Author Topic: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’  (Read 58387 times)

0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #325 on: March 29, 2018, 01:34:35 pm »
“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
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #326 on: March 29, 2018, 01:40:14 pm »
I think I'll just leave this here....

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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #327 on: March 29, 2018, 03:27:57 pm »
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. 
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 03:29:05 pm by Axeslinger »
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Meldrew

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 225
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #328 on: March 29, 2018, 03:43:02 pm »
@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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 


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 #329 on: March 29, 2018, 03:44:11 pm »
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.
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 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 #330 on: March 29, 2018, 03:47:31 pm »
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.
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 txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #331 on: March 29, 2018, 06:51:54 pm »
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
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

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 #332 on: March 29, 2018, 07:16:27 pm »
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. 
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 Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #333 on: March 29, 2018, 08:53:05 pm »
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. 

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #334 on: March 29, 2018, 08:57:53 pm »
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.

Offline the_doc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,171
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #335 on: March 29, 2018, 09:11:13 pm »
And, that is because we have guns.

Perzackly.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #336 on: March 29, 2018, 09:16:30 pm »
And, that is because we have guns.

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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #337 on: March 29, 2018, 09:40:13 pm »
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.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #338 on: March 30, 2018, 01:04:57 am »



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. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #339 on: March 30, 2018, 01:07:56 am »
Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.


I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline LMAO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,743
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #340 on: March 30, 2018, 01:10:38 am »
   Too many of the rest are just huffing hubris.

Or maybe, perhaps, they just simply disagree with you
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.

Barry Goldwater

http://www.usdebtclock.org

My Avatar is my adult autistic son Tommy

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #341 on: March 30, 2018, 01:24:31 am »
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.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 01:25:31 am by Cyber Liberty »
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 Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #342 on: March 30, 2018, 01:25:29 am »
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?

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #343 on: March 30, 2018, 01:26:46 am »
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.
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 #344 on: March 30, 2018, 01:27:05 am »


...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.    *****rollingeyes*****   
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 01:29:37 am by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 83,505
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #345 on: March 30, 2018, 01:29:32 am »
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?

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #346 on: March 30, 2018, 01:32:09 am »
Since you brought it up, what is it you are huffing?

Highland Park 12.
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 #347 on: March 30, 2018, 01:33:10 am »
Highland Park 12.

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

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 81,920
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #348 on: March 30, 2018, 01:33:20 am »
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.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 01:34:31 am by Cyber Liberty »
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 IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,333
Re: Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’
« Reply #349 on: March 30, 2018, 01:36:24 am »
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.    *****rollingeyes*****
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.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington