Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[freyasman]

I totally disagree with what the KKK say but I support their right to say it.

And?

The First Amendment is neither unlimited nor absolute – the KKK have no right to engage in speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence.

Of all the protected liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, none are ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited.’

These men harmed no one.

Agreed.

These guys probably hate peckerwoods like me, too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These men harmed no one.

You already said that – it’s just as ridiculous now as it was when you first posted it.

 

[freyasman]

freyasman so you are pro-stupid
..people that have nothing to hide/obey the laws/are NOT stupid would answer the police questions...the cops did not just say ''let's go harass someone -
..that's why Floyd/etc are dead--NOT because of police brutality, but because they are stupid/etc

LE is supposed to be about enforcing the law...... if no laws are being broken, the what are they doing there?

How about..ascertaining that no laws are being broken..by the group of armed and uniformed men?
Laws WERE being broken...and they found that out. Good job. I guess if they were on their way to kill some people...you'd be all over the cops for letting them go?

Nope. LE can't detain people and go fishing..... if they don't have any evidence, then they need to just fuck off and go back to work.

Except..not what happened here at all. 1:30am ...on the side of the road and armed. Refused to give ID. Fled the scene. Pretty suspicious to me. No fishing need...the facts invited investigation.

They have every right to refuse to provide ID.
As for them fleeing into the woods, what were they "fleeing" from?
What exactly did the cop do when they told him "No."? I don't know and neither do you, from the sounds of it, but he didn't have any legitimate authority to do anything except say "Sorry to bother you guys, have a nice day.".

You think that's what he did? Because I don't..... I think he probably got aggressive and they fled rather than shoot him.

Cops do that when you tell them "No."; they get butthurt and pissy.

When told no...the cop called for backup..as he is trained to do...that's when they ran....running from the cops is an admission..all courts have held.

So he was calling more guys with guns that would presumably help him rob them of their property and freedoms? And they tried to avoid being victims of these crimes?

How dare they? (sarcasm)

 

[struth]

I made no comment on their reasonings for being armed. Just that they can be.

Provided they’re in compliance with state firearm laws consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The Second Amendment does not give gunowners ‘carte blanche’ to do whatever they want with firearms or go anywhere they want with firearms.

That's what places like Chicago and D.C. said when they placed restrictions on a persons 2nd Amendment rights. They didn't hold up.

huh? Chicago and DC restrictions went well beyond restrictions on where someone could bring a firearm

 

[freyasman]

These men harmed no one.

You already said that – it’s just as ridiculous now as it was when you first posted it.

So just because you haven't hurt anyone is no reason the authorities shouldn't be allowed to take your shit and throw you in a cage, huh?


And you wonder why folks keep guns handy...... (smh)

 

[struth]

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?

agreed the article is missing some important details...like why the first two were arrested.

refueling with firearms doesn’t sound like a crime, the officer stopping to inquire is nothing out of the norm...but then it just skips to, two people were arrested and the rest fled.

Poorly written piece

 

[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

---

Non sequitur

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, as reaffirmed by the Heller Court.

You fail to point out what the limits are........felons, dangerously mentally ill, some location limits such as court houses and other sensitive places....

That's it.........

Meanwhile...

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.

 

[BlackSand]

But the Supreme Court hasn’t made such a ruling, and Mass’ licensing requirement is perfectly lawful, Constitutional, enforceable, and consistent with the Second Amendment

.

You cannot say that it is Constitutional, because its Constitutionality hasn't been ruled on.
Furthermore ... It is not consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Nothing in the US Constitution forbids a Federal, State or Local Government from forming, arming and regulating a militia.
All of that can be done without restricting or infringing on the individual's Right to Bear Arms.

Stop Pretending The Second Amendment Means Something It Doesn't.

.​

 

[georgephillip]

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?

Your link:

"Asked what the suspects did wrong, Nelson said: '11 armed individuals standing with long guns slung on an interstate highway at two in the morning certainly raises concerns and isn't consistent with the firearm laws that we have here in Massachusetts."

"All of the men have been charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, use of body armor in commission of a crime, possession of a high capacity magazine, improper storage of firearms in a vehicle and conspiracy to commit a crime, police said.

"Hernandez, Johnson, Dow and the unnamed teen are also being charged with providing a false name to police, authorities said."

 

[pknopp]

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?

Your link:

"Asked what the suspects did wrong, Nelson said: '11 armed individuals standing with long guns slung on an interstate highway at two in the morning certainly raises concerns and isn't consistent with the firearm laws that we have here in Massachusetts."

"All of the men have been charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, use of body armor in commission of a crime, possession of a high capacity magazine, improper storage of firearms in a vehicle and conspiracy to commit a crime, police said.

"Hernandez, Johnson, Dow and the unnamed teen are also being charged with providing a false name to police, authorities said."

If it's unlawful to possess a firearm we have no 2nd Amendment rights. Where is the NRA?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You don't have to provide ID to LE unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Depends on the state you live in.

No it doesn't. There is NO requirement in any state that you even carry any kind of ID on you.

Tell that to the police next time you get pulled over driving your car without an ID on you.

You can change the subject or address what I said.

You can deny it or acknowledge you were wrong.

The statement I replied to were statements in general. Not to a driver's breaking a traffic law.

You're likely correct that a cop is not going walk up to people at random and ask people to whip out an ID. All states require at minimum some form of reasonable suspicion, but that language varies from state to state and can be quite ambiguous. What is reasonable can be a matter of one's perception. Reasonable suspicion more than applied to the example in the quoted article, in my opinion.

 

[freyasman]

You don't have to provide ID to LE unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Depends on the state you live in.

No it doesn't. There is NO requirement in any state that you even carry any kind of ID on you.

Tell that to the police next time you get pulled over driving your car without an ID on you.

You can change the subject or address what I said.

You can deny it or acknowledge you were wrong.

The statement I replied to were statements in general. Not to a driver's breaking a traffic law.

You're likely correct that a cop is not going walk up to people at random and ask people to whip out an ID. All states require at minimum some form of reasonable suspicion, but that language varies from state to state and can be quite ambiguous. What is reasonable can be a matter of one's perception. Reasonable suspicion more than applied to the example in the quoted article, in my opinion.

Agreed but that is subjective and that's where we get into problems in matters of law...... which should objective as much as possible.


Seriously, look up what went down in Olmos Park Texas a few years back; it's pretty enlightening.

 

[miketx]

pknopp

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

Cause dey wuz neegroes.

 

[Crepitus]

Keep feminizing us and see how violence gets worse and worse.

Son, the only person who can "feminize" you is you.

 

[Crepitus]

You mean like all those folks in DC?

What "folks in DC"?

The "heavily armed men who refuse to acknowledge the laws of our country"; you know..... the entire US government.

Ah, another RWNJ delusional conspiracy theory.

You should label this shit so we don't have to ask.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

What does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?

Arabs.....a lot of Moors settled their after the fall of the Kingdom of Al-Andalus

LMAO if they settled there it means they came from somewhere else.

agreed. as i said they settled in the places you mentioned after the kingdom of Al- Anduslus fell

They settled there because they conquered it.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

No they didn't.

yes Moors are what Brits called the folks that lived in the Kingdom of Al-Andalus....now Spain and Portugal

They conquered Southern Europe, they didn't originate from there.

that is where the term Moor originated.

Much like Americans didn’t originated in America.

Which means your first statement was false, when you said they originated from there.

 

[struth]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

What does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?

Arabs.....a lot of Moors settled their after the fall of the Kingdom of Al-Andalus

LMAO if they settled there it means they came from somewhere else.

agreed. as i said they settled in the places you mentioned after the kingdom of Al- Anduslus fell

They settled there because they conquered it.

they didn’t settle there because they conquered it...the were refugees in the countries you mentioned because they were conquered and their kingdom destroyed

 

[struth]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

No they didn't.

yes Moors are what Brits called the folks that lived in the Kingdom of Al-Andalus....now Spain and Portugal

They conquered Southern Europe, they didn't originate from there.

that is where the term Moor originated.

Much like Americans didn’t originated in America.

Which means your first statement was false, when you said they originated from there.

no...you said they did...i said they were refugees from the Kingdom of al- Andulus

 

[22lcidw]

Keep feminizing us and see how violence gets worse and worse.

Son, the only person who can "feminize" you is you.

Demographics and realities in this era says different. The results of this is actually making people even more uncivil to cover up for the lowering of IQ's from lowering standards. Denying males their opportunities is making more and more into potential criminal types. There are many now who will not fight to defend the nation. Who will not defend a woman. Who will rat out anyone for their own advantage. Just going into the military has males reduced to about 50% of the population that would qualify. At one time it was 96%