Author Topic: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’  (Read 58329 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline LauraTXNM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,662
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history.
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #700 on: April 07, 2018, 04:58:59 pm »
I refer you to my answer here:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,311140.msg1652059.html#msg1652059

I know it sounds silly to some, but some of us believe that the creation of this nation was divinely inspired.  So, of course they were men and not God, but that is as meaningful as saying that they had arms and feet.  Of course they did, but what does that have to do with this topic?

Hi, @Sanguine!  I'd never call you silly, and I think you've hit the nail on the head -- I don't believe the Bible or the Constitution are divinely WRITTEN and thus literally true or infallible.  I'd like to think divine inspiration played a role.  But they are works of man, flawed and contradictory as we all are. 

>>>I was responding to an earlier comment that questioned why I would see the Constitution as flawed.
Micah 6:8  "...what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Disclaimer: I am a liberal, progressive, feminist, here because I like talking to you all.  We're all this together.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #701 on: April 07, 2018, 05:02:24 pm »
@IsailedawayfromFR 
It seems pretty obvious to me, that the 2nd Amendment suffers from phrasing and/or punctuation which are less than optimal.  Its structure has left it open to interpretation and will continue to do so.  I haven't done all the research @Jazzhead has, but Justice Scalia did apparently stipulate that Heller was important to codify the right to weapons for self-defense.

I have loved stories about our Founding Fathers since watching Charlie Brown and "1776" when I was a little girl.  Thomas Jefferson has always been my favorite; my son has always preferred George Washington.  They were very human men touched with brilliance or even genius.  But they weren't God, they certainly perfect, and neither were their creations.

...yes, and because of this ambiguity gun ownership has been in peril at the hands of gun grabbers and utopian socialists ever since they saw their first Scrabble game.

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,328
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #702 on: April 07, 2018, 05:04:00 pm »
@IsailedawayfromFR 
It seems pretty obvious to me, that the 2nd Amendment suffers from phrasing and/or punctuation which are less than optimal.  Its structure has left it open to interpretation and will continue to do so.  I haven't done all the research @Jazzhead has, but Justice Scalia did apparently stipulate that Heller was important to codify the right to weapons for self-defense.

I have loved stories about our Founding Fathers since watching Charlie Brown and "1776" when I was a little girl.  Thomas Jefferson has always been my favorite; my son has always preferred George Washington.  They were very human men touched with brilliance or even genius.  But they weren't God, they certainly perfect, and neither were their creations.
Anything inspired by God is most certainly not flawed, by definition.

It is man's interpretation only that is in error.

The Bible certainly needs no correction.  Instead, it needs to be better understood.

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

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #703 on: April 07, 2018, 05:05:49 pm »
Hi, @Sanguine!  I'd never call you silly, and I think you've hit the nail on the head -- I don't believe the Bible or the Constitution are divinely WRITTEN and thus literally true or infallible.  I'd like to think divine inspiration played a role.  But they are works of man, flawed and contradictory as we all are. 

>>>I was responding to an earlier comment that questioned why I would see the Constitution as flawed.

Yes, I think that is one basic difference between leftists and conservatives.  I see the language in an "it is what it is" way; leftists see it as containing flaws and therefore needing revision.  Revision implies change.  Conservatives don't think it needs changing, and going beyond that, it is the document that forms the basis for our nation, change it and the reason for the nation may well go away.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #704 on: April 07, 2018, 05:07:33 pm »
...yes, and because of this ambiguity gun ownership has been in peril at the hands of gun grabbers and utopian socialists ever since they saw their first Scrabble game.

Yes - and the natural right was never acknowledged as protected by the 2A until Heller.    Heller finds protection for the right in the 2A, but the dissent did not.   But the correct answer, IMO, is the natural right is protected as an un-enumerated right, as anticipated by the Ninth Amendment.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline LauraTXNM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,662
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history.
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #705 on: April 07, 2018, 05:12:12 pm »
Anything inspired by God is most certainly not flawed, by definition.

It is man's interpretation only that is in error.

The Bible certainly needs no correction.  Instead, it needs to be better understood.

Do you understand the difference here?

@IsailedawayfromFR 
I definitely think I understand your comment.  I just don't agree with you.  As I said, my favorite Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson ;).  If it helps, I was raised an "old-school" Episcopalian (definitely KJV and NOT the new prayerbook or hymnal) and have spent the last @15 years heavily involved with a Jewish day school.  So my theology will probably seem confused to you ;).
Micah 6:8  "...what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Disclaimer: I am a liberal, progressive, feminist, here because I like talking to you all.  We're all this together.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #706 on: April 07, 2018, 05:21:55 pm »
@IsailedawayfromFR 
I definitely think I understand your comment.  I just don't agree with you.  As I said, my favorite Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson ;).  If it helps, I was raised an "old-school" Episcopalian (definitely KJV and NOT the new prayerbook or hymnal) and have spent the last @15 years heavily involved with a Jewish day school.  So my theology will probably seem confused to you ;).

One tiny point:  this isn't about theology.  God transcends theology. 

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #707 on: April 07, 2018, 05:46:06 pm »
Yes, I think that is one basic difference between leftists and conservatives.  I see the language in an "it is what it is" way; leftists see it as containing flaws and therefore needing revision.  Revision implies change.  Conservatives don't think it needs changing, and going beyond that, it is the document that forms the basis for our nation, change it and the reason for the nation may well go away.

Regarding the 2A,  though, you side with the way libs tend to say statutes should be interpreted.    Scalia essentially reached his conclusion by ignoring the predicate clause, declaring it merely prefatory and not intended to define or limit the scope of the protection.   That's fine,  but that's 360 degrees the opposite of how, say,  Justice Thomas says a statute should be interpreted.   The 2A "is what it is",  and that means the predicate clause must be given due meaning.   Prof.  Epstein, for example,  took it one step further and construed the function of the predicate clause by looking also at the Constitution's other statements regarding the militia.   Sorry, but the purpose of the 2A was to protect state prerogatives, not individuals' natural rights. 

Scalia was using "liberal" techniques of statutory interpretation to read out the predicate clause and declare the 2A protective of the natural right.

The problem is when the Scalia majority is gone,  so is that interpretation of the 2A.   To me, that's a real problem that we ought not be ostriches-in-the-sand about.    The flaw in the 2A ought to be fixed.     
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 05:48:54 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #708 on: April 07, 2018, 05:49:44 pm »
@LauraTXNM One of the reasons this thread has gone over 700 posts and is 30 pages long is because of an argument that has had dozens of iterations, concerning the notion of gun registration.  One fellow asserts we must register and insure guns to force responsibility on yahoos who waltz around with guns, while the other side gives dozens of examples that registration always leads to eventual confiscation.  Confiscation that goes on right now in the USA. 

In Hawaii, the government took it upon themselves to match the list of registered guns against the list of Medical Marijuana cardholders, and rounded up their firearms, at the point of a gun if necesary.  In your state, vets who merely diagnose as PTSD at the VA are ordered to turn in all firearms, subject to search and seizure to attain the goal.  These are only two examples, there are others like Maryland and Deerfield IL.

If you go back and read the 700 posts, you will see examples of one side providing example after example (as I listed above), while the other simply repeats "registration dosn't lead to confiscation" while never producing a single example of that, and assuring everybody that we can trust impartial Judges to see to it that our natural rights aren't violated.  This leads to frustration on the part of many because instead of good, productive debate we have circular reasoning being applied, which doesn't win a lot of friends here.

As for me, my stance on whether I would register my weapons if asked to do so by the state is summed up at the right right of my signature line.  There's no such thing as an "impartial" Federal Judge.  They are, by design, political creatures that are nominated by Presidents and subjected to confirmation by a partisan Senate.  It will take decades to undo the harm caused by Obama and Clinton appointees, on this and a variety of other issues.
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 Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #709 on: April 07, 2018, 05:52:30 pm »
One tiny point:  this isn't about theology.  God transcends theology.

I don't disagree;  religion is an institution of man.  Belief in God does not require adherence to religion.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

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 #710 on: April 07, 2018, 06:00:58 pm »
Sorry, but the purpose of the 2A was to protect state prerogatives, not individuals' natural rights. 

A government that does not recognize my natural rights, and does not trust me with liberty, is not a government that I recognize as having any legitimate authority.

It is a tyranny that imposes it's will by subjugating a people and making them defenseless against them.

Such an entity demands resistance - not obedience, because the end result of such a government are strewn with the mass graves of political dissidents.

We will not comply.  We will resist.
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 LauraTXNM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,662
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history.
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #711 on: April 07, 2018, 06:10:28 pm »
@Cyber Liberty
Great post!!!  (Though I don't think poor judicial appointments are limited to Democratic administrations -- look at last year's nominees alone.)
Micah 6:8  "...what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Disclaimer: I am a liberal, progressive, feminist, here because I like talking to you all.  We're all this together.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #712 on: April 07, 2018, 06:33:45 pm »
@Maj. Bill Martin , we may rarely agree but I always appreciate it when you respond to my posts.

Right -- and the problem is there is absolutely no plausible, remotely objective method for judges to identify those unenumerated rights.

Given that the Federal Government was supposed to be a government of strictly limited, enumerated powers only, it was barred from doing almost everything except those things for which it was granted express authority.  So what are we supposed to do -- assume that everything it couldn't do from day one is an "unenumerated right?", then incorporate them as limitations on the states by the 14th Amendment?  That clearly can't be the right answer, because then states couldn't really do anything.  So what you end up with is judges deciding -- based on nothing more than their own personal morality -- what these unenumerated -- but "fundamental" -- legal rights are.


I think where we differ is that you appear to have never gotten comfortable with the 14th amendment.   The 14th is the most significant amendment since the first ten,  since it fundamentally altered the relationship of the States to the Federal Constitution.

Before the 14th,  it is indeed true that the States could confiscate your guns,  throw you in jail for criticizing the government, and deny you the practice of your religion.    Putting aside for a moment the question of enumerated rights vs. unenumerated rights,  the Federal Constitution was largely irrelevant to the States; it certainly placed no brakes on a State's denial of one's fundamental, natural liberties.   

With the 14th,  the States became obliged to protect the same rights as recognized by the Federal Constitution (and let's not forget, the 14th itself created a new enumerated right - the right to the due process of law.)   As a lover of individual liberty,  I view the 14th amendment as correcting the original Constitution's most significant flaw.   

As for limiting the Constitution's protections to enumerated rights,  I must disagree with you.   The foundation of the Constitution's protection of un-enumerated rights derives directly from the Ninth Amendment and the concept, trumpeted by many on this board, that we have a slate of inalienable natural rights.   Among these are the rights of individual self defense,  individual self-determination, and individual privacy.   The latter two have  been found to be Constitutionally protected though un-enumerated, and the first one has been found to be Constitutionally protected by reading out of the 2A its predicate clause as merely prefatory.

The Constitution's protection of human liberty is its greatest achievement.   That some of that protection has been affirmed by judges does not bother me in the slightest.   There is always the Constitutional amendment process if the people want to codify the abrogation of their liberty.    And I am not persuaded that protection of un-enumerated rights is dangerous because a judge could find a un-enumerated "affirmative" right to, say, a good education.   That is a slippery slope argument that I decline to accept as a principle of debate.  Moreover, and significantly, an affirmative right to a specific material commodity or outcome is fundamentally different than the right to have one's individual liberty/autonomy protected from the state.  It's not a slippery slope, it's a different slope entirely.     

   
Quote
ETA:  I have to add here that the argument that the individual legal right should be found not in the Second Amendment, but as an "un-enumerated right" is just horrible as a basic matter of legal reasoning.  We already have an Amendment, the Second, that deals squarely with the right to keep and bear arms.  If you're going to assume that the Framers did not intend that Amendment to protect individual gun owners from the federal government, but rather only state militias, then you'd actually be going against their intention by deciding that they really meant to protect that right as an "unenumerated" right.  The Second was the clear place to protect individual gun rights, so if it isn't there (which I think it is), then inventing it out of nothing can't be justified



Again, we disagree.   Obviously Heller found the 2A protective of the natural right, but just as obviously the four dissenters disagreed.    As I've noted before,  traditional notions of conservative statutory interpretation would not ignore the predicate clause. 

The issue for me is the fragility of the Heller decision, and what to do about it.   It seems to me that it will be far easier to overturn Heller on the basis of a mistaken view of the predicate clause than it would be if Scalia had found the natural right to be protected by the Constitution without regard to the 2A.    To me the natural right's protection is far better grounded as an un-enumerated right under the Ninth Amendment.    That way, the right's protection isn't jeopardized by the Constitution's own flawed language.   
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 06:41:37 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

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 #713 on: April 07, 2018, 06:43:33 pm »
That is a slippery slope argument that I decline to accept as a principle of debate. 

That is your entire modus operandi of your posting history on this board.  You decline to accept or acknowledge anything that deviates from your own twisted perversions of liberty and law into government-granted privileges and institutionalized corruption and tyranny.    Anyone attempting to argue with you is wasting their time if persuasion is a goal.

You are an insufferable Leftist ideologue, applying tactics that all internet and discussion board trolls engage in.  The only reason any of us bother responding to your nonsensical bullshit that you vomit forth here on this board, is because you regurgitate the same bullshit the tyrannical Marxists in the Democrat Party and government do.   You simply provide us with combat and target practice as an overt enemy of everything this board stands for.
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 #714 on: April 07, 2018, 06:49:50 pm »
@Cyber Liberty
Great post!!!  (Though I don't think poor judicial appointments are limited to Democratic administrations -- look at last year's nominees alone.)

You mean like Gorsuch?

I have a rule I usually follow when I see obviously unjust decisions come from a Federal Court.  I look the Judge up on Google to get their Bio, and 90% of the time it's a Clinton or Obama appointee.  I see Dem appointees make good decisions, and I see Rep appointees making bad decisions, but it seems, to my biased eyes, it's the Dem ones that err on the side of stomping peoples rights.
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 Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #715 on: April 07, 2018, 07:00:26 pm »
@LauraTXNM One of the reasons this thread has gone over 700 posts and is 30 pages long is because of an argument that has had dozens of iterations, concerning the notion of gun registration.  One fellow asserts we must register and insure guns to force responsibility on yahoos who waltz around with guns, while the other side gives dozens of examples that registration always leads to eventual confiscation.  Confiscation that goes on right now in the USA. 

That is not accurate.  The primary argument I have been making on this thread is the fragility of the Constitution's protection of the gun right given the Dems' opposition to Heller.    In the course of the discussion, I reiterated my support for the registration of firearms as sound and efficacious public policy in a nation awash in gun violence, which has of course brought out the paranoics in great numbers,  convinced that the reasonable and uncontroversial measure we require of motor vehicle ownership would lead to "confiscation" if applied to guns.
 
That is a slippery slope argument that I reject in the context of our Constitutional republic.   There is no controversy whatsoever that, however one applies the 2A,  gun ownership can be regulated regulated.   The natural right is have the means to protect your home and family, not the right to hoard a dozen AR-15s in secret.  Registration does not infringe on your right to protect your family.   In our Republic, the peoples' elected representatives have the Constitutional authority, if they choose, to require that folks register their guns.    And gun owners have the right to the Constitution's protections against the arbitrary seizure of private property and the right to the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  No, registration does NOT lead to arbitrary confiscation.  Not in America,  not withstanding the hysterics that we are a "tyranny".  *****rollingeyes*****

These protections make it illigitimate, in my view, to oppose registration by announced lawlessness,  whether by a self-centered refusal "to comply" or by threatening to turn one's guns on peace officers.   

« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 07:04:19 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #716 on: April 07, 2018, 07:01:47 pm »
Regarding the 2A,  though, you side with the way libs tend to say statutes should be interpreted.    Scalia essentially reached his conclusion by ignoring the predicate clause, declaring it merely prefatory and not intended to define or limit the scope of the protection.   That's fine,  but that's 360 degrees the opposite of how, say,  Justice Thomas says a statute should be interpreted.   The 2A "is what it is",  and that means the predicate clause must be given due meaning.   Prof.  Epstein, for example,  took it one step further and construed the function of the predicate clause by looking also at the Constitution's other statements regarding the militia.   Sorry, but the purpose of the 2A was to protect state prerogatives, not individuals' natural rights. 

Scalia was using "liberal" techniques of statutory interpretation to read out the predicate clause and declare the 2A protective of the natural right.

The problem is when the Scalia majority is gone,  so is that interpretation of the 2A.   To me, that's a real problem that we ought not be ostriches-in-the-sand about.    The flaw in the 2A ought to be fixed.   

Whew!  That's a major mishmash of misunderstandings.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #717 on: April 07, 2018, 07:05:40 pm »
Whew!  That's a major mishmash of misunderstandings.

I try my best, Sangey. :seeya:
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #718 on: April 07, 2018, 07:08:21 pm »
I try my best, Sangey. :seeya:

You are the best at what you are best at. 

Offline LauraTXNM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,662
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history.
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #719 on: April 07, 2018, 07:12:50 pm »
You mean like Gorsuch?

I have a rule I usually follow when I see obviously unjust decisions come from a Federal Court.  I look the Judge up on Google to get their Bio, and 90% of the time it's a Clinton or Obama appointee.  I see Dem appointees make good decisions, and I see Rep appointees making bad decisions, but it seems, to my biased eyes, it's the Dem ones that err on the side of stomping peoples rights.

I was actually thinking about some of the particularly awful nominees, some of whom were narrowly denied, like the creepy blogger and people who'd never tried a legal case, etc.  I could go back to either Bush, if we wanted to; Republicans often complain about their judges' terrible decisions.  But in short, people generally complain about decisions they don't like and blame these "bad" judgments on bad judges.  It's bipartisan, crosses ideological lines, and unites Americans in mistrust of the fed judiciary.
Micah 6:8  "...what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Disclaimer: I am a liberal, progressive, feminist, here because I like talking to you all.  We're all this together.

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 #720 on: April 07, 2018, 07:13:54 pm »
These protections make it illigitimate, in my view, to oppose registration by announced lawlessness,  whether by a self-centered refusal "to comply" or by threatening to turn one's guns on peace officers.

We intend to get much louder and more vociferous in our calls to oppose any registration and encourage this people to openly defy and refuse to comply with any so-called 'laws' that do so.  We are also going to define people like you as tyrants that deserve our utter contempt with extreme prejudice.

We view a government that would attempt to impose your insanely stupid tyrannical ideas as wholly illegitimate.  And yes, you will need to arm the agents of your perverted government to put their guns to our heads to force compliance with your suggestions for imposing tyranny.

Then, it's game on - and time to water the tree of liberty.
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 LauraTXNM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,662
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history.
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #721 on: April 07, 2018, 07:20:15 pm »
That is your entire modus operandi of your posting history on this board.  You decline to accept or acknowledge anything that deviates from your own twisted perversions of liberty and law into government-granted privileges and institutionalized corruption and tyranny.    Anyone attempting to argue with you is wasting their time if persuasion is a goal.

You are an insufferable Leftist ideologue, applying tactics that all internet and discussion board trolls engage in.  The only reason any of us bother responding to your nonsensical bullshit that you vomit forth here on this board, is because you regurgitate the same bullshit the tyrannical Marxists in the Democrat Party and government do.  You simply provide us with combat and target practice as an overt enemy of everything this board stands for.

@INVAR
As far as I can tell, 1) many of the disagreements with @Jazzhead don't actually respond to the points he makes.  They are less an argument than a slap-fight. 

And 2) from my understanding, this board stands for open dialogue and argumentation without insults and personal attacks.  Your above post is one of many that violates this site's "civil contract".
Micah 6:8  "...what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Disclaimer: I am a liberal, progressive, feminist, here because I like talking to you all.  We're all this together.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #722 on: April 07, 2018, 07:24:27 pm »
I was actually thinking about some of the particularly awful nominees, some of whom were narrowly denied, like the creepy blogger and people who'd never tried a legal case, etc.  I could go back to either Bush, if we wanted to; Republicans often complain about their judges' terrible decisions.  But in short, people generally complain about decisions they don't like and blame these "bad" judgments on bad judges.  It's bipartisan, crosses ideological lines, and unites Americans in mistrust of the fed judiciary.

I didn't care for those appointees, wither, reinforced a lot of bad feelings I have about Mr. Trump.

But it is a fact that Federal Judges are partisan animals that cannot be trusted to keep their own desires for how society should be out of their decisions of law.  They need to be treated as such, and should be ridiculed when they make claims of being "unbiased" when they have obvious conflicts, as Sotomayor did in deciding Obamacare.  As a solicitor she had actually argued cases on this topic before the court (!), yet insisted in participating in the decision, giving assurances she would be unbiased when she rendered her pro-Obamacare decision.

It's not that these people are stupid that is galling...it's how stupid they think the rest of us are.
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:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #723 on: April 07, 2018, 07:28:53 pm »
@INVAR
As far as I can tell, 1) many of the disagreements with @Jazzhead don't actually respond to the points he makes.  They are less an argument than a slap-fight. 

And 2) from my understanding, this board stands for open dialogue and argumentation without insults and personal attacks.  Your above post is one of many that violates this site's "civil contract".

If they seem like they don't go to his points, it's because he makes the same ridiculous points over and over.  But, as I've watched this thread develop, they certainly do respond to his points, but he doesn't like the answers, and then makes the same assertions you do that they aren't responding.

As for your second point, insults are subjective and in the eye of the beholder, and I'm glad I don't have to make the Mod Calls.  Calling somebody a "poopy head" is probably an insult.  Saying somebody is espousing a "poopy head" idea is not.  YMMV. :shrug:
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 Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #724 on: April 07, 2018, 07:34:13 pm »
My leg's still in a brace and I can't drive,  but thanks to Philly's excellent public transportation system and invaluable support from Mrs. Jazz,  I've been back at work for two weeks now!

@Jazzhead  Glad to hear!  And you're right about SEPTA...for the most part.
+++++++++
“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