Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[DCPatriot]

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And it did so by first finding, for the first time in 200 years, that the 2A protected that individual right.   

Are you comfortable that future courts will follow Heller?   And you certain that future courts won't rule that the reach of the 2A right is constrained by the predicate clause?   I'm not.

My message is very simple.  Don't be so smug that you know what the 2A means.  Constitutional interpretation by reference to the Federalist Papers is a minority view these days,  even by conservative jurists like Justice Thomas.   The wording of the 2A is flawed,  and it is foolish IMO to rely on one SCOTUS opinion to secure your right.  The Heller opinion needs to be ratified by the People.     

Really, must you continue that fervent babbling when @Smokin Joe already made such a coherent rebuttal?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,309647.msg1643497.html#msg1643497

[Smokin Joe]

I seem to recall instances, at least in movies, whereby frontier town sheriffs imposed "no guns" allowed in their jurisdiction.

So when the "rowdies" came off the range, to town to get wasted drunk and play poker, they were disarmed.

Read some articles for yourselves

https://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&source=hp&ei=G7m6WqGvINicjwPqsL_ADw&q=no+guns+in+western+towns&oq=no+guns+in+western+towns&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1.1488.6956.0.7369.25.24.0.0.0.0.187.2343.15j9.24.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.2338.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.Bmplz84FNLc

True enough, when the cowhands came into town after a drive, spent their pay on seldom available (otherwise) endless beer and liquor, and had the occasion to find (often alcohol fueled) conflict with those from their own or other outfits, the opportunities for conflict were unreal. Some towns did have no guns policies enforced by someone ( a marshal, sheriff, or deputies) with a gun.

Still, today, there are nearly universal serious restrictions on possessing (carrying) firearms while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, especially for concealed carry permit holders, and in some jurisdictions, on carrying them in establishments which serve alcoholic beverages, still enforced by people who carry guns as part of their job.
That, of course, is as effective as a gun free school zone (with the exception of the proprietor or their employees who may be armed in some cases) at protecting the patrons as the management at Luby's was.

However, many of those "wild west" towns were not even in States (yet) but territories, and the level of violence is often exaggerated. When everyone is armed, people exhibit a distinct tendency to be polite, at least in rural areas.

That said, I feel safer in the hinterlands where the actions of predators are relatively predictable over the unpredictable and sometimes random violence of any modern urban area--not that I will ever give up my guns.

Regardless of such distractions, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that a Government which exceeded the consent of the governed and was outside the boundaries of its just powers could be constrained, and, if necessary, changed. For this purpose, primarily, to secure the Rights, to guarantee the security of a Free State, the people were to be armed and that Right sacrosanct.

The concepts of hunting and self-defense against any predator were so fundamental they never entered into the question.

[Frank Cannon]

Any word on whether Stevens liked Roy Moore or not?

[Smokin Joe]

Any word on whether Stevens liked Roy Moore or not?

Dunno, but it is irrelevant. I doubt Roy would ever swing that way.

[edpc]

Any word on whether Stevens liked Roy Moore or not?

Only as a friend.  Roy had other ideas after their dinner at Catfish Cabin.  That got Moore banned from the Washington Mall.

[INVAR]

Registration does not equal confiscation.   

I does in my book and we will not comply.

You are going to have to empower your government to initiate a bloodbath to try and enforce any of this shit you are advocating.

[Smokin Joe]

Registration does not equal confiscation.   Be honest in your arguments, sir.

Okay: In virtually every jurisdiction in which firearms have been registered, at least some of them have been confiscated. Yes, Virginia, even in California with the 'assault weapon' registration, all they had to do was change the interpretation of the definition. In Australia, semiautomatic weapons and those which held too many cartridges were rounded up and destroyed.

In Canada, when the long gun registry was attempted, taking a cue from Americans, or perhaps inherently deciding that historically, registration precedes confiscation of at least some long arms, the Canadians refused in a massive act of non-compliance, so widespread that the Government gave up on the program after considerable overruns in cost and time.

Now, the reason I bring those up is that those are governments which find at least some commonality with America, and not the generally Marxist or Fascist examples which were far more brutal in their confiscation and the results thereof.

Traditionally, slaves have never been armed, serfs were unarmed, citizens, however were, and need ask no one's permission to exercise that Right.

[Fishrrman]

I don't know why folks here argue with Jasshead. I put him on ignore quite a while back.
You're wasting your collective breaths, unless you enjoy the sound of your own typing.

Regarding Stevens on the Second, he's old and senile, and an example of the "kind of Justices" that Republican presidents of the past had to nominate to get by democrat-communist controlled Senates.

Regarding the Second Amendment -- at some point in our future, its "future" will depend on shootin' -- the REAL kind, not that of mouths poppin' off.

Can't say just when that will happen.
But... it's coming.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't know why folks here argue with Jasshead. I put him on ignore quite a while back.
You're wasting your collective breaths, unless you enjoy the sound of your own typing.

Regarding Stevens on the Second, he's old and senile, and an example of the "kind of Justices" that Republican presidents of the past had to nominate to get by democrat-communist controlled Senates.

I don't ever expect to change @Jazzhead 's mind, but one cannot let such wild statements go unchallenged. Call it a form of intellectual OCD, but some concepts are so egregiously tweaked out of place, the attempt to right them comes instinctively. If nothing else, we provide exposure of and balance to the error of that alleged but grievously flawed logic.

Regarding the Second Amendment -- at some point in our future, its "future" will depend on shootin' -- the REAL kind, not that of mouths poppin' off.

Can't say just when that will happen.
But... it's coming.

I wish I could argue with that, but historically speaking, it is inevitable that some conflict will occur.  It may not happen in my lifetime, but the one legacy I can leave to my family is the option to deal with that from a position of relative strength.

[INVAR]

Okay: In virtually every jurisdiction in which firearms have been registered, at least some of them have been confiscated. Yes, Virginia, even in California with the 'assault weapon' registration, all they had to do was change the interpretation of the definition. In Australia, semiautomatic weapons and those which held too many cartridges were rounded up and destroyed.

In Canada, when the long gun registry was attempted, taking a cue from Americans, or perhaps inherently deciding that historically, registration precedes confiscation of at least some long arms, the Canadians refused in a massive act of non-compliance, so widespread that the Government gave up on the program after considerable overruns in cost and time.

Now, the reason I bring those up is that those are governments which find at least some commonality with America, and not the generally Marxist or Fascist examples which were far more brutal in their confiscation and the results thereof.

Traditionally, slaves have never been armed, serfs were unarmed, citizens, however were, and need ask no one's permission to exercise that Right.

There's zero point arguing with someone who insists that registration will not lead to confiscation.

They know it will.  That is exactly what people like that actually want to happen - even though they deny that is their intent.

Yes it is their intent.

We need to simply tell them that registration is the same thing as confiscation in our estimation - and we will not comply.

They will have to attempt to do what that imbecilic sheriff candidate in Asheville said they would do.  Then it's game on and open season on tyrants.

[Smokin Joe]

There's zero point arguing with someone who insists that registration will not lead to confiscation.

They know it will.  That is exactly what people like that actually want to happen - even though they deny that is their intent.

Yes it is their intent.

We need to simply tell them that registration is the same thing as confiscation in our estimation - and we will not comply.

They will have to attempt to do what that imbecilic sheriff candidate in Asheville said they would do.  Then it's game on and open season on tyrants.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that the registration=>confiscation scenario is not limited to the usual totalitarian suspects, but can raise its ugly head in allegedly 'free' societies as well.

It is nice to have the opportunity to shred the flawed and distractive arguments against the 2nd and the Right.

[Jazzhead]

Flawed in your mind, but perfect for the continuance of the governmental system we have set up in this country however.  It is the ONLY way that our freedoms can be preserved, and you and no amount of anti-gun bigots will ever be able to take that away from us citizens.

I encourage you to keep espousing your liberal bias on all things this country stands for, as it refreshes our fight for freedoms.

Oh cut it out.  I'm not an "anti-gun bigot" with "liberal bias';  I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA,  but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them.   Just as we are all perfectly comfortable with when it comes to cars.

And I am concerned that the entire individual gun right is on very shakey Constitutional ground.  You don't like that message, so you attack the messenger.  But the individual gun right is as fragile as the abortion right, and the Dems are prioritizing the need to appoint judges who will overturn Heller.   

It is time to stop fighting the last war (or even sillier, to engage like INVAR in masturbatory fantasies about armed insurrection), and realize that an amendment of the Second Amendment is essential to secure the individual RKBA.   Yes, that's my opinion and you will attack me for it.  But check back in five years after the Dems again control the Presidency and Congress.   
 

[edpc]

I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA,  but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them.

Assign them?  Can you clarify that?

[Jazzhead]

Assign them?  Can you clarify that?

Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership.  Like with cars.   

[truth_seeker]

Gun advocates must recognize it will ultimately rest in large measure on persuassion by "emotion," not on legalisms like the Constitution.

The truth is the US is different from Canada or Europe. Or even Switzerland.

So I suggest polishing the emotional persuassion arguments, along with the legal Constitutional ones.

(Increasingly the population is dumbed down, more open to emotional manipulation)

[Cyber Liberty]

You keep saying that, and we're not casting light.  Let me try a different tack:  Are there any rights that are not subject to a SCOTUS decision?  Any at all?

@Jazzhead You may have missed my question.

[Cyber Liberty]

Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership.  Like with cars.

No.  Next question.

[Bigun]

I would love to see them try to repeal the 2nd Amendment!   That would be a spectacular thing to watch.

[Meldrew]

Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership.  Like with cars.

Besides the revenue possibilities, what is the utility to the state of registering and licensing cars and how would that utility be manifested by registering and licensing guns? 

[Frank Cannon]

Dunno, but it is irrelevant. I doubt Roy would ever swing that way.

Yeah. Stevens is too old.

[edpc]

Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership.  Like with cars.

That idea doesn't appeal to me, but the original term of 'assigning' made it sound as if they would determine what type you could own.  I appreciate the clarification.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead You may have missed my question.

There are two kinds of Constitutional rights - enumerated rights and rights created by the interpretation of the Constitution by judges.  They are both valid, but the latter is much more fragile to the vagaries of politics. 

The Constitution explicitly provides for freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.  It does not explicitly provide for a right to privacy (that is, the right to be free from the government intruding without consent on one's privacy).   Yet that right was deemed by a SCOTUS majority to be among the natural rights protected by the Constitution,  and undergirds the right to choose whether or not to procreate. 

That right, for better or worse,  hangs in the balance of 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority.   And millions of us have become single issue voters,  concerned with electing politicians who will appoint judges who will overturn or confirm the Constitution's right to abortion.   

The INDIVIDUAL gun right likewise hangs in the balance of a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority.   And likewise there is a political movement to elect politicians who will appoint judges to deny the right.   I've said for years that the proper reaction to Roe v. Wade is for the People to act and either codify it or amend the Constitution to provide fetuses with the rights of citizens.   I support the same approach with respect to Heller -  to secure the right,  turn to the People to codify it. 

   

[INVAR]

Licensure and registration, and documented transfers of ownership. 

Despite your insistence that such a move is not abolishing a Right into a Government-granted privilege - you just revealed the bullshit of your own statement.  Because unless one complies with the above and is approved by the state, one cannot exercise the keeping or bearing of arms per your own advocacy.  Which, as I have told you before - amounts to the abolition of an inalienable right, into a grant and privilege from Government.

Your stupid ideas are the very definition of alienating us from our rights.  Which makes you an enemy of the Constitution and liberty itself.

Just get it through your thick-fascist skull that we will not comply with such bullshit if your advocacy for such tyranny gets enacted by your government.

We will resist you and anyone attempting to impose it.

And if you think it's "masturbatory fantasy' that we are going to resist people like you, test us and find out.

Go ahead.

We know where your advice leads, and we have no intention of allowing that to happen without a fight.

[Cyber Liberty]

I would love to see them try to repeal the 2nd Amendment!   That would be a spectacular thing to watch.

They can try, but I will not comply.  I'd sick of arguing about with with someone who ignores my points, so I'm just taking @INVAR's stand and resolutely say, "I will not comply."  Period.  End of paragraph.  I asked if we have any rights at all not granted by SCOTUS and there's been no reply.

There will be mass non-compliance.  There are probably more than 300 Million firearms in this country, and if they try to even register them they'll sweep up maybe 1 Million.  Maybe.