If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

"Civil disobedience" means you "civilly disobey." IOW, you are willing to go to jail to stand behind a principle. If you harm anyone in executing such disobedience, you would be prosecuted accordingly. Care to detail your resistance?
And, the principal concern of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787, was anarchy, not the return of tyranny, from which we had escaped with the defeat of the British in 1781 at Yorktown, which is the reason for the "militia clause."

 

There are no limits on the 2nd amendment. The government should provide me with nukes if I want to have them. That is my right.

 

Lol, probably a bit of clandestine digging, stoic silence trying to blend in w/ the plurality of my compatriots. I would like to think that I would surreptitiously throw myself into grass roots networking & organizing of like minded, armed, freedom loving souls...

 

You think all gun owners live near each other? And threatening to use a nuclear weapon on your own citizens is pretty much the exact reason why the civilian population should never be disarmed.

 

First, such action would be blatantly unconstitutional- not to mention both stupid and dangerous to the entire nation.

Anybody capable of basic reasoning knows that of all the factors in you life- employer, family, religion, etc- the least dependable, the least trustworthy of all is government.
Governments cannot and do not have character- that self-regulating system that makes honorable men honorable, makes the keep their word because they gave it, makes them feel that others have the same rights that they do. ONLY PEOPLE have character- it is the self-regulating device. Not all of us practice it well, and it is individual. But governments, corporations and such never have character because they are not people, they are entities with a continuously fluctuating influence and purpose. Their "word" is worthless. One agent of government makes a promise, the next one feels no obligation to keep it. They open doors to social change with something small and tell you how well it will work and how little it will cost or interfere with your life- and then it grows into a monster, feeding on the people, making us dependent. That is the nature of governments.

Our constitution provided that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for a very good reason, which is to insure that when government turns into a monster, consuming your freedom and independence, that the people have the means to resist. Your right to keep and bear arms IS your insurance that you and your children and grandchildren will continue to live in freedom. While self-defense and a number of other arguments for the second commandment are valid and important- NONE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INSURANCE OF YOUR FREEDOM.

For decades, gun advocates have been telling us that the anti-gun people's actual goal is confiscation of firearms, and each little incursion on your constitutional rights is done to set the precedent for the next.
For decades, gun controllers have been telling us that this was not true, that the objective was to save lives, reduce violence.
Conditions today are revealing the truth, proving who lied here. If people are foolish enough to think that the lies aren't lies.... bear in mind that what is at stake is EVERYTHING, and the people lying to you want to use the power of law to disarm you. Not criminals- YOU.

Your freedom as well as that of your future generations. Your wealth, your ability to determine your own path in life, make your own decisions.... Everything. Because only free men have those powers- and there are always those who want to take those powers from you; gain power over you. Some are well intentioned but naive, others are egomaniacs that think you are stupid and they should rule over you. Regardless of the reason, the bottom line is that unless you have the ability to resist- your freedom will be taken from you by such people.

This is self-defense on a national scale, even more important than self-defense on a personal scale.
Tens of millions of us have taken oaths to defend the constitution- from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I am one of them, and I always will honor that oath.

Ask yourself a question.
IF they do not intend to make it necessary for me to defend my freedom, why is it necessary to take away my ability to defend it?

 

I didn't say use them. I said use them on their own people and not end up murdered in their beds that night

 

Why don't you just vote?

 

Hypotheticals are fun But in reality, there wouldn't be enough jail or prison cells to house all the folks that would become or choose to be a criminals..

 

I'll bet that's what they said in Australia. I suspect it would be enforced in conjunction with other crimes...such as traffic violations, hunting license checks, domestic violence calls, etc., etc. Doubt the government would revert to "house-to-house searches" for the sole purpose of "taking your guns away."

 

Then again, it's far easier to control 25 million sheep then 150 million wolves

This doesn't even begin to take into account all the criminals already in possession of a illegal firearm in which our big bad Gubmint and law enforcers have never in the history of the U.S. successfully kept out of those hands..

 

Interpreting it as written would preclude any restrictions what so ever on any type of arm.

 

We're not talking about ALL guns. We're talking about "Assault Weapon Type Guns." I own five guns...a shotgun, a 30-30 lever action saddle rifle, two .22 caliber target rifles, and a 9 mm handgun. None are "assault rifle types." Nor, do I run around in the woods playing militia. Nor do I object to reasonable gun controls such as an assault rifle type ban/buy back, red flag laws, limits on magazine sizes, universal background checks, etc.

 

Of course not, since you haven't gone postal yet.

Evidently, then, constitutionality doesn't fall within the scope of your definition of the term. Right?

 

It does, although I disagree with it's disregard of the militia clause. Nevertheless, the Court has said that while there is a basic right, it may be subject to certain controls and they'll decide on a case-by-case basis. And, the assumption of the thread is that the Court upholds a "gun confiscation" law.

 

There is no militia clause. The second amendment guarantees the individuals right to arms unconnected with any militia service.

The ruling in heller specifically precludes you from banning “assault type weapons”. You need a new amendment for that.

 

No...there is a "militia clause." You may read it. The Court determined that the "clause" did not relate to the basic right. They did not, however, attempt to strike it from the Constitution and it remains part of the Second Amendment. I don't remember the assault type weapons "right" being part of Heller, but another Court could reverse that decision. The premise of this thread is that the Court UPHOLDS a "gun confiscation law."

 

There is not. Basic grammar.

Because it’s not a clause. Again, basic grammar.

Heller ruling confirms that arms in common usage can not be banned. “Assault type weapons” which is a meaningless phrase, are in common usage. AR15’s are the most popular modern sporting rifle in American today. Can’t ban them.


No, another court can not. The only way to overrule it is via constitutional amendment. All lower courts are bound by the precedent.

Which it can not do.

 

No...it could. You just wouldn't agree with it. Congress would then rewrite the amendment, impeach the justices, or allow their decision to stand. If the latter, you would either accept it or not. If not, then you could be prosecuted and punished for breaking the law, if found guilty. Assuming it was a clear-cut case and jury nullification was not an issue, you'd be found "guilty" and punished accordingly.
That's kinda the way it works. By "another Court," I meant a different composition of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does, occasionally, reverse itself.

 

You think if Bill Gates wanted one you could actually stop him?

 

Basic civics. It can’t.

Impeaching a judge does not reverse a ruling. An amendment is the only way to do that.

Nope. All courts are bound by the binding precedent set by scotus.

Which would be swiftly overturned on appeal.

It could never get to the Supreme Court. All lower courts are bound by their ruling in heller.

 

I'm sorry, but you are the one who needs a lesson in civics. Slaves were once counted as property. "Separate but equal" was once recognized by the Court. Precedence certainly counts heavily, but is not mandatory at the Supreme Court level. Lower courts almost always go by precedence as determined by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court can change its interpretations with the composition of the Court. Theoretically, if a Supreme Court took a stand contrary to overwhelming public support, Congress could find reasons to impeach Supreme Court Justices and continue to remove them until they obtained a Court composed of Justices who supported public opinion. FDR once tried to "pack the Court" by creating more positions on the Court, but found he didn't have the votes to pass the legislation and backed off.
On the second amendment, it would actually be relatively easy to reinterpret the "militia clause" and tie "the right to bear arms" to service in a state militia, such as the National Guard. The argument that it was a superfluous clause and not a qualifying cause was, IMO, weak and tedious. Legal interpretations are dynamic and not static.

 

Subject to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

 

Iran can own nukes? Not without a war? The rightists of world won't allow them.

 

Suuuuure don't look like it from here, pilgrim.

The Court is one thing, and the Constitution is another. You get that, right?

Actually there are two...

...neither of which can be found there. So I suggest you refrain from confusing the issue.

and then what? Order 3/4 of the states to ratify the rewrite?

 

I thought Israel was pretty leftist?

I like how we always ignore the demonstrations of false premises and jump to some new thing. What does war have to do with it?