Amendment supporter who nevertheless advocates licensure and registration - that is profoundly unpopular here.    I can't answer every post, so please accept my apologies for missing your earlier inquiry.

That's all very interesting, @Jazzhead , but all you did was restate your assertions that you have made this entire thread.  You ignored the very specific questions  @Meldrew asked about the details of how your proposals would work in practice.

[thackney]

Approximately 3% of criminals who use guns get them legally.  Tightening gun control focused on the legal purchases is ineffective in reducing gun crimes including shootings.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Very well put, @Maj. Bill Martin .   Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my position.   The moral obligation to follow such laws and decisions derives from the voluntary nature of the political and community compact, and the existence of means of redress.   Even if the court says a law with which you disagree is good,  you can still act together with your fellow citizens to change it - without resort to violence.

So there is no moral right to resist a tyranny of the majority -- under any circumstances?

What bothers me about your approach is that I believe you're ignoring how increasingly easy it is becoming to undermine the long-understood meaning of the Constitution, which is supposed to protect minority rights.  If the Supreme Court reads out of existence the Second Amendment, and much of the First as well (and I think there is a legitimate danger of that happening to the a decade or two under the guise of regulating political campaigning), are we still morally bound to accept that?  On what basis?  You say it's because of the "voluntary nature of the political and community compact", but we're not individual signatories to the Constitution, and the vast majority of us were simply born here, under these laws and political/legal system.  So where is the "voluntariness" aspect? 

The core question is this:  at what point, if any, do people have the right to resist a government they believe to be unjust, and abusive of the rights of minorities?  Because it seems as though you've carved out a rather absolutist position on that -- we're always bound to obey the majority.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not defending INVAR's position other than conceptually.  But neither can I agree with your seeming absolutist position -- that we are required to obey the government no matter what.

@Jazzhead

[Jazzhead]

That's all very interesting, @Jazzhead , but all you did was restate your assertions that you have made this entire thread.  You ignored the very specific questions  @Meldrew asked about the details of how your proposals would work in practice.

I do the best I can, CL, to respond to posts given my time and physical constraints.

[Jazzhead]

So there is no moral right to resist a tyranny of the majority -- under any circumstances?

You put the rabbit in the hat there, @Maj. Bill Martin .   Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny.   But the United States is not a tyranny.   The government's authority derives from the consent of the governed.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I do the best I can, CL, to respond to posts given my time and physical constraints.

I understand that, and I encourage anybody to take some time and reflect when anybody offers novel points to a debate, to see where they go.  Not meaning to pick on you here, Meldrew brought up some details I like to see somebody who knows the mechanics of these things could fill out.

[thackney]

About 3% of criminals using guns obtain the guns legally.

Making it more difficult to legally obtain and keep guns is not the problem that needs fixing.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

And the follow up on those attempting illegal purchases is pathetic.

U.S. files criminal charges in fraction of gun denial cases, Mayors Against Illegal Guns says
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Laugh all you want, but the main reason the government can't confiscate your guns is Justice Scalia.

Except....




The Supreme Court completely flipped itself on gay issues in less than two decades.  Absolutely no reason to assume Heller will last any longer.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You put the rabbit in the hat there, @Maj. Bill Martin .   Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny.   But the United States is not a tyranny.   The government's authority derives from the consent of the governed.

You're dodging the question.  I specifically mentioned the tyranny of the majority, and you know what that means.  Does the minority have a moral right to resist that, or are they perpetually at the mercy of the majority that happens to control the elected government?

I certainly understand that exactly where we draw the line is a very complicated issue that isn't subject to sound-bite arguments.  I'm just discussing the principle -- does "that's what the majority wants, so we are all morally bound to follow" have exceptions, or not?

@Jazzhead