Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's the point of owning guns (and why did the Founders see to that) if you can't actually take them out?

You can.

And in Massachusetts to do so requires a license.

 

[Esdraelon]

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?

Well, it WAS in Massachusetts, after all. They refused the officer's instructions and openly claimed they had no duty to obey the law. Compare their actions with those of "BLACK GUNS MATTER"
Those guys obey the law and legally possess firearms. IOW, 2A supporters support them because 2A is an unalienable right of all citizens who have not been convicted of a felony.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's a absolute right, which "shall not be infringed" under any circumstances, in any way, shape, or form.

Wrong.

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

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…” Heller, ibid

 

[justinacolmena]

Colonists angry that the British refused to allow landowners to expand their holdings and who kept trying to incite slaves to revolt.

So you're making slaves out of all the rest of us who don't own slaves ourselves? Just like any other jackass Democrat.

Not all landowners are that rich.

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

www.archives.gov

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

 

[Esdraelon]

they have no reason to identify themselves either.

That varies on a state-by-state basis. In Alabama, our law requires any citizen who is stopped by law enforcement to identify themselves and if they refuse, they can be arrested for it. There is no compulsion to speak to a cop but they must show identification. Cops don't even need justification for their actions.

 

[justinacolmena]

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

What you're not aware of is that if you turn the Constitution over, on the back it says "Except for crazy mother fuckers who can't stay out of the looney bin and run around threatening to kill everyone."

Little known fact.

 

[Unkotare]

they have no reason to identify themselves either.

That varies on a state-by-state basis. In Alabama, our law requires any citizen who is stopped by law enforcement to identify themselves and if they refuse, they can be arrested for it. There is no compulsion to speak to a cop but they must show identification. Cops don't even need justification for their actions.

So, if they pulled Bob Dylan over he could do that big posters thing instead of talking to them?

 

[pknopp]

Is that how this country was founded?

Colonists angry that the British refused to allow landowners to expand their holdings and who kept trying to incite slaves to revolt.

They should have obviously said "Meh, taxes are the law, we just have to live with them".

 

[pknopp]

they have no reason to identify themselves either.

That varies on a state-by-state basis. In Alabama, our law requires any citizen who is stopped by law enforcement to identify themselves and if they refuse, they can be arrested for it. There is no compulsion to speak to a cop but they must show identification. Cops don't even need justification for their actions.

No, the law does not require that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

There is no right to stand around with guns.

There are two rights in the 2A.

The first is the right to keep arms, which is the right to OWN guns.

The second is the right to bear arms, which is the right to BE IN THE MILITIA. Or "render military service" or "militia duty", as the FOUNDING FATHERS put it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

What's the point of owning guns (and why did the Founders see to that) if you can't actually take them out?

You're looking at it the wrong way.

They didn't protect everything they thought might need to happen. They didn't protect breathing oxygen, for example. But breathing oxygen is essential to life.

What they did is they tried to protect certain things for a purpose.

They wanted to protect the militia, not hunting.

So, the militia needs two things. 1) Personnel and 2) arms.

To protect personnel they made it so the US Federal government could not stop people from joining the militia.

Ironically the Dick Act was designed to stop people demanding to join up the militia. And it worked. They made the National Guard "special", you can't demand to join up the National Guard, and then they made the "unorganized militia" so that everyone would automatically "be in the militia", and yet it's not.

Because you can't go around parading all you like. The Supreme Court has said so.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

And upheld in Heller.

The arms are protected by preventing the feds from calling up the militia into federal service and then taking those arms from the citizens. Because they're citizen owned arms and protected by the 2A.

 

[The Purge]

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!

 

[wamose]

WTF is with the Jerusalem Post? They're defending a party that hates them with this blatant anti White racism. That's the kind of irrational behavior that makes you take pause and wonder who is really the bad guys in the Middle East. These kind of weasel moves don't help me at all in my wish to support Israel.

 

[occupied]

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

 

[JGalt]

Why would they flee into the woods?

They are democrats. We got a group of them here in Arizona. They call themself the John Brown Gun Club When not marching around with their gun they are shouting out their slogans. They have a few youtube videos. If you ever need a good laugh go watch them. You will see a miracle wondering how they don't shoot each other.

I see. Violent left-wing militia.

I'm sure the FBI is on the case.

 

[August West]

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!

Did the media call the Trump rioters white? You Ku Kluxxers are a sensitive bunch.

 

[Moonglow]

The media with held the story we've had a dozen threads on this subject for the last few days.

 

[Sunni Man]

All this time I thought it was the Moop's causing the problem? ...

 

[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

Well, as a citizen, I have to tolerate cops hanging around me with their firearms........ why shouldn't they have to? They aren't special, and they don't have any extra rights.

Cops have no authority, of any kind, over any person, unless and until there are facts in evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime is being, has been, or is about to be committed.