Have any Liberals reconsidered their stance on the 2nd Amend since Militarized Police

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals have had absolutely no problem with the police state the last eight years. Nary a word of discontent.

Where'd ya go? I was hoping to get your revised comments.

 

[KGB]

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.

Membership in a militia isn't a prerequisite for the Second Amendment. Liberals don't get this. The right like the rest of the Bill of Rights is reserved to the individual. I can believe the sky is green all day but that doesn't make it so. To have this conversation a proper understanding is required first.

 

[Peach]

I have the Poll set to Public because I don't want USMB Libertarians and conservatives skewing the poll numbers, Liberals/Progressives only.

Moderates/centrists are disinfranchised..............

No change in my position; rational regulation, within the perimeters of the 2nd Amendment.......and a copy of the entire document in case the few who think the 2nd Amendment is the be all & end of all of the US Constitution might want to read the rest.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.

Membership in a militia isn't a prerequisite for the Second Amendment. Liberals don't get this. The right like the rest of the Bill of Rights is reserved to the individual. I can believe the sky is green all day but that doesn't make it so. To have this conversation a proper understanding is required first.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[zeke]

I'll tell you what would have happened. The police would have demanded that those with weapons drop them. If they did not drop them immediately, the police would have opened fire and shot at them. Resulting in multiple deaths.

Do you agree?

I do agree, and then the next American Revolution would be underway.

Question for you now:

Are you naive enough to think that such a day will never come in America?

Please tell me you're not serious. We've had a decent discussion up until now.

LMAO. You are trying to have a serious conversation with a guy, who on another thread, said he is gonna keep the shoes of the people he kills when the Zombie Apocalypse comes to a town near you.

Good luck.

 

[Freewill]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

Bullshit premise. Liberals have always had a problem with militarized police. We have always acknowledged the dangers of a military police state. We just don't think we have one here.

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. We don't dig the idea of unelected persons having all the weapons. We don't dig the idea of elected persons having all the weapons. We also don't dig the idea of crazed nutbags having any weapons. We abhors the idea of little kids shooting themselves and their little siblings and friends with daddy's gun. We think people who feel the need to carry a gun to buy groceries in this nation are probably ******* lunatics.

I usually avoid these....but I will ask you a "what if" regarding Ferguson.

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

BS again, the liberal left had absolutely no problem with the paramilitary attack on Waco. You can say they deserved it for all kinds of reasons but to make a blanket statement that the liberal left opposes militarization of the Police is just utter rot.

THIS is what YOU and the left wing protected Clinton and Reno and now when a police officer uses his hand gun to kill a person you are going to ride the high horse in protest of militarization? Really? When did you become conservative? Because, as I remember, conservatives were the ones that protested the military attack at Waco.

And if that isn't enough then how about the killing, without justification, of this boy by the direct use of our military against civilians who happen to be American?

Really what the left wants is the police to be unprotected at all. Who, considering the lawlessness of the drug trade, is going to take a job where they are a sitting duck? Who is going to try and stop riot without riot gear? So the choices are, find someone fool enough to try enforce laws when they are in no position to do so, do not enforce laws and let anarchy reign or provided the police with the most un-lethal protection available. If we do the latter and then it takes a strong hand to keep the police in line. It takes the US agreeing that what happened at Waco can never happen again and those responsible should have been held responsible for the deaths of those children, screw the parents they knew what they were doing. The police need to be held accountable for their abuse of power and if that abuse extends to the WH then so be it. But that is not what happen and we reap the whirlwind.

 

[Old Rocks]

The violence in Ferguson didn't end because of an armed populace. It ended because Ferguson organized, protested forcefully but peacefully, and the images of their struggle swung public support heavily in their favor.

Exactly. And that is how the Civil Rights Movement won in the '60's. I do not like war weapons in the hands of the police, and I do like them in the hands of civilians. Unneccessary in both cases, and leads to a set of mind that seeks confrontations.

You're aware that the Deacons of for Defense and Justice routinely marched alongside blacks with shotguns to defend against KKK assaults?

If what they were carrying was a standard shotgun with the standard number of rounds, it was not a weapon of war.

 

[KGB]

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.

Membership in a militia isn't a prerequisite for the Second Amendment. Liberals don't get this. The right like the rest of the Bill of Rights is reserved to the individual. I can believe the sky is green all day but that doesn't make it so. To have this conversation a proper understanding is required first.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Again, membership in a militia is not a prerequisite. Supreme Court already decided this 6 years ago. It is an individual right, not a collective right, not a militia right. You have the right to bear arms as an individual regardless of belonging to a militia or not. It's really that simple. See the below....

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

 

[LoneLaugher]

Membership in a militia isn't a prerequisite for the Second Amendment. Liberals don't get this. The right like the rest of the Bill of Rights is reserved to the individual. I can believe the sky is green all day but that doesn't make it so. To have this conversation a proper understanding is required first.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Again, membership in a militia is not a prerequisite. Supreme Court already decided this 6 years ago. It is an individual right, not a collective right, not a militia right. You have the right to bear arms as an individual regardless of belonging to a militia or not. It's really that simple. See the below....

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

This right has limitations.....does it not?

 

[KGB]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Again, membership in a militia is not a prerequisite. Supreme Court already decided this 6 years ago. It is an individual right, not a collective right, not a militia right. You have the right to bear arms as an individual regardless of belonging to a militia or not. It's really that simple. See the below....

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

This right has limitations.....does it not?

Like every other right, yes. However, a lot of these limits are most likely too restrictive. If I don't need a permit to speak freely or pray where I choose, then I should not require a permit to have a weapon. There's just no reason for it. If I commit a crime with a weapon, I go to jail. The permit means nothing & had no effect. With that said, it's an individual right. Attempting to reclassify it as anything else is factually incorrect.

 

[bodecea]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

Why should I re-consider my stance on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Again, membership in a militia is not a prerequisite. Supreme Court already decided this 6 years ago. It is an individual right, not a collective right, not a militia right. You have the right to bear arms as an individual regardless of belonging to a militia or not. It's really that simple. See the below....

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

This right has limitations.....does it not?

Like every other right, yes. However, a lot of these limits are most likely too restrictive. If I don't need a permit to speak freely or pray where I choose, then I should not require a permit to have a weapon. There's just no reason for it. If I commit a crime with a weapon, I go to jail. The permit means nothing & had no effect. With that said, it's an individual right. Attempting to reclassify it as anything else is factually incorrect.

And......it can be infringed. Attempting to say it cannot is factually incorrect.

 

[bodecea]

I'll tell you what would have happened. The police would have demanded that those with weapons drop them. If they did not drop them immediately, the police would have opened fire and shot at them. Resulting in multiple deaths.

Do you agree?

I do agree, and then the next American Revolution would be underway.

Question for you now:

Are you naive enough to think that such a day will never come in America?

No it would not have been.

 

[Interpol]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

I'm with Ronald Reagan when it comes to gun control. He publicly supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. He understood the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution correctly while too many on the right have perverted its intent by telling themselves it means the public should arm itself against its gubmint.

The 2nd Amendment was meant by our founders to arm adult males who served in their state's militia and for the purpose of defending the country and its states from outside threats like the original threat, the King of England.

The only thing to be reconsidered is the militarization of our local police departments. This episode in Ferguson has finally united many on the left and the right when it comes to the idea of giving local police forces the kinds of toys that are meant to be played with in war scenarios, not everyday policing.

The reconsideration that has happened here has not come from the left, it has come from the right since this is the first time that many Republican politicians have expressed concerns about it and would be for creating a stricter environment in the area of toys that local police forces can acquire.

So this is kind of a strange thread because progressive and moderate Americans already stand on the side of being smarter about controlling the flow of guns and other toys in the country and this specific event has finally caused many on the right to get on the same page or to at least "reconsider" their own previously narrow-minded stance.

The OP is putting forward a faulty premise that says because of the wartime getup of local police, liberals should be more apt then to reconsidering the idea that all people would be safer if all the people had guns. Of course, we know this to be untrue. The more weapons in circulation, the more they are likely to be used according to every statistic out there.

 

[billyerock1991]

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

Depends if they pointed them at the police before or after the police pointed their guns at them.

If the police point their guns at them first, they have a right and even a duty to point them back. If the police shoot, they shoot.

Jury of their Peers will acquit them afterwards.

and you are the reason that nut cases like you shoulden have a gun ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Liberals have had absolutely no problem with the police state the last eight years. Nary a word of discontent.

where have you been hiding ??? you have no Idea what a liberal think ... you only regurgitate what your handlers tell you to think

 

[billyerock1991]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

Bullshit premise. Liberals have always had a problem with militarized police. We have always acknowledged the dangers of a military police state. We just don't think we have one here.

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. We don't dig the idea of unelected persons having all the weapons. We don't dig the idea of elected persons having all the weapons. We also don't dig the idea of crazed nutbags having any weapons. We abhors the idea of little kids shooting themselves and their little siblings and friends with daddy's gun. We think people who feel the need to carry a gun to buy groceries in this nation are probably ******* lunatics.

I usually avoid these....but I will ask you a "what if" regarding Ferguson.

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

BS again, the liberal left had absolutely no problem with the paramilitary attack on Waco. You can say they deserved it for all kinds of reasons but to make a blanket statement that the liberal left opposes militarization of the Police is just utter rot.

THIS is what YOU and the left wing protected Clinton and Reno and now when a police officer uses his hand gun to kill a person you are going to ride the high horse in protest of militarization? Really? When did you become conservative? Because, as I remember, conservatives were the ones that protested the military attack at Waco.

And if that isn't enough then how about the killing, without justification, of this boy by the direct use of our military against civilians who happen to be American?

Really what the left wants is the police to be unprotected at all. Who, considering the lawlessness of the drug trade, is going to take a job where they are a sitting duck? Who is going to try and stop riot without riot gear? So the choices are, find someone fool enough to try enforce laws when they are in no position to do so, do not enforce laws and let anarchy reign or provided the police with the most un-lethal protection available. If we do the latter and then it takes a strong hand to keep the police in line. It takes the US agreeing that what happened at Waco can never happen again and those responsible should have been held responsible for the deaths of those children, screw the parents they knew what they were doing. The police need to be held accountable for their abuse of power and if that abuse extends to the WH then so be it. But that is not what happen and we reap the whirlwind.

here we have another person who has no Idea about law and what happen at waco... the guy was a rapist ... sold illegal guns.... who refuse to comply to a legal warrant .... he got what he deserved .... unfortunately he got others killed because of his arrogants

 

[jon_berzerk]

Absolutely, for the most part. I mean do you really think the intent of the founders was to give every Tom Dick and Harry the ability own unlimited numbers of weapons that can pop off hundreds of high powers rounds in a matter of minutes. Every weapon should be registered and manufactured in such a way that every round is traceable. No law will suffice. A new Amendment is required.

do you really think the intent of the founders was to give every Tom Dick and Harry the ability own unlimited numbers of weapons that can pop off hundreds of high powers rounds in a matter of minutes

yes that is exactly what they meant

 

[jon_berzerk]

You are avoiding the question.

And....you are insane.

It worked in 1946 at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, right down to the Jury trial.

I asked you what you think would have happened had a number of the protesters in Ferguson had brought firearms to the protest and aimed them at the police.

You did not answer honestly.

I'll tell you what would have happened. The police would have demanded that those with weapons drop them. If they did not drop them immediately, the police would have opened fire and shot at them. Resulting in multiple deaths.

Do you agree?

it didnt go down that way at the bundy ranch

 

[LoneLaugher]

It worked in 1946 at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, right down to the Jury trial.

I asked you what you think would have happened had a number of the protesters in Ferguson had brought firearms to the protest and aimed them at the police.

You did not answer honestly.

I'll tell you what would have happened. The police would have demanded that those with weapons drop them. If they did not drop them immediately, the police would have opened fire and shot at them. Resulting in multiple deaths.

Do you agree?

it didnt go down that way at the bundy ranch

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!

Don't know what you just said, do ya?