In some ways, the second amendment is a historical aberration

Why do some think the need to own a gun is higher now than in the past? Why do some think that the need to own a gun to protect yourself is increasing? I could see an argument being made that the danger posed by the Republicans in government is greater now compared to before, and the danger posed by the police is greater now compared to before, but I don't think this is the sort of argument that some intend to make. Moreover, violent crime rates have been dropping in the nation and around the world for the last few decades due to the prior banning of leaded gasoline, and so if gun owners are going to make the argument that you're likely to be attacked by criminals today, then you're simply wrong.

 

In some ways, the second amendment is a historical aberration which doesn't fit perfectly with modern times. I am unsure how the founders would react on this issue today (not that their opinion is all that important), but for my bit of historical speculation, which has only little bearing on proper modern jurisprudence, is that the founders would demand the following line: The police must obey the same rules for weapons as everyone else, and everyone else must be afforded the same opportunity to earn the same licensing and approval to carry and use weapons in the same situations as the police. The founders just fought the War Of Independence to get rid of the police, and above all else, they wouldn't want the police to come back. (By "police", I mean "police" with special powers of carrying and using weapons, and special powers relating to detention, arrest, search, and seizure. Everyone should have the same weapons rights, and the only kind of arrest should be a citizen's arrest or an arrest by warrant.)

Comments

Rusty Smith Added Oct 11, 2018 - 10:59pm
The police don't follow the same rules as everyone else, they provide themselves with exemptions from many gun laws the rest of us have to follow.
 
I have and use many different types of guns for different reasons, and the ones I have for personal defense against other people are still quite important to have when I stand a good chance of coming in contact with violent people.  Although not common, we've had home invasion, knock knock robberies in my neighborhood and the only reason I wasn't robbed and probably beaten was that I answered my door with a gun when 2 people knocked on my door at 9 pm at night, (they had a gun too).
 
In the last round of riots rioters were yanking people out of cars on my commute route and beating and robbing them, some even died.  My only protection was a gun and just because I got lucky and was not attacked, doesn't mean I wasn't justified in wanting a gun to protect myself.  
 
You've noticed violent crime in general is decreasing, I hope you also noticed gun ownership has been rising at the same time, and is at an all time high in the US.
 
You might want to check out the statistics in places where they have taken away lots of guns, like the UK and Australia.  In both places violent crime rates are higher now than they were when there were more guns.  In the UK it's so bad they are no instituting knife control...  No joke... I couldn't make that stuff up and it is true.  I find that quite humorous because in the UK the overwhelming public sediment is that the guns made them less safe, but the reality is just the opposite.  Of course I'm basing what I'm saying on the number of violent crimes per year over a long time that includes years before and after the guns were taken away.   
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 12:38am
Actually, the incidence of violence has gone up in the USA due to the liberal Democrats not enforcing laws on a level playing field.
 
Criminals will always be criminals until they are stopped.  Putting a dangerous criminal back on the streets by liberal judges only sacrifices peace and security for some of the most outrageous reasons, such as "the prisons are overcrowded."
 
Why they are overcrowded is quite simple:  People are being arrested and jailed for things that should be simply corrected.
 
A criminal who is on death row for decades is a prime example.  The sixth amendment says the accused has a right to a fair and SPEEDY trial.  Decades in prison waiting for slow appeals that are put off for years is certainly not speedy at all.  In fact, Article 7 of the Bill of Rights says that no trial by jury may be examined except according to rules of common law.  This means an appeal, not a number of appeals that are designed only to tie up the courts for years.
 
In fact, the repeal of the death penalty has not deterred criminals from killing.  If anything, they are not afraid to kill because there is no real threat to their own lives, and to heck with their victims who have no recourse to justice.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 12, 2018 - 8:02am
Check the violent crime rates in Chicago and compare them with the violent crime rates in Kennesaw, Georgia ... a suburb of Atlanta, though one in which gun ownership is mandated by law for those who do not have moral objections to gun ownership or mental disabilities precluding them from owning a firearm. 
 
Violent crime rates are also substantially higher in the UK and Australia than they are in the US ... even though Opher Goodwin apparently does not believe the government statistics that prove this little inconvenient truth. 
 
 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 8:58am
Ward Tipton, you said it well.  Chicago, Great Britain and Australia outlawed guns except for very select people.  The result is far more crime in those places than where people can and will defend themselves.
 
An inconvenient truth to the liberals who want a Utopia with no guns.
Steel Breeze Added Oct 12, 2018 - 9:45am
i own guns for the same reason i own; spare tire,smoke alarm,insurance,door locks,etc,etc,etc....
Ward Tipton Added Oct 12, 2018 - 10:24am
A gun is like a life preserver on a boat. You do not own it because you want the boat to sink. However, if the boat ever starts to think and you do not have one ... 
Rusty Smith Added Oct 12, 2018 - 10:48am
Self defense is only one reason I own guns, I love to target shoot and hunt, and many of the guns I use for those sports would make lousy self defense weapons.
 
Of course a lot depends on what I'm defending against, I tend to think of self defense as against criminals who want to rob me at home or on the street.  In that case I need something easy to carry and often it needs to be concealable.  That generally doesn't include anything I use for target shooting or hunting.  It also doesn't need to be very powerful so I don't think of my 44 mag as a self defense gun even though I've carried it in bear country.
 
On the other hand many folks consider my 12 gauge Mossberg Defender to be a self defense gun because it holds 8 rounds, but I got it for Brown Bear country, it's the poor man's big game rifle but nothing I'd ever use at home or carry on the street for defense against criminals...  it's too big.
 
I'd like to own a 50  BMG but in my state it's illegal because some idiots seem to think they would be appealing to criminals.  I'm sure someone's used one to commit a crime somewhere, but that's so rare I would say those incidents are statistical anomalies not worth worrying about.  No one uses a gun that big and heavy to rob a liquor store or steal a car, they want something they can hide in their clothing, and run with.  You can't do that with a 50 BMH.  Heck  you can't even buy the ammo in most stores that sell guns and ammo.
Eric Reports Added Oct 12, 2018 - 1:38pm
If you were attacked, would you want a gun?
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 5:48pm
Rusty Smith, the ban on automatic weapons began with the Thompson machine gun, because it was popular with the mob.  Until that time, there were people who did own Gatling guns.  The laws that restrict do so to restrict freedom of choice.  Same thing with the prohibition:  Simply a restrictive law that was later overturned.
 
Eric Reports, are you trying to confuse liberals with logic?
Ward Tipton Added Oct 12, 2018 - 9:55pm
Most of the cannons used in and around Baltimore during the Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of Fort McHenry were supplied by a local black business owner. I seriously doubt he kept them in the hallways of his home for self defense. 
Marty Koval Added Oct 13, 2018 - 8:32am
If the government wishes to take away our rights to own and bear arms, then they also must take away ALL the firearms from Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement. Once people do not own firearms, then there is no reason for law enforcement entities of all tiers to have firearms either. This also extends out to the Military, but in a difference sense; the US Military should be barred from using weapons domestically OUTSIDE of their military bases, meaning they can use them and stock them in their bases, and use them when there is a national emergency that puts our country at risk of military invasion, or to conduct Military operations outside of the US.
 
The Second Amendment was given to us by our founding fathers, and it clearly states upon the Amendment that "Such a right SHALL NOT be infringed upon." Going through the judges picked by some Democratic-Socialist-Communist, or a Totalitarian-Autocrat-Republican, to modify or take away our rights to bear arms IS INDEED INFRINGEMENT. It also CLEARLY states in the Amendment that citizens have the right to rise and bear arms against a government that has gone corrupt. Infringe upon our given rights, and we all will consider the federal government corrupt, and in need of strict reformation by the citizens, not our greedy and shady politicians with ulterior motives.
 
Long story short, the Government won't risk a SECOND CIVIL WAR with its citizens. And even if they do, the citizens will fight fiercely, and WIN.
 
Ward Tipton Added Oct 13, 2018 - 8:40am
I believe Marty Koval, that you are incorrect in one minor point? 
 
What makes you think for a moment the government would not risk another civil war? It is quite literally all or nothing for them. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 13, 2018 - 9:26am
Ward Tipton, you are correct.  The government would risk a civil war because the government also controls the military, police and criminals.  They'd all be turned loose on any citizen uprising, believe it.  The citizens have only one chance:  Press charges against the corrupt power-mad officials.
Tamara Wilhite Added Oct 13, 2018 - 10:00pm
Liberal bullies attacked people in Portland last weekend. They took over intersections, directed traffic and assaulted people who complained of the bull horns or were just suspected of being conservative.
 
Portland Antifa protesters caught on video bullying elderly motorist, woman in wheelchair
https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-antifa-protesters-caught-on-video-bullying-elderly-motorist-woman-in-wheelchair
 
Police were caught on video in visual range of these assaults. And they would not help the victims. In fact, police were asking Antifa bullies to come forward and complain about the driver. Yeah, liberals are literally blaming the victim.
 
That is aside from the San Jose and Berkley events where police STOOD DOWN while liberal mobs showed up, faces covered, make shift weapons in hand, with a plan to hurt the political opposition. In the Berkley case, people beaten with poles were in the hospital and police wouldn't take police reports ... so they could say there were no police reports, so there's no problem.
 
WHEN LIBERALS HAVE POWER, THEY TELL THE POLICE TO REFUSE TO PROTECT CONSERVATIVES
Tamara Wilhite Added Oct 13, 2018 - 10:01pm
And that's why we need guns and to defend the legal right to defend ourselves, whether from liberal bullies who say it is OK to show up at homes and threaten to rape and kill people or form violent mobs to attack politicians in their offices or argue it is OK to bash a fash, and everyone who disagrees with liberal bullies is labeled a fascist.
 
When Never-Trumper Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro is called a Nazi and threatened by liberals, you know they'll smear anyone with a label that justifies violence against them.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 13, 2018 - 10:39pm
I dunno. I kinda like the pacifist mantra here on WB ... most notably in my recollection, the self-professed pacifist who believes shoving a large portion of concrete up through the rectal canal of someone he disagrees with to be a perfectly reasonable approach. What's not peaceful about that? 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 13, 2018 - 10:51pm
Tamara Wilhite and Ward Tipton, the reasons you stated are the reasons we cannot allow the liberal elite to take over.  We must not allow them to revive what is essentially the Nazi party of the 1930s in the USA.  But that is their goal - socialism, the same goal as the Nazis, the full spelling "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which means "National Socialist German Workers Party".
Ward Tipton Added Oct 13, 2018 - 11:06pm
Except I do believe the push today is one of a more globalist in nature, not merely nationalist. Why settle for America when you can have the world? 
 
What are we going to do tonight Brain? 
Tamara Wilhite Added Oct 13, 2018 - 11:12pm
The Second Amendment is NOT an aberration. English Common Law recognizes the right to defend one's life and own weapons to do so.
 
Totalitarian systems have systematically deprived people of that right. Shariah law, for instance, says non-Muslims can't own weapons. They're at the mercy of the state to protect them, and it likely won't protect them. That's a systematic denial of rights to encourage people to convert. The English didn't let the Irish own weapons, for the same reason.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 13, 2018 - 11:53pm
The English forbade the Scots from owning weapons as well, thus the Caber Toss, the Stone Toss, the Hammer Toss and other "games" utilizing tools that could also be used in warfare. For the Brazilians a means of dance incorporating fighting styles ... none of which were nearly as effective of the standard arms of the day. 
 
Who has the only lawful authority to determine how I may choose to defend my life and the life of my family if not me? (And my family  of course) 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 14, 2018 - 12:41am
Ward Tipton, in regard to your question of what are we going to do tonight is to be sure you're ready and prepared for tomorrow.  Words won't stop terrorists nor criminals.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 14, 2018 - 7:21am
Hahahahaha It is from an old Television Series that I saw while visiting one of my brothers. The series was on WB IIRC, entitled "Pinky and the Brain" about two lab rats who sought to take over the world! "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?" "We are going to take over the world Pinky!" 
 
The part that bugged me was Pinky constantly running around saying "Narf" ... as back in the days of my youth, Narf was an expression regarding farting in the bathtub and biting the bubbles. Not sure where it originated but ... that is what it meant when I was a kid. 
 
Neither will sticks and stones, but a well-yielded firearm will work just fine for me. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 14, 2018 - 7:43am
Well, sorry, but I cannot relate, Ward.  I grew up as a military brat.  Born in Alabama, nine months later living in Michigan near Selfridge AFB, then on to Germany and all sorts of places.  Didn't get a lot of US TV shows, as I was born before television was even broadcast commercially, and by that time, transfers were such that by the time I graduated from high school, I had already attended thirteen different schools and several different countries.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 14, 2018 - 8:11am
"Hahahahaha It is from an old Television Series that I saw while visiting one of my brothers."
 
Like you, I have never owned many television sets. It would be fair to say that the only television sets I have ever owned were given to me by people who thought I was missing something. In my defense ... I never missed my televisions ... set them up about three hundred meters, plug them in to the generator ... Bam. 
 
My Ma was not exactly military ... my father was but they were divorced ... but her work was such that I shared a similar fate ... I did roughly the same thing in schools in my early years, and to top it off, had six different names before I got to the fifth grade. 
 
All things being equal, I am actually grateful as it prevented me from ever getting into any comfortable ruts growing up. I questioned everything and everyone, always looking more for their motivation than their words. Being independent in the world today may not be very popular, but it sure beats being one of the masses. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 14, 2018 - 10:34am
Ward, that explains a lot to me.  No wonder we think so much alike - we have the background to look at things as independent and realize that one truth is not always the final word.
 
As a retired USAF member, I salute you!
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 16, 2018 - 10:04pm
To Rusty Smith

> You've noticed violent crime in general is decreasing,

In large part, perhaps in majority part, because of the banning of leaded gasoline.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-lead-crime-roundup-for-2018/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export


> In the UK it's so bad they are no instituting knife control...  No joke... I couldn't make that stuff up and it is true.  

I follow the youtube channels of several HEMA practitioners in England who have complained about this. It does seem rather silly to have laws that prohibit the shipping of standard kitchen knives through the mail. The HEMA persons are especially annoyed because that makes it much more difficult to get their swords.

...

To Sunshine Kid

> Criminals will always be criminals until they are stopped.  Putting a dangerous criminal back on the streets by liberal judges only sacrifices peace and security for some of the most outrageous reasons, such as "the prisons are overcrowded."

Of all nations in the world, the United States has the highest percentage of its population in prison by quite a large margin. This kind of rhetoric misunderstands the nature of crime and punishment, and misunderstands the real facts of the matter.


> In fact, the repeal of the death penalty has not deterred criminals from killing.  If anything, they are not afraid to kill because there is no real threat to their own lives, and to heck with their victims who have no recourse to justice.

My recollection is that the death penalty vs life in prison makes no actual deterrence, and that sociology investigations suggest that this sort of violent criminal typically doesn't plan on being caught, and in their cost-benefit analysis, life in prison and death penalty are roughly equally bad, and hence no deterrence effect.

> We must not allow them to revive what is essentially the Nazi party of the 1930s in the USA.  But that is their goal - socialism, the same goal as the Nazis, the full spelling "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which means "National Socialist German Workers Party".

Asinine. The Nazis were not socialist, nor liberal, nor left-leaning. It's also a gross simplification to say that they are right leaning or capitalist. You are grossly ignorant of the history on this matter. I suggest that you educate yourself. If you like youtube videos, I suggest the Three Arrows youtube video on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI&t=2s

More broadly, I am horribly concerned when America has concentration camps for refugees but only of certain races. I am espeically concerned that as a matter of policy that children refugees are systematically separated by their parents - which one of the hallmarks of genocide. I am foaming mad at the mouth that all of America is not rising up against this policy.

If you want to talk fascism and Nazi-esque policies, look at the Republican party. They even had an actual Nazi in the white house in a high level position. An actual Nazi from an actual Nazi organization that existed since World War 2 Nazi Germany. I speak of Sebastion Gorka, who even wore the medals of this Nazi-aligned organization to his inauguration ball. If we broaden it to neo-Nazis, there are several more in Senate-confirmed positions.

...

@ Marty Koval

> If the government wishes to take away our rights to own and bear arms, then they also must take away ALL the firearms from Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement. Once people do not own firearms, then there is no reason for law enforcement entities of all tiers to have firearms either. This also extends out to the Military, but in a difference sense; the US Military should be barred from using weapons domestically OUTSIDE of their military bases, meaning they can use them and stock them in their bases, and use them when there is a national emergency that puts our country at risk of military invasion, or to conduct Military operations outside of the US.

I basically said this in the OP. I entirely agree that this should be the line.

...

If anyone else has any questions, comments, arguments, to me, please address me specifically, and I'll try to respond (at least for the moment - no promises for unending engagement).
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 16, 2018 - 10:14pm
Also, the OP was posted without the original context. Someone made this account for me, and posted this for me. I meant something very specific with the word "aberration" which depends on the context, which is lost here. Let me add some context.
 
The American federal second amendment clearly protects an individual right to own and carry weapons. I believe that there were lots of historical exceptions and restrictions, especially considering the carrying part, but I believe that Republicans are much closer to the truth on this than Democrats. It pisses me off to no end when Democrats say that the amendment is not about protecting an individual right or some other nonsense. I was especially horrified when I read the liberal dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court Heller case.
 
Having said that, I am entirely in favor of a national training and licensing scheme, similar to driver's ed and driver's licenses, without licensing individual guns. The difficulty should be set so that at least 90% of the population can pass with effort. The class should include both safety training on guns, how to operate and clean your gun, and education on the laws of your state and federal laws on the possession, carrying, and usage, including ancillary concerns such as the general law on citizen's arrest, self defense, and defense of others. I believe that this has strong historical precedent, based on the Federalist 29 which calls for a national law to require everyone to buy a gun and require everyone to show up for yearly training, and also the second federal militia act of 1792 which required everyone to buy a gun and required everyone to show up for yearly training. With the modern case law of requiring driver's licenses, I believe that this plan is on especially firm legal and constitutional footing. (Tangent: Driving a car on a public road is a constitutionally protected right. It's a licensed right. See Bell v Burson.)
 
I have a rather lengthy google document full of citations that I use to argue against my fellow liberals on this topic. See here:
 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ak6bx8jyDxIlsLuFHHevw-4RQ7R5vJb15RtTNG5d79w/edit
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 16, 2018 - 10:18pm
I should add - I think we've sent other world leaders to The Hague for lesser crimes against humanity than what Trump et al are doing to refugees and their children here in America. It's completely beyond the pale. Again, if you want Nazi-esque racial genocide policies, look to the Republican party.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 16, 2018 - 10:28pm
And finally, let me explain what I meant in the OP.
 
Someone else said that the founders didn't know about modern guns, and thus the second amendment is bad law today. I said that was partially false. I noted that the founders were well aware of repeating rifles, including the Kalthoff repeater and the Girandoni air rifle. Many personally were inventors, and I think that the guns of today are not drastically enough different than the founders would have a different opinion. However, the founders had no idea about high explosives and some other new military technologies.
 
Also, even many cities in the founders' era had some safety laws that governed the storage of gunpowder in city limits, and at a minimum, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the possession of certain "destructive devices" (to use the ATF term) in city limits, i.e. missiles, tanks, grenades.
 
I have mixed feelings about machine guns, but IMO personal machine guns (e.g. "crewed" by a single person) aren't that useful in a modern military context anyway. The question should be about standard semiauto rifles with detachable box magazines, the things which many ill-informed liberals simultaneously think are dangerous military-style "assault weapons" and also "hunting rifles", depending on the paint job of the gun.
 
Furthermore, the other person in the original context commented on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
 
In was in that context that I partially agreed that the federal second amendment is outdated. Obviously individual persons should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. (If you disagree, I'm not going to even bother to respond to you.) The question for every reasonable person then is: What lines do we draw, and where do we draw them?
 
I think it's patently silly to restrict shipping standard kitchen knives through the mail as England does right now. I think a firm line should be set that police should be subject to the same rules as everyone else, and continue the existing posse comitatus law that says that US military should not be used as law enforcement in the territory of the United States. Beyond that, I don't know. Should the line be set at whatever we issue to an individual soldier in the field, as many Republicans seem to want? Or should we draw the line to forbid most guns to most persons, which includes forbidding the police to have guns too? Meh. I no longer have strong opinions on this narrow subject.
 
However, I think that the discussion is somewhat moot, given recent Supreme Court picks, and the Heller and Chicago decisions. I also think that gun control is a terrible thing for Democrats to rally around, because they lose so many voters who might otherwise vote Democrat and because they have no little chance to win on gun control and because the gun control that they are pushing will have such a small effect on the problem, which I think is not super-big to begin with.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 17, 2018 - 12:08am
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand. 
 
Guns were confiscated recently in the area affected by the most recent destructive hurricane. One considers that to be a crime against the people by an overstepping out of control government hell bent upon establishing case law so they can get away with it in the future.
Michael B. Added Oct 17, 2018 - 12:15am
Here's a couple of comments of what the founding fathers thought about private gun ownership; who knows what they would have thought about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, but otherwise it looks like they make their feelings on the subject crystal clear, despite the Second Amendment's lousy syntax and bad punctuation:
 
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
 
Alexander Hamilton
 
"Anyone who surrenders his arms because of a cry for public safety does not deserve freedom...The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government...No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms...Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."
 
Thomas Jefferson
 
"Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference  - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
 
George Washington
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 17, 2018 - 12:35am
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
 
Librul heads exploding in 3..2..1..
 
Michael B. Added Oct 17, 2018 - 12:42am
@ Captain Gilbert - Being a ranking officer, I think that the proper order of commands you'd issue that would result in Librul heads exploding would be...Ready...Aim...Fire! LOL
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 17, 2018 - 1:14am
One supposes you would be correct were the current crop of snowflakes weren't trained to go into hysterics at the mere thought of a gun. 
 
You next door neighbor's ten year old kid Tommy on the other hand ain't having any of that nonsense and is out digging a hole in the back yard to bury his daisy air rifle.
 
It's rumored he was overheard muttering "they ain't takin' nuthin' from me"
 
Good boy Tommy! 
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 17, 2018 - 8:59am
Please read my comments in this thread. You will find that there's a lot of agreement, and that you're jumping to wrong conclusions about my beliefs. Some of them anyway. Again, the second amendment clearly protects personal gun rights, and he police and judges should obey the law, until and unless it is changed, e.g. by constitutional amendment.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 17, 2018 - 12:33pm
Just look at a place like Venezuela, where it is difficult to get guns and few people besides the military and police have guns.
 
Do you think the government would be so heavy handed, allowing people to go wanting because there is no food in the groceries, and no medicine in the hospitals if the people generally had guns?  The government feels secure because most of the guns in the country are controlled by the government.
 
We can say what happened in Venezuela could never happen here.  But 25 years ago in Venezuela people thought the same.   It was then a fairly prosperous country with a large middle class of educated professionals.  I know many of those people, and their lament is that there is no way to remove the government, because they dont fear the population.  People cant attack the government with picks and shovels. 
 
While our Constitution makes is less likely  Venezuela could happen here, the Constitution is one line of defense, and guns are another line of defense.  This is not to say that having guns give us only an upside, there is a downside as well.  However, when the chips are down, and the government is contemplating the unthinkable, guns in the population are an excellent deterrent.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 17, 2018 - 12:47pm
I don’t think I know of any liberal politicians, certainly none I’ve ever voted for, who are in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. There have been positions in favor of registration and some about some sort of limitations on assault weapons (I agree that they mostly aren’t the point, that large magazines are a bigger issue) but not about general confiscation. There are going to be some lefties who want to yank guns from everyone but not generally in positions of real power. This is to a certain extent a straw dog. 
 
There are, I’d say, four legitimate issues when it comes to firearms, but I’m no expert:
 
1. Licensing. I’m in favor of licensing all shooters like we license all drivers. And I’m in favor of making safety classes mandatory. This is what the NRA should be for. There’s no reason the mother of the killer in Newtown shouldn’t have known enough to keep her firearms locked and her ammunition locked elsewhere. 
 
2. Universal background checks. No excuses. The Gun Show Loophole doesn’t exist because shops that sell at shows still have to check background. The loophole is that background checks aren’t necessary for private sales. They should be. 
 
3. Illegalization of firearms that have no purpose other than criminal ones. If you can’t hunt with it, wouldn’t use it to shoot at targets, wouldn’t use it to defend yourself, but it makes a sufficient threat to hold up a store, why allow it?
4. Restricting magazine size. This is where the assault rifle ban goes off track. As someone already pointed out, the primary difference between some assault rifles and some semiautomatic hunting rifles (a small shooter I know says semis have less recoil and that matters to her) is appearance rather than function. However, we don’t need big magazines to hunt. If you’re putting more than half a dozen bullets into game, chances are you aren’t qualified to be shooting in the first place. Big magazines are for killing a lot of people quickly. 
Douglas Proudfoot Added Oct 17, 2018 - 2:58pm
The purpose of an armed US populace is to check the federal government's ability to exceed its specified powers under the Constitution.  This argument was put forward as a rebuttal to arguments against the Constitution, that the federal government would have so much power that it would oppress the people and would be able to impose a military dictatorship.  See the last 2 paragraphs of Federalist Paper 46 in this link:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
 
The last two paragraphs of the link say that the Federal Government will not be able to abuse its power because the residents of America, unlike the residents of Europe, are armed with military grade weapons and would be able to organize themselves into militias that would outnumber the federal army.  Some argue that Federalist paper 46 is not the same as the 2nd Amendment.  However, the same man, James Madison, wrote both of them, about 18 months apart.  Federalist Paper 46 was published 29 January 1788.  The Bill of Rights was introduced in Congress on June 8, 1789.  I think that Federalist Paper 46 is a good indication of James Madison’s intent in writing the 2nd Amendment.


For those of you who would argue that people armed with AR-15s and other "assault weapons" would not be able to fight a federal army today, please consider the amount of time it took the Iraqi Army to take Mosul, even though it was using large amounts of US artillery and air strikes. It took over 9 months, from October 17, 2016, to late July, 2017, to take Mosul from ISIS. ISIS was armed mainly with AK-47 rifles (true assault rifles) and improvised explosives, with a few captured machine guns and mortars. I think this shows that the 2nd Amendment is still an effective check on the Federal Government.
 
You should also consider that there are at least 5 million privately owned "assault weapons" in the US, and there are over 300 million privately owned guns overall. This means that there is more than one gun for each US resident. There is no way you can confiscate all of the guns out there. Don't bother to deny that's what you really want. We don't trust you. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Malarkey on steroids. The left lies for a living.
 
The typical pro-gun voter believes the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that the rest of the Bill of Rights will not be canceled unconstitutionally by the federal government. They view any effort to curtail gun rights as the first step in an unlawful move towards dictatorship. Since the left is already trying to cancel Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech in places the left controls, like college campuses, pro-gun voters increasingly feel the left is not dealing in good faith. They are likely to resist violently any effort to confiscate guns or have the Supreme Court reinterpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see any way any grand compromise can be reached on this issue.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 17, 2018 - 3:13pm
We can’t confiscate your guns even if we were so inclined. We live in the United States and the US Constitution has the Second Amendment. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 17, 2018 - 3:38pm
Koshersalaami, unfortunately, you are mistaken.  Many states/cities have already confiscated weapons through unconstitutional laws.  I lived in a time when, except in a very few cities like Chicago, I could walk into any pawn shop, plop down twenty dollars and walk out with a hand gun, rifle, or whatever they had for sale.  Today it seems only certain businesses have "licenses" to sell guns, and before they can, you have to be put through all sorts of checks before you are "allowed" to have a gun.
The second amendment was, at one time, your only requirement to purchase a gun.  Not any more.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 17, 2018 - 4:07pm
Regulation of gun sales for safety reasons is not remotely the same thing as general confiscation. That would be like saying cars are illegal because they need license plates and licensed drivers. Why would you even want anyone to be able to plop down twenty bucks to buy a gun? 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 17, 2018 - 4:26pm
Because the second amendment says that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
What is missing is the obligation of the owner of any weapon to use the weapon as intended.  It is not the weapon's fault when the owner/user uses the weapon in a criminal manner, and that is the bottom line.
To put it in context with your point of owning a car:  The license plates, licensed drivers, and other requirements for driving cars doesn't stop people from driving drunk, causing accidents and hurting others, does it?  You don't ban cars because someone plows into a crowd, and call the car a weapon of mass destruction, do you?  It is the PERSON that should be held accountable, not the inanimate object.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 17, 2018 - 5:10pm
Yes, but that means not fighting that accountability tooth and nail. The NRA (mainly run by gun manufacturers - the actual membership is way more reasonable) hates any kind of regulation on guns of any kind. That’s crap. As a shooter, you should have obligations in the interests of public safety. Given that the NRA is more in the business of firearm safety training than any other organization in America, the idea that they should fight this requirement is pretty weird. And, truth be told, I don’t think most of the membership does. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 17, 2018 - 6:39pm
I'm not a member of the NRA, so I will not comment on their policies or stance at this time.
But, as far as gun manufacturers go, denying them the right to produce weapons for sale based on how they LOOK is about as logical as denying the production of anything, even a pacifier, by the color or shape of it.  Worse, denying the citizen of the USA the right to buy what he likes the look and/or feel of simply because someone else does not like the look of it is ridiculous.  Furthermore, the restrictions in rate of fire, ammunition capacity, etc., is about as logical as selling toilet paper by the square rather than the roll.  If you have diarrhea, a square of toilet paper would be totally unacceptable.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 17, 2018 - 8:11pm
I agree about the first part. Appearance as a criterion makes no sense and that is the only functional difference between some “assault” rifles and some hunting rifles. However, I think you’re way wrong about restrictions in capacity. What can you use the capacity for? If you’re hunting, you only need to get off a few shots in quick succession. More than that, you probably aren’t ready to hunt. The use for big magazines is to enhance the ability to kill a lot of people quickly. The kind of diarrhea that would necessitate large magazines is not one you want to cater to. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 17, 2018 - 9:01pm
The second amendment was not written for sporting events such as hunting and target shooting, so even bringing that into the discussion is moot.
  Ever been in the middle of a riot?  Six to ten shots might make a lot of noise, but doubtful it will displace a mob attacking you.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 17, 2018 - 10:09pm
"1. Licensing. I’m in favor of licensing all shooters like we license all drivers. And I’m in favor of making safety classes mandatory. This is what the NRA should be for. There’s no reason the mother of the killer in Newtown shouldn’t have known enough to keep her firearms locked and her ammunition locked elsewhere. "
 
First question - It is also perfectly legal to drive on one's own property without the need for licensing, registration or other government intervention. Would you support the same restrictions on government interference when it comes to firearms? 
 
Second question - What would you have those of us who live in the country do when wildcats come calling on a moonless night or thirty or forty or more coyotes are marking their way in to our livestock? Fire a single round, stop, reload and fire again? Or perhaps we should be allowed high capacity magazines that are proven effective? Some mind you, would suggest that I merely walk away from everything my family and I have built, destroy all my roots and live in the city in "civilized society" where my chances of becoming a victim of violent criminal actions are greatly increased, though for me that is not an option. 
 
Third question - What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand? 
FacePalm Added Oct 17, 2018 - 11:54pm
First, EL, some information may be helpful to expound upon the position(s) you have apparently taken.
 
The 2nd Amendment prevents gov't actors from infringing on the right to bear ARMS, of any kind, not guns.
 
Second, the contraction "Nazi" comes from the German phrase "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei," which, as the Sunshine Kid notes above, means "National SOCIALIST Worker's Party," ergo Hitler pushed and implemented SOCIALISM, not Fascism(that was Mussolini).
 
But let's see what Hitler himself wrote about the Nazi partei he created:
 
"We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with it's unfair salaries, with it's unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
-- Adolf Hitler(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
May 1 1927

 
"Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."
-- Adolf Hitler(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
Source: Speech, 1941

 
"National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order."
-- Adolf Hitler(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
Source: Adolph Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186

 
The Constitution does not state that the kind of government it constitutes is a Republic, so we're left to resort to - and reflect upon - what those in the actual meetings said afterwards - and Benjamin Franklin, when asked by a Ms. Powel, "Well?  What kind of government have we got?" replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."  Most people these days have NO CLUE that the F&F quite despised democracy, and for very sound reasons - and in addition, have NO IDEA how a Republic differs from one or why a Constitutional Republic is far better than any democracy could ever be.
 
And here's some of what Hitler had to say about guns:
 
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
 
(During the "Anschluss," when the Austrians voted overwhelmingly to welcome National Socialism into their country - which they essentially gave to Germany - the first thing Hitler's people did was go to the centralized record-keeping facilities and pull up everyone who'd registered both their firearms and their ammunition, as was "the law" at that time - which made it extraordinarily easy to determine exactly who might be a danger to ze Reich.  This would be a GREAT reason to NEVER register ANY kind of arms at any time with any gov't agency for any reason.  Always remember and never forget: when gov't agents fear the People, there is liberty; when the People fear gov't agents, there is tyranny.  'Twas always thus.)
 
One of the newest kind of potential arms i've read about was a device comprised of nano-solar cells which put out more energy than input; one "Viktor Klimov," a Russian scientist who worked at the nuclear research facility at Los Alamos, came up with this invention; an analyst i'm aware of opined that a hand-held device could be built with a photon-emitting substance like Tourmaline, and theoretically could produce laser beams capable of destroying tanks and aircraft, not to mention armies or criminal gangs(often the same thing)...and it would never run out of power.  The article i read on this topic says that it will absolutely revolutionize even the idea of armies, as one man armed with such a device could decimate tens-if-not-hundreds of thousands sent against him, no matter how well-armed with conventional weaponry, even heavy armor, cruise missiles, rockets, and bombs.
 
i'm of the unshakeable belief that any man should be able to have and use any kind of arms he can afford, with the caveat that he be able to secure them against unauthorized use AND accept responsibility for any criminal use of them he himself might make.
 
After all, the real reason why the Second was part of the Bill of Rights was to secure individual rights against tyrants of all stripes, whether street thugs, rioters, bullies-with-badges, or armies.  Those who claim to be "our governors" canNOT be allowed to obtain or use tyrannical power, the same as a mob
FacePalm Added Oct 17, 2018 - 11:55pm
- or lynch mob, either.  Gov't agents have no more rights than any Citizen, and if they ever step outside the lawful bounds of their presumed authority, lose the protection of government employment, and become personally liable.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 18, 2018 - 12:35am
That may be what Hitler said about economics but it certainly isn’t how the Nazi Party ruled. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 18, 2018 - 1:49am
Those who claim that guns should be locked up and ammunition locked up elsewhere are fooled completely by those that claim that this is all for "safety".
 
The first rule of safety is knowledge.  If you don't have knowledge about how to safely use and store guns, you are not safe at all.
 
Let us suppose for an instant that you have an emergency go to the bathroom, but the law says that you have to store the water in a separate room away from the toilet paper in order to keep the toilet paper and water from being misused or stolen.
 
Logical?  Not on your life, but locking up ammunition and your weapons when facing a dire threat is not logical either.  That is the purpose of locking up your home, having security cameras and so forth.
 
It's fine to keep your guns and ammunition in the same place for quick access.  It's also good to keep the guns and ammunition hidden from view in a secret compartment, but not under lock and key.  You may not have time to find the keys to your storage in an emergency.
FacePalm Added Oct 18, 2018 - 7:24am
KS-
That may be what Hitler said about economics but it certainly isn’t how the Nazi Party ruled.   
 
First, i don't see how you were able to insert "economics" into the Hitler citations; second, the nazis ruled exactly like Stalin did, who arguably murdered far more of his own citizens than Hitler did, even if one includes all the homosexuals, Jews, "defectives," "enemies of the Reich(or State)," enemy combatants & civilians, and gypsies murdered into the totals.  Second, history is written by the victors, but if you want to know original intent, you seek out the writings of the founder(s) thereof - and trust your own common sense over what "history" pretends actually happened.
 
The collectivists - those who deny that any individual has any rights whatsoever - have that principle in common, whether one calls them fascists, socialists, communists, or whatever kind of tyrants/tyranny.  They all elevate a completely fictional entity, "the State/Party" - to demigod status, and claim that individuals only have value as they contribute to the perpetuation of the fictional entity and what it's "leaders" say it demands.
 
This philosophy(and i use the term in derogation) is failing all around the globe, now, as more and more people have become aware of the goals of the NWO/OWG satanist pedophiles; America is/was the shining light of the protection of Individual rights, for not even an imaginary "collective" can exist without individuals...and gov't agents as sworn servants, not as masters, charged with - and sworn to - preserve, protect, and defend these Rights whose origin is not of Man, but of God, Rights both named and unnamed.
 
An example of the latter would be the freedom to travel, a right considered so basic and obvious that it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution.  You see, the word "drive" or "driving" has a specific meaning in statutory law, and that is the operation of a motor vehicle in commerce, i.e. transporting materials or goods for hire.  The law does indeed require a license to "drive," but suppose you're just traveling in your private property, and engaging in neither of the license-required activities noted above?  (if the subject intrigues or interests the gentle reader in any manner, one might discover much more at a website purportedly begun to inform LEO's and Citizens, BY LEO's, here.)
 
Incidentally, both nazism and socialism(in the USSR) insisted on registration of firearms before they were either confiscated or the owner was required to keep them with a local military unit, with whom he could practice.  The leaders of both forms of governance were well aware that an announcement of outright confiscation would be vigorously opposed, ergo the deceptive tactics; awake and aware Americans see the consequences in the principle, and avoid the consequences by denying the principle.
 
As to the subject at hand, i'm recalling a story about a fella who - along with others - was exercising his right to open carry a few years ago.  An opponent asked him, "Is that thing loaded?"  "Yep," he replied, "Same as my fire extinguisher, and for the same reason - so that it's ready when it's needed."
 
SunshineKid-
These days, it's relatively easy to make or buy a virtually anywhere-mountable strong box with fingerprint access pads, so that your loaded, cleaned firearm is readily accessible, and only to you and/or the other individuals authorized to access it.  i've recommended boxes like this for many years, to be kept at-the-ready virtually anywhere insane people are likely to show up - bars, concerts, churches, gov't buildings, homes, boats, everywhere - for no law will be obeyed by the criminally insane, ever, and people need to be able to cause them to cease attempted or successful murders as swiftly as possible, of course.
 
"I carry arms because a cop's too heavy" or "When seconds count, police are minutes away."(or hours, in certain locales.)
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 18, 2018 - 7:33am
FacePalm, why don't you make your comment into an article?  Expand it a bit, and add some links for verification.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 18, 2018 - 8:39am
To FacePalm

North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic Of Korea. Does that mean that the government is in any way democratic? No.

And you're taking Hitler at his word in public political propaganda? Please. Hitler was an authoritarian who said whatever needed to be said to gain and keep power. If you look at his actual policies, he was not a mere socialist, and nor was he a laissesz-faire capitalist. He found the socialist party to be a convenient vehicle to get into power, and nothing more. Hell, Hitler had most of the actual socialist leaders in the party killed.

Again, please educate yourself, and if you like Youtube videos, check out the Three Arrows video that I linked to.

Concerning Germany and gun rights. Under Hitler, personal gun ownership expanded dramatically as his government ended many previous gun control laws. Hitler was not pro gun control. Again, look at what his goverment acutally did, and not at cherrypicked quotes.

And what is this about a perpetual motion machine? Are you seriously saying that such a thing is possible? Of all of the ludicrous things that you have said, this is by far the silliest.

> The collectivists - those who deny that any individual has any rights whatsoever - have that principle in common, whether one calls them fascists, socialists, communists, or whatever kind of tyrants/tyranny.  They all elevate a completely fictional entity, "the State/Party" - to demigod status, and claim that individuals only have value as they contribute to the perpetuation of the fictional entity and what it's "leaders" say it demands.

This is an absolute caricature. This is the understanding of someone of the education of a middle school child. Just as one example - it was the left in America who fought to end segregation, and it's the left in America who fought for gay rights, and it's the left in America who fought for the right to use birth control and abortion. The right in America has always stood in the way of social progress and especially the improvement of individual rights - except economic rights (and gun rights). On the matter of so-called economic rights, we simply disagree, but it's asinine to portray this as narrowly as you do, and to ignore the history of America where the right has been on the wrong side of almost every social issue e.g. personal rights issue, and today they are still on the wrong side of almost every social issue e.g. personal rights issue.

> An example of the latter would be the freedom to travel, a right considered so basic and obvious that it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution.  You see, the word "drive" or "driving" has a specific meaning in statutory law, and that is the operation of a motor vehicle in commerce, i.e. transporting materials or goods for hire.

God. I'm dealing with a sovereign citizen nutjob. I'm done with this conversation.

Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 18, 2018 - 9:18am
I'm done with this conversation.

 
That didn't take long. 
 
FacePalm Added Oct 18, 2018 - 10:42am
Concise summary of EL's comment; "You're stupid, shut up; you're crazy, too."
 
Typical socialist position these days for any opposing viewpoint, ergo completely invalid.  Note i do NOT say "liberal," for that label has been misappropriated by insane leftists these days, as it's definition has morphed(or been twisted).
 
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, proof against all arguments, and is guaranteed to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.  That principle is contempt prior to investigation."
~Herbert Spencer
 
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance.  Those who mean to be their own governors, therefore, will arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
~James Madison
 
"When you find yourself in an argument with an idiot, the first point to be determined is whether or not your opponent is similarly engaged."
~Unknown
 
SunshineKid-
Thanks for the suggestion. 
As you may have observed by now, there's a problem with posting an article here, as i discovered the last time i posted one - for after reading how often Autumn was reproving those who posted the same article multiple times, i was very careful to click the "publish"(or whatever it's called) button only ONCE, yet it posted x7, and i was unable(still am) to delete the excess posts, even from my profile - though i was able to convert them to "drafts."  i'll be patient until that problem has been solved.
 
That said, i've spent a good deal of time investigating not only the right to keep and bear arms, but also the limits of policing authority; it may surprise you to discover, for example, that multiple courts have ruled that when a purported officer of the law attempts an arrest without lawful cause(like failure to produce an ID), one can resist said unlawful arrest the same as any other kind of assault, up to and including ending the bully's life, and the max charge will only be manslaughter.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 18, 2018 - 10:58am
"That said, i've spent a good deal of time investigating not only the right to keep and bear arms, but also the limits of policing authority; it may surprise you to discover, for example, that multiple courts have ruled that when a purported officer of the law attempts an arrest without lawful cause(like failure to produce an ID), one can resist said unlawful arrest the same as any other kind of assault, up to and including ending the bully's life, and the max charge will only be manslaughter."
 
At least if the cops do not kill you first. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 18, 2018 - 11:09am
At least if the cops do not kill you first. 
 
In that position always remember after the first one the rest a free. Make good use of your time.
 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 18, 2018 - 11:09am
*are free*
Koshersalaami Added Oct 18, 2018 - 11:15am
Economics, to answer the question:
What Hitler said, given that he was a strong believer in public lies (and said so), is not what he did. Socialism was essentially a cover to get elected. If you look at his record in office, he strongly favored major German corporations, not my idea of socialism. He was totalitarian like Stalin but he was totalitarian on the opposite end of the political spectrum. 
 
If you want to make a point about totalitarian use of firearms records, that’s a valid argument. If you want to say Hitler was a leftist, it is not. 
FacePalm Added Oct 18, 2018 - 1:02pm
It doesn't matter; as noted earlier, socialists/communists/fascists use the same methods toward the same goals - tyranny of the State/Party over individuals.  Whether you suffer & die at the hands of a socialist, communist, fascist, or any other kind of authoritarian makes little difference to the victim; you're just as wounded, just as maimed, just as tortured, just as dead.
 
i certainly agree that Hitler was a liar; he promoted lying to the public as his general policy to achieve his objectives on a routine and persistent basis.  i don't believe he was lying about socialism in the citations given above, however, based on results virtually identical with the entire murder/"insanity"/gulag system of Stalin and his Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 
 
What i've read about COG contingency plans like Rex84 and the plans for civilian internment leads me to believe that a Maoist-style revolution was planned for THIS country, as well, so far being stymied by Trump and loyal nationalists of EVERY race; the "white nationalist" meme is a futile psyop intended to deceive the gullible into equating "white supremacist" with it.  Seems to be working rather well, especially on college-schooled leftists these days; i remember seeing a protester(white male) screaming a supposed epithet at a Trump supporter, "But you're a WHITE MALE!" , like it's a Bad Thing.
 
The point in re: this thread is that any form of collective tyranny is antithetical to human life, liberty, and property...ergo must be opposed as violently as need be, and as soon as it rears it's ugly head.
 
Today, leftist mobs attack anyone NOT leftist on the streets with any number of hand weapons like sticks, clubs, rods, pepper/bear spray, bags of urine and feces, and whatever else - not to mention the Maoist-style mindless slogan-chanting; tomorrow, they'll start killing, following the example of the #huntrepublicans hashtag made popular the DAY that the disappointed Sanders supporter decided to murder people at a baseball practice.  Already, there have been posts on social media calling for home invasions and murders, and the doxxing of various republicans has resulted in an increase in deadly threats being made.  MSM derides Trump and attempts to link him to all manner of evil by claiming that "he created a climate" for this or that - but their hypocrisy prevents them from seeing, much less reporting, what their OWN "climatic" statements are creating.
 
Jefferson wrote that "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it," but when reason has been abandoned(generally, leftists cannot refute points made by those on the right side of history), what must happen will be on the heads of those who have abandoned reason.
 
Once the mid-terms complete, with the figurative slaughter of democrats which will ensue, they'll go even more insane than they are now - especially with their putative "leaders" refusing to condemn their violence, which amounts to tacit acceptance, even encouragement, of that violence.
 
For the most part, Americans who are NOT leftists(here, i include some sane democrats who remain, who have not yet opted for the #walkaway movement) totally reject violence as a political tool, but more and more are resorting to defending themselves, e.g. the "Proud Boys" who have routinely beaten the crap out of their attackers, only to be charged as the ASSAILANTS, as happened most recently in NYC...but live video footage will easily show who were the aggressors if/when it comes to court, supposing the judge(s retain(s) any vestige of integrity.
 
These Soros-backed leftist fools are itching for a war, and if they get one, will lose swiftly; their end will be foreshadowed by the replacement of current democratic officeholders who have refused to aid legitimate victims of assaults by issuing "stand-down" orders to police, who have been - and are being - sued for ignoring their sworn duty to prevent these very real crimes being committed in their presence - with others who have the public safety figure more prominently in their political philosophies than allowing aggravated criminal assaults to continue unprosecuted, as in Portland.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 18, 2018 - 3:10pm
Over 100 years ago, you did have the legal right to resist unlawful arrest, which sometimes included the right to shoot the cop who was acting unlawfully. See the Supreme Court case Bad Elk. However, it hasn't been that way for at least 50 years. Just like your "right to drive" argument, it's complete and utter nonsense, and it would be laughed out of every court in this country. You are a sovereign citizen nutjob.
FacePalm Added Oct 18, 2018 - 4:01pm
So YOU say.  I disagree.  Nice attempt at a pigeonholing job, though.  And misconstruing my words is an old, lame tactic, too; i never said anything about anyone having a "right to drive;" the right to TRAVEL is what i contended.
 
You appear to have a closed mind, so i won't waste my time or yours pointing out any of the multiple court rulings which support lawful defense against an unlawful arrest...i have a collection.  Just for fun, i websearched "John Bad Elk v. U.S. overturned," and found nothing. so "poof!"  There goes that argument.   SCOTUS lives by precedent, you know.
 
And i note for the record that your word apparently means squat: to cite you:
 
"I'm done with this conversation."
 
Buh-bye, now; don't let the figurative proverbial door hit you...etc.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 18, 2018 - 5:08pm
> i never said anything about anyone having a "right to drive;" the right to TRAVEL is what i contended.
 
Liar. The implication was quite clear from what you wrote. Specifically this bit that you wrote, given the surrounding context:
 
> You see, the word "drive" or "driving" has a specific meaning in statutory law, and that is the operation of a motor vehicle in commerce, i.e. transporting materials or goods for hire.
 
> Just for fun, i websearched "John Bad Elk v. U.S. overturned," and found nothing. so "poof!"  There goes that argument.   SCOTUS lives by precedent, you know.
 
You're ridiculous.
 
> Buh-bye, now; don't let the figurative proverbial door hit you...etc.  
 
I'm doing this for the benefit of other readers, not you. You're beyond hope in your delusions and dishonesty.
 
FacePalm Added Oct 18, 2018 - 5:39pm
Un"enlightened" Liberal-
Liar. The implication was quite clear from what you wrote. Specifically this bit that you wrote, given the surrounding context:
 
> You see, the word "drive" or "driving" has a specific meaning in statutory law, and that is the operation of a motor vehicle in commerce, i.e. transporting materials or goods for hire.

 
Resorting to invective is a clear sign of an inferior mind, as well as the deliberate attempting to wrest what i ACTUALLY said into what you "imply" i said...ergo, if anyone is resorting to prevarication, it's certainly not me...for the preceding sentence should make this clear to any unbiased/non-jaundiced eye:
 
"An example of the latter(referring to God-given Rights) would be the freedom to travel, a right considered so basic and obvious that it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution."
 
Oh, and "You're ridiculous" is a vain and vile attempt to label, smear, and dismiss, not an actual refutation.
 
Also, you're simply continuing to prove the value of your word, despite your excuses to the contrary.
John Minehan Added Oct 18, 2018 - 6:25pm
John Minehan Added Oct 18, 2018 - 6:31pm
Bad Elk has been statutorily overturned in many states based on the Model Penal Code.  It has either been refused as precedent in some state court or limited or distinguished in others.
 
 
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 18, 2018 - 7:23pm
No, Bad Elk has been overturned in practically - if not every - jurisdiction in the United States. Your sovereign citizen nutjob friends like to misreport other supreme court cases, like Plummer v. State. Typically, you have the right to resist unlawful arrest if the cop is using an extreme amount of excessive force in an extremely unnecessary circumstance that will cause lasting physical bodily harm. However, you still have zero recognized right in practically - if not every - jurisdiction in the United States to resist unlawful arrest merely because it's unlawful. You're still delusional.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 18, 2018 - 7:25pm
And you're still a liar or a deluded fool for citing Bad Elk as good case law today.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 18, 2018 - 7:26pm
And keep in mind that I'm extremely sympathetic to some of your positions, but not how you lie about how bad the current law is now. For example, I regularly cite "Are Cops Constitutional?" by Roger Roots as an example of just how bad the police have gotten and the case law around police has gotten.
John Minehan Added Oct 18, 2018 - 7:49pm
"No, Bad Elk has been overturned in practically," certainly at the state level in most jurisdictions.
 
However, I also can't see a case where someone who seemed really threatened for no good reason not being either plea bargained down by a DA or USA or given a "no true bill" by a Grand Jury (where applicable).    
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 19, 2018 - 6:38am
To John Minehan

Politely, but I think that you have way too high of an opinion of US government prosecutors, and also of grand juries. It's extremely rare for a grand jury to refuse a request from a prosecutor. Most grand juries are little more than rubber stamps.
 
Also, most US prosecutors are complete asshats where the only thing that matters is their conviction rate and their public appearance for reelection / reappointment. The US prosecutors are the most corrupt and untouchable group of persons in America. About as many US presidents have been held accountable for their misdeeds as have government prosecutors in the US. About 3 US presidents have been impeached (or were about to be impeached). About the same number of government prosecutors have been found guilty for criminal misconduct on the job, and most of the criminal sanctions was 1 day in jail. Government prosecutors in the US are above the law, even more than judges, and even more than the fucking president.
John Minehan Added Oct 19, 2018 - 9:07am
Couple of points:
 
---Chief Judge Wachtler of the NYS Court of Appeals made the famous comment that prosecutors could get grand juries to indict a "ham sandwich."
 
---However, there are both state -level district/commonwealth/state's attorneys and federal US Attornies in each federal judicial district.
 
---Not everything gets sent "downtown" to be brought before a grand jury (in states, like NYS, that have them---they are a constant in the federal system).
 
---A lot of times, something with a sympathetic defendant (that a prosecutor may doubt will yield a conviction and may not be right to prosecute as a felony) may be plea bargained to a misdemeanor and possible even to a violation or the court may ACD it. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 19, 2018 - 9:13am
John Minehane, if you get charged with any crime, and the value is over twenty dollars, demand a trial by jury.
 
Believe it or not, that amount is set down in the seventh amendment.  Even a traffic ticket can exceed that amount.
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 19, 2018 - 4:00pm
Sunshine kid, stop getting your legal advice from sovereign citizen nutjobs. You may feel that this would be the correct outcome, but no court in America will agree with you. You can make that argument in court as a form of protest, civil disobedience, but don't pretend to others that the court will actually agree.
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 19, 2018 - 6:58pm
Enlightened Liberal, you are SO wrong.  Part of my USAF career was a staff member to the Judge Advocate.  If the court refuses the challenge you can demand the judge step aside under the requirement of Article six of the United States Constitution which says in part, "... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Enlightenment Liberal Added Oct 19, 2018 - 7:41pm
lol
You'd be hit with contempt of court so fast.