The Right To Bear Arms

[Oddball]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

 

[Rigby5]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

 

[Lakhota]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

Also, apparently this wasn't the first time that Kim Potter has killed.

According to The Tribune, Potter was involved in another fatal shooting in August 2019.

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Rigby5]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

A car is not at all a lethal weapon until someone points it at a person and starts to accelerate.
Saying a car is a lethal weapon because it in theory can kill, makes as much sense as claiming a rock is a lethal weapon, because in theory it or just about anything can also kill.

 

[Oddball]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

A car is not at all a lethal weapon until someone points it at a person and starts to accelerate.
Saying a car is a lethal weapon because it in theory can kill, makes as much sense as claiming a rock is a lethal weapon, because in theory it or just about anything can also kill.

Tell that to the poor bastard who was dragged to death by some juvenile punks a couple weeks ago.

 

[Markle]

When the doo-doo hit the fan, all her training went out the window. I'm sure she saw the gun on the seat and panicked. A terrible tragedy but it doesn't warrant rioting and looting.

 

[9thIDdoc]

A criminal resisted arrest and got shot. What's the problem?

The problem is police do not have the authority to murder, so then if it was deliberate, we would have to insist upon the police officer being convicted for the criminal act.

The man was wanted. There was a warrant for his arrest and the police were preforming their duties placing the man under arrested he resisted by jumping back into the car (where he could easily have had a weapon). I consider the shooting justified and certainly far less likely to have been murder that the capitol cop who shot down an unarmed woman without cause.

 

[InspectorDetector]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

There is this thing called the 4th Amendment. A LEO asks if he can search your car - only a damned fool (especially a guilty fool) says "Sure, go ahead". You are under no ob ligation whatsoever to allow a search of your vehicle without a warrant.

That doesn't meant that the officer involved can't try to "coerce" you into playing stupid. The Police are allowed BY LAW to lie to you to achieve a result. DO NOT RESPOND TO A POLICE OFFICER OTHER THAN TO SAY "Yes sir and no sir". If he asks for your ID - you say "yes sir" and hand it over. If he asks to search your vehicle, politely refuse until said officer presents a search warrant. The same with your license and your registration. Wake the hell up folks.

Stop fighting the police. Leave the arrogance bullshit alone. Stupid fools. And yet people wonder why so damned many people are shot by cops. I don't blame them.

 

[InspectorDetector]

A criminal resisted arrest and got shot. What's the problem?

The problem is police do not have the authority to murder, so then if it was deliberate, we would have to insist upon the police officer being convicted for the criminal act.

The man was wanted. There was a warrant for his arrest and the police were preforming their duties placing the man under arrested he resisted by jumping back into the car (where he could easily have had a weapon). I consider the shooting justified and certainly far less likely to have been murder that the capitol cop who shot down an unarmed woman without cause.

Anything this young punk did was justified - in the eyes of the Black Lies Matter. Doesn't matter what happened or didn't 't happen. The officer is guilty and should be hanged by the neck until dead - again, in the eyes of the black community.

We've turned a corner in America where blacks have figured out that they have an advantage over "whitey" and they will run with it until the cows come home. Get used to it. It is going to get much, MUCH worse.

 

[Markle]

Of course the militia no longer exists so the whole thing is stupid and pointless

Apparently, English grammar was never your strong point.

 

[Markle]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Very true.

How is it an illegal search if the driver gives permission? So you refuse, and they suspect that you have drugs on your person or in your car. The officer says fine, and then he radios for a K-9 unit. A half-hour later the K-9 unit shows up. The officer asks you again if you'll give him permission to search you and your car. You would give a smart-ass answer because you're so much smarter than the cop. The dog handler gets the dog out of the car and walks around the car sniffing. The pooch gives the sign that he smells something at the passenger door. That's probable cause, no warrant needed. The cop opens the door and the dog jumps in and starts pawing at your console.

Sorry Rigby5, you're under arrest. Great work son.

They also had probable cause to make a routine stop of the car. The registration had expired.

 

[Lakhota]

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"? Who "regulates" them? How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? We know who regulates the military and National Guard.

American militia movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

 

[2aguy]

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.

View attachment 479324

Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.

www.huffpost.com

Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.

The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer. Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol. How could she not know the difference?

How about when a cop says stop resisting....you fucking stop resisting....that would be the best way to keep it from escalating....don't you think?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

there are militias I know for a fact North Carolina had one in the 1990's

 

[surada]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

 

[Flash]

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.

View attachment 479324

Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.

www.huffpost.com

Only stupid uneducated Moon Bats are confused about the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Lakhota]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

Funny. I'm 74. I've already served my time in the military. The "official" military.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

Funny. I'm 74. I've already served my time in the military. The "official" military.

National Guard is the official military to they are 1/3 of the active Army force

 

[danielpalos]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788