Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[txradioguy]

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops …” - Noah Webster

[Cyber Liberty]

I think I'll just leave this here....

http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/medical-marijuana-gun/

[Axeslinger]

The Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to own a gun(s) or arms of any kind.

The Second Amendment PROHIBITS the government and creeps like you from infringing on it.

So any "law" you make to regulate and restrict that right - is no law at all, and not one we are going to comply with.

The only way to enforce it is to put guns to our heads to force compliance - and when that day comes, it is game ON to water the tree of liberty.

And THIS right here is why you are so screwed in the head @Jazzhead
You have a completely faulty understanding of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2A.  And because you operate from this faulty and diabolical premise, all of your thoughts, posturing and general bullsh!t that you’re spouting here is faulty.   

I don’t care how many times you repeat it,  it is a faulty premise, fraught with danger to this republic and more importantly, a critical danger to MY liberty.  I not only will not comply, I strongly urge you to lead the brigade of door-breakers when the confiscations THAT WILL INEVITABLY RESULT from your folly start to happen.   You sir are either a damned fool or a tyrant... there is NO middle ground.  Given your choice to disregard @INVAR  comment above and your refusal to answer the questions from @Maj. Bill Martin that put the idiocy of your scheme to the test, I choose to believe that you are fully in the latter camp. 

[Meldrew]

@Jazzhead   Thanks for the response. I appreciate you taking the time.  I have been curious about this issue as I'm seeing the idea of restating the 2nd/registration pop up more in the current public discussions.  As @Cyber Liberty summed up...

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.

...it was a lovely answer but really didn't answer my questions about the specifics of how your proposals work.  Without that, they're just more of the same kind of feel good catch phrases that we're seeing from the left on this.  It's like the videos we saw over the weekend asking people "what is an assault weapon" and no one had any clue.  You want registration to "encourage" gun owners to be responsible.  In my experience, gun owners (especially concealed carriers) already are responsible. My questions asked what protections you envision to ensure that "encouragement" doesn't become coersion (Nudge, Shove, Shoot) but I didn't see you address that. 

I keep making the point that if laws requiring registration are enacted,  they will come not from a tyranny, but from the community.

Your community is already trying to outlaw "the shoulder thing that goes up".  They're attempting to ban a class of firearms they can't even define.  You yourself want to enact a restriction above and beyond what we already have presumably and yet you have no details on what that entails or requires.  All of this is little more than mob rule based on feelz exclusively.

Laws are enacted by the peoples'  elected representatives, and citizens are protected against abuse by the rule of law.

We're teaching our betters that they can get what they want sans logic or facts - a bad lesson to be teaching them.  Of course, they already do that in other areas - spending, social policy etc - but that kind of vacuuous lawmaking has no place a natural rights/bill of rights context.  And isn't the protection "against abuse by the rule of law" backed up by guns?  Who get's to control those?

Again, thanks for your time with this Jazz.  I must be candid though and say that all you've accomplished is confirm that this isn't really about responsibility or safety, it's about leftist power. I still won't comply. 

[INVAR]

I keep making the point that if laws requiring registration are enacted,  they will come not from a tyranny, but from the community.

No one from the 'community' voted for ObamaCare or trillions of dollars in debt we are saddled with - and NONE voted for Homosexual Marriage - which came from a court decree.

So once again, the premise of your statement is full of shit. 

Laws are enacted by the peoples'  elected representatives, and citizens are protected against abuse by the rule of law.   

Right.  And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real too.

[INVAR]

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? 

Don't forget about the abuse of the rights of the majority when government and activists shop for the right pliable judge and court that leans in favor of their political ideology.

[txradioguy]

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell

[INVAR]

Of course there is a moral right to resist tyranny.   But the United States is not a tyranny.

You would have said the same exact thing back in 1774-75 in reference to the Crown.   We suffer even more insidious and diabolical meddlesome tyranny fostered by people like you than the Colonists did at that time from their monarch.  Neither king nor parliament attempted to impose the kinds of moral evils as a legal 'good' upon their subjects that you advocate.

You wouldn't recognize tyranny anymore than you recognize sin.  Your definition of sin and tyranny are a 180 degree opposite phase from most of the rest of us on this board. 

[Sanguine]

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.

And, that is because we have guns. 

[Frank Cannon]

Roy Moore says guns are good. If they had more of them the South wouldn't have suffered a humiliating defeat in the Civil War.

[the_doc]

And, that is because we have guns.

Perzackly.

[Cyber Liberty]

And, that is because we have guns.

Eurotrash countries that don't have guns throw people in jail for Bookface posts and Tweets.

[truth_seeker]

Eurotrash countries that don't have guns throw people in jail for Bookface posts and Tweets.

And for hundreds of years, they have moved the borders frequently and had many, many wars.

[Jazzhead]

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

I don't disagree.   And I'm just about the only one on this thread that thinks something should be done to codify it.   Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris. 

[edpc]

Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.

[LMAO]

   Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.

Or maybe, perhaps, they just simply disagree with you

[Cyber Liberty]

Or maybe, perhaps, they just simply disagree with you

Or don't wish to entrust their and their families lives to his good intentions.  Perhaps I've become too cynical in my dotage.

[Sanguine]

I don't disagree.   And I'm just about the only one on this thread that thinks something should be done to codify it.   Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.

Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?

[Cyber Liberty]

Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?

I understand the metallic paints produce the best buzz, which is why the fellow a few posts up us covered in gold paint.

[Jazzhead]

...it was a lovely answer but really didn't answer my questions about the specifics of how your proposals work. 

Like most of us, I'm addressing concepts rather than specifics.  Do you have a background in public policy such that you'd care at all about what some schlub on the internet has to say about the nuts and bolts of legislation? 

Conceptually,  I favor registration because it will encourage documented transactions and documented dispositions of firearms.   Roamer has bragged about buying his guns off the back of a truck.   Sorry,  but think the community deserves better.  Gunowners should be responsible for the dangerous implements they choose to own,  and to do that there has to be a means of assigning firearms to their responsible owners.   If a registered gun is stolen,  the owner will have every incentive to report it to the police.   Not so much when he's bought the thing off the back of a truck.

The specifics of the liability to which gunowners should reasonably be subject is a complex subject.   It would an effort for me to do justice to it, and I don't think anyone really gives a damn,  since no one apparently buys into the concept that gunowners should be responsible for their guns. 

As I've explained elsewhere,  the reasonableness and constitutionality of a regime of liability depends in part on the ability of the responsible party to AT REASONABLE COST insure himself against the risk.   So in large part the details of the liability regime depend on the presence of an insurance regime.   The 2A says the right cannot be infringed -  if the gunowner is to be liable for mayhem caused by his guns, IMO  it is an infringement on his basic right if he cannot reasonably insure himself against the risk.   The design of a reasonable and affordable insurance regime is crucial. 

Rather than rambling on for thousands of words,  if you're truly interested in the design of a liability regime for firearms,  then say so and ask the questions you like.  I'll try my best to respond.  But from what I can tell, the theme of poster after poster on this thread is that they don't care -  they won't comply with registration,  and they will defy any attempt to impose a regime of liability on gunowners, no matter how reasonable.  Gun owners are special, you see, their ability to amass an arsenal in secret and buy and sell guns off the backs of trucks is sacrosanct; otherwise the tyrants will prevail.       

[mountaineer]

We don't need more government intervention to make a careless gunowner liable for any damages resulting from his own carelessness. That's what plaintiffs' attorneys are for, isn't it?

[Jazzhead]

Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?

Highland Park 12.

[Sanguine]

Highland Park 12.

Well, that explains a lot.  You're supposed to sip it.  Slowly.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nice dodging there, Jazz.  Tell him he can ask specific questions, which he already did, and you'll fill in the answers, which you are not about to do.  This is why you are getting the "I will not comply" responses.  It's because you don't respond to anything else.  Speaking for myself, that's why I've given up and  simply reply with those four words.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Like most of us, I'm addressing concepts rather than specifics.  Do you have a background in public policy such that you'd care at all about what some schlub on the internet has to say about the nuts and bolts of legislation? 

Conceptually,  I favor registration because it will encourage documented transactions and documented dispositions of firearms.  Roamer has bragged about buying his guns off the back of a truck.   Sorry,  but think the community deserves better.  Gunowners should be responsible for the dangerous implements they choose to own,  and to do that there has to be a means of assigning firearms to their responsible owners.   If a registered gun is stolen,  the owner will have every incentive to report it to the police.   Not so much when he's bought the thing off the back of a truck.

The specifics of the liability to which gunowners should reasonably be subject is a complex subject.   It would an effort for me to do justice to it, and I don't think anyone really gives a damn,  since no one apparently buys into the concept that gunowners should be responsible for their guns. 

As I've explained elsewhere,  the reasonableness and constitutionality of a regime of liability depends in part on the ability of the responsible party to AT REASONABLE COST insure himself against the risk.   So in large part the details of the liability regime depend on the presence of an insurance regime.   The 2A says the right cannot be infringed -  if the gunowner is to be liable for mayhem caused by his guns, IMO  it is an infringement on his basic right if he cannot reasonably insure himself against the risk.   The design of a reasonable and affordable insurance regime is crucial. 

Rather than rambling on for thousands of words,  if you're truly interested in the design of a liability regime for firearms,  then say so and ask the questions you like.  I'll try my best to respond.  But from what I can tell, the theme of poster after poster on this thread is that they don't care -  they won't comply with registration,  and they will defy any attempt to impose a regime of liability on gunowners, no matter how reasonable.  Gun owners are special, you see, their ability to amass an arsenal in secret and buy and sell guns off the backs of trucks is sacrosanct; otherwise the tyrants will prevail.   

When are you going to also favor registration of knives which kill four times as many people than guns?

Why not go for the greater gain?

If you say no, you do not favor that, then take all of your worthless arguments about guns and throw them away in the trash, cause that is all they are worth after all.