Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[freyasman]

pknopp
well-geee--maybe because the police told you to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..I guess, as a cop, you would let them hang around you with firearms?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
etc etc MANY links

Video: Iowa cop shot in head during traffic stop

Watch Iowa cop shot in head during traffic stop and other Officer-Involved Shootings videos on Police1

www.police1.com

Video shows moment officer killed during traffic stop after asking for rifle

LUNA COUNTY, N. M. (KFOX14) — Newly released information on the killing of a New Mexico State Police officer during a Feb. 4 traffic stop indicates he was caught by surprise when a man who'd agreed to temporarily surrender a rifle instead opened fire.

local12.com

I absolutely would. As a cop I would respect their Constitutional Rights.

And they wouldn't let you be a cop very long if you did, lol.


Shit like that is why I never went into LE.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp
well-geee--maybe because the police told you to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..I guess, as a cop, you would let them hang around you with firearms?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
etc etc MANY links

Video: Iowa cop shot in head during traffic stop

Watch Iowa cop shot in head during traffic stop and other Officer-Involved Shootings videos on Police1

www.police1.com

Video shows moment officer killed during traffic stop after asking for rifle

LUNA COUNTY, N. M. (KFOX14) — Newly released information on the killing of a New Mexico State Police officer during a Feb. 4 traffic stop indicates he was caught by surprise when a man who'd agreed to temporarily surrender a rifle instead opened fire.

local12.com

I absolutely would. As a cop I would respect their Constitutional Rights.

And they wouldn't let you be a cop very long if you did, lol.


Shit like that is why I never went into LE.

I have said many times that I would not make it long as a police officer.

 

[Crepitus]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What laws were broken?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What laws were broken?

 

[harmonica]

freyasman
....plain and simple, these idiots were not out hunting ..if I run around suspiciously in an airport, the authorities have every right to check on me, even though I am not breaking the law
...my god people, stop thinking in movie/tv terms = the laws/law ''books''/etc are GUIDE LINES/GUIDES--you can't put every situation in the Constitution/law books/etc

 

[2aguy]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

And just like that....this story disappears.....

Again......hear that? The democrats weeping uncontrollably.......they heard 11 armed men blocking an interstate, and their inner fascist jumped for joy....finally, they had another incident to push their fake Jan. 6 agenda......here they had a bunch of Trump supporters they could lie about and ride into the fascist paradises they long for......

And then........the 11 guys aren't white, they aren't Trump supporters, they aren't conservatives...........

They are muslims......and that is what a moor is...a muslim.....

And the tears flowed........and the rage exploded......and the staff of nancy pelosi, AOC, schumer, and the rest of the fascist democrats were ducking flying objects, and spittle, and lowering their eyes as their masters raged and cried...........

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

They're all black.
You'll now be walking back your comments.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.

No right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited, including the Second Amendment right:

You're not only a fucking idiot, but a liar, along with the ivy league frat house crooks on the judicial bench.

… shall not be infringed.

Nothing can be more absolute than that. What the eternal damnation of your soul do you think those words mean, if that's not what they mean?

lol

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

It was one of your fellow rightists who ruled that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Don’t like it? Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

I have....this is what he said...the part you want to pretend doesn't exist...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And Scalia in Friedman..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III

---

 

[2aguy]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

So.......you want to shoot and kill blm and antifa.....the terrorist arm of the democrat party.......? Good to know.

 

[Crepitus]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

They're all black.
You'll now be walking back your comments.

Nope. Heavily armed men who refuse to acknowledge the laws of our country are the enemy. An obviously hostile force inside our territory.

 

[MarathonMike]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were.

Oh educated one, the Moors was used to describe militant MUSLIM groups, it has nothing to do with color.

 

[occupied]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were.

Oh educated one, the Moors was used to describe militant MUSLIM groups, it has nothing to do with color.

It seems OP had no idea that these people were black until they showed them. I picked up on it pretty quick from the name. What's your excuse?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Imagine if these people were White! It would be the top story all weekend, and you know it. But they are Black, so only in the 22nd paragraph of this New York Times article does the word “Black” appear.

(source)

First paragraph:

Eleven men were taken into custody on Saturday after a lengthy roadside standoff between police officers in Massachusetts and a group of heavily armed men in tactical gear who claimed to be part of a group called Rise of the Moors.

Twenty-second paragraph:

“We do not intend to be hostile, we do not intend to be aggressive,” he added later. “We are not anti-government, we are not anti-police, we are not sovereign citizens and we are not Black identity extremists.”

The New York Post was less obscurantist, but still shy. It took them ten paragraphs to get to B – L – A – C – K.

Jerusalem Post Uses Photo Of White Men With Confederate Flags To Describe 'Rise of the Moors' Militia Movement For Black Men

Jerusalem Post uses a photo of white men to describe a black militia group called "Rise of the Moors" represented by a man named Jamhal Talib Abdullah Bey

nationalfile.com

They wear flags of another nation? Kill them as an invading force....Easy and effective measure!

If they were white the police wouldn't have even noticed them.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

pknopp

If they had nothing to hide why did they run off into the woods?

Why were they stopped and questioned?

 

[Crepitus]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

They're all black.
You'll now be walking back your comments.

Does raise a question, though. Would the cops have stopped if they had all been white?

 

[BlackSand]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

.

All of them have been arrested for exercising their Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.
I guess they should have done a better job of exercising their Right to Vote prior to the event.

.​

 

[2aguy]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

They're all black.
You'll now be walking back your comments.

Does raise a question, though. Would the cops have stopped if they had all been white?

Yes.

 

[Crepitus]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

They're all black.
You'll now be walking back your comments.

Does raise a question, though. Would the cops have stopped if they had all been white?

Yes.

Kinda doubting it myself.

 

[2aguy]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

Heavily armed people who don't recognize our laws are an enemy force. Probably should have just shot them.

They're all black.
You'll now be walking back your comments.

Does raise a question, though. Would the cops have stopped if they had all been white?

Yes.

Kinda doubting it myself.

That is because you are an idiot, racist and dope......