Common logic would dictate that is true. I fear the day may soon arrive that I need a gun to protect me from violent mob protesters.subllibrm said:It is often said that the 2nd is there to enforce/protect the 1st. Would that not also be true for the rest of them?
subllibrm said:It is often said that the 2nd is there to enforce/protect the 1st. Would that not also be true for the rest of them?
Which I would make an argument that today's standing army is the police force in our country.sword said:They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation.
Recovering IFB said:Which I would make an argument that today's standing army is the police force in our country.sword said:They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation.
Recovering IFB said:It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
Recovering IFB said:It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
Recovering IFB said:Which I would make an argument that today's standing army is the police force in our country.sword said:They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation.
Smellin Coffee said:Another 2nd Amendment question.
Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
Posse Comitatus Act: has been very effective a limiting the use of military in the U.S. There have been very few cases where the govt. were in violation. I am all for this law but would be fine with the U.S. military patrolling a 1 mile wide stretch along the southern border to assist border patrol. Until we get a wall for the protection of both US and Mexican citizens.Recovering IFB said:It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
subllibrm said:Smellin Coffee said:Another 2nd Amendment question.
Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
Most rights are restored upon release but 2nd amendment rights are permanently terminated after a federal felony.
I feel safe at night because we have a vigilent police force in my community. talk to people in the inner city neighborhoods where the police rarely patrol and see how safe you feel.Recovering IFB said:It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
sword said:I feel safe at night because we have a vigilent police force in my community. talk to people in the inner city neighborhoods where the police rarely patrol and see how safe you feel.Recovering IFB said:It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
In 99.999% of the time if you do not break the law nothing bad will happen between you and the police..
If you obey the law or if you follow the police instructions when you are detained / stopped the chances of being hurt are very slim. Of the estimated 69.9 million encounters with the police each year how many obeyed the cops and were still shot.
Excessive force needs to be dealt with but if you obey you are not likely to get hurt. Every one I know who is anti cop re people who often break the law. Fines keep my taxes low and provide needed services to the community. Around me you have to be going 10 over to get stopped. If I get stopped doing 10 over I deserve a ticket. Several places in my community, where the speed limit was excessively low, raised the limit after citizens requested it. Remember local govt works for you and you and there is power in numbers.
Smellin Coffee said:Simple drug use / possession is a misdemeanor and does not carry lasting results, pay fine and your done. Most communities likely will not even prosecute simple possession.subllibrm said:Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.Smellin Coffee said:Another 2nd Amendment question.
Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
If you have over 15 grams (1/2 ounce) then that's possession with intent. That number may be a little low & I think it is but the law considers you a drug dealer. Do you want a convicted drug dealer carrying a weapon? Should felons be allowed to vote? Serve on a Jury? Get employment as a security officer, Judge, police officer or day care worker. Should they be able to adopt? These seem like common sense results of a felony.
sword said:If you have over 15 grams (1/2 ounce) then that's possession with intent. That number may be a little low & I think it is but the law considers you a drug dealer. Do you want a convicted drug dealer carrying a weapon? Should felons be allowed to vote? Serve on a Jury? Get employment as a security officer, Judge, police officer or day care worker. Should they be able to adopt? These seem like common sense results of a felony.
sword said:The U.S. Supreme Court has long said the 4th amendment does is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. This is where Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion come in.
I do think the very modern reinterpretations of the 4th amendment have gone way too far. The 8 to 1 SCOTUS decision in Heien v. State of North Carolina goes way beyond what the founders intended.
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."