Gun Control in Action: Assaulted by the Feds

[Yamato]

Interesting top comment from the video posted five hours ago by scottystroll: "Nancy Pelosi just brought a bunch of "illegal" guns into D.C. as props...like Adam...yet nothing happens to her...I'm sick of worthless corrupt politicians who believe themselves to be above the law."

So Madame Nancy's props to help impose more control on people are just fine; props to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights, not so much!

[Leonardo]

So Madame Nancy's props to help impose more control on people are just fine; props to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights, not so much!

Cry me a river.

When it's suspected extremists of any type, there would be a national outcry if the cops acted 'empathetically' and allowed a suspected extremist to either escape or commit violence after being arrested.

Cops have to assume the potential for the situation spiralling out of control, therefore take what may appear to be 'disproportionate action'. This happens everywhere. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the authorities make mistakes, but I don't see any being made in this case as the arrest was made and nobody was abused or assaulted beyond being cuffed and/or restrained.

This girl is simply spouting hyperbole to talk up the situation to make the authorities out to be "teh big EVILZ".

And it's nothing to do with gun control, its to do with an idiot loading a shotgun and waving it around in a public place in a district where gun control laws are in effect. It's about a person being a criminal and possible (suspected) extremist.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Leonardo

[Yamato]

And it's nothing to do with gun control, its to do with an idiot loading a shotgun and waving it around in a public place in a district where gun control laws are in effect. It's about a person being a criminal and possible (suspected) extremist.

How's an idiot loading a shotgun and waving it around in a public place in a district where gun control laws are in effect have nothing to do with gun control? Would he have to be a non-idiot first in order for it to be gun control?

[Leonardo]

How's an idiot loading a shotgun and waving it around in a public place in a district where gun control laws are in effect have nothing to do with gun control? Would he have to be a non-idiot first in order for it to be gun control?

It doesn't matter if a State has gun control laws regarding concealed carry or not, loading a shotgun and waving it around in public (not on private land) is a criminal offence in any State. It is not about gun control, it's about a person being an idiot and possible/potential extremist.

That he carried out his 'protest' in a district with gun control laws enabled him to opportunistically promote his subsequent arrest as " the evil of gun control", but this is a red herring as he would have been liable for arrest in any State he carried out the same action.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Leonardo

[preacherman76]

Cry me a river.

When it's suspected extremists of any type, there would be a national outcry if the cops acted 'empathetically' and allowed a suspected extremist to either escape or commit violence after being arrested.

Cops have to assume the potential for the situation spiralling out of control, therefore take what may appear to be 'disproportionate action'. This happens everywhere. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the authorities make mistakes, but I don't see any being made in this case as the arrest was made and nobody was abused or assaulted beyond being cuffed and/or restrained.

This girl is simply spouting hyperbole to talk up the situation to make the authorities out to be "teh big EVILZ".

And it's nothing to do with gun control, its to do with an idiot loading a shotgun and waving it around in a public place in a district where gun control laws are in effect. It's about a person being a criminal and possible (suspected) extremist.

The SC struck down DC's gun ban laws. Its laws on the subject have officialy been declared unconstitutional. So DC is the ones in violation of law on this subject. Its the only case Im aware of where the SC's ruling has been completly ignored. Thats why Adam stood in the middle of that street and loaded that shot gun, cause he was within his full right to do so.

[preacherman76]

It doesn't matter if a State has gun control laws regarding concealed carry or not, loading a shotgun and waving it around in public (not on private land) is a criminal offence in any State. It is not about gun control, it's about a person being an idiot and possible/potential extremist.

That he carried out his 'protest' in a district with gun control laws enabled him to opportunistically promote his subsequent arrest as " the evil of gun control", but this is a red herring as he would have been liable for arrest in any State he carried out the same action.

What do you mean by saying he "waved it around"? He did no such thing. He simply loaded the weapon. To listen to you, you'd think he was randomly pointing the end of the barrel at anyone standing there.

And again DC's gun ban was lifted by the highest court in the land, with the authority of the highest laws in the land.

[Leonardo]

The SC struck down DC's gun ban laws.

And again DC's gun ban was lifted by the highest court in the land, with the authority of the highest laws in the land.

From another thread...

Representing the will of the people within the confines of the constitution is the only way this government should be run.

You said this. So, if it is the will of the People to have gun control - even if this is applied on a State-by-State basis - then you agree the SC and Adam Kokesh are wrong to seek to overturn that?

Or are you arguing that Federal Govt is always right - even at the expense of the State's (People of that State) right to determine it's own Laws based on interpretation?

Edited October 11, 2013 by Leonardo

[+OverSword]

Cry me a river.

When it's suspected extremists of any type, there would be a national outcry if the cops acted 'empathetically' and allowed a suspected extremist to either escape or commit violence after being arrested.

Cops have to assume the potential for the situation spiralling out of control, therefore take what may appear to be 'disproportionate action'. This happens everywhere. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the authorities make mistakes, but I don't see any being made in this case as the arrest was made and nobody was abused or assaulted beyond being cuffed and/or restrained.

This girl is simply spouting hyperbole to talk up the situation to make the authorities out to be "teh big EVILZ".

And it's nothing to do with gun control, its to do with an idiot loading a shotgun and waving it around in a public place in a district where gun control laws are in effect. It's about a person being a criminal and possible (suspected) extremist.

Dude, are you saying Pelosi isn't an extremeist? I'm terrified of her rhetoric so in my book she's a terrorist.

Edited October 11, 2013 by OverSword

[Yamato]

It doesn't matter if a State has gun control laws regarding concealed carry or not, loading a shotgun and waving it around in public (not on private land) is a criminal offence in any State. It is not about gun control, it's about a person being an idiot and possible/potential extremist.

That he carried out his 'protest' in a district with gun control laws enabled him to opportunistically promote his subsequent arrest as " the evil of gun control", but this is a red herring as he would have been liable for arrest in any State he carried out the same action.

Little to none of what you're saying here is true. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with concealed carry laws. He didn't "wave it around in public" and it's not a criminal offense in any State. You can walk down the street with loaded assault rifles in many states and you will not be arrested. Learn the laws before professing them to people who know better than you, like me. Being "a possible/potential extremist" isn't a crime in any State. I don't even know what that means. You're a potential extremist. Lock you up until we all know for sure? The "evil of gun control" is your own baby you're dumping into this thread because your extreme politics motivate you. I'd rather discuss things that are actually true, not politically charged red herrings but thanks anyway.

[questionmark]

Little to none of what you're saying here is true. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with concealed carry laws. He didn't "wave it around in public" and it's not a criminal offense in any State. You can walk down the street with loaded assault rifles in many states and you will not be arrested. Learn the laws before professing them to people who know better than you, like me. Being "a possible/potential extremist" isn't a crime in any State. I don't even know what that means. You're a potential extremist. Lock you up until we all know for sure? The "evil of gun control" is your own baby you're dumping into this thread because your extreme politics motivate you. I'd rather discuss things that are actually true, not politically charged red herrings but thanks anyway.

In any case, both open and concealed carry is prohibited in DC. So I don't understand what the fuzz is about. Break the law get in trouble with the cops.

[Yamato]

So I don't understand what the fuzz is about.

Probably that the Washington DC law is unconstitutional? What law says that Washington DC is immune to the Constitution? There is no such law as that. A bunch of federal bureaucrats assumed that it was true though, so we wind up with Adam behind bars for DC's intransigence.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "except for any place the government prohibits your rights". And some people can't find infringement on our rights...it's absurd. The right to bear arms isn't the right to shoot people with them, it's not the right to "wave it around" at people. It isn't a right that says "provided it's not loaded." An unloaded firearm is a useless thing, besides use as a cudgel.

There are so many laws already on the books that can be interpreted in so many ways on a case by case basis that if the government wanted to run you through, it could. If the average American commits three crimes a day, we all should be behind bars by their stricter interpretation. If a cop wants to arrest you for any reason, they can cook one up easily enough. "You're loitering and acted suspiciously." is all a report would need. People bring illegal guns to DC for other purposes and they aren't prosecuted because law enforcement is subjective at best and oftentimes discriminatory.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

[Yamato]

So, if it is the will of the People to have gun control - even if this is applied on a State-by-State basis - then you agree the SC and Adam Kokesh are wrong to seek to overturn that?

Read his entire sentence. Nobody said not to have gun control. Felons can't have guns. Nobody is disputing that. When the felony becomes bearing arms itself, the law is unconstitutional. That means it's not within the confines of the Constitution. See PM's previous comment again.

[Leonardo]

Read his entire sentence. Nobody said not to have gun control. Felons can't have guns. Nobody is disputing that. When the felony becomes bearing arms itself, the law is unconstitutional. That means it's not within the confines of the Constitution. See PM's previous comment again.

And read my post(s). All of them.

Kokesh is taking a stand against the States having self-determination in favour of the Federal Govt. Is this what you support?

Because in many previous threads here, posters supporting Kokesh have supported States being more independent and self-determining, with a smaller Federal Govt. That is the opposite of what the same people (including you) are supporting here.

So, which is it? Or is that support simply based on anyone attacking any form of authority?

And this isn't about the "Constitution" - it's about who gets to interpret the relevant Amendment for what it means.

[green_dude777]

The states aren't allowed to make laws that don't agree with the Constitution.... hence why there's support for Kokesh. Just like individual states aren't allowed to pass laws that allow slavery.

[Leonardo]

The states aren't allowed to make laws that don't agree with the Constitution.... hence why there's support for Kokesh. Just like individual states aren't allowed to pass laws that allow slavery.

My point is that the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just that - an interpretation. The Amendment doesn't grant citizens the broad right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defence, but only explicitly for the purpose of protecting the free State (i.e. the US) - against oppression by a foreign State, or tyranny of the State (the govt of the US).

So, why are the States not allowed to rule their own intepretation, which would still be entirely consistent with the words of the Constitution and the meaning behind those words?

One of the reasons there is confusion about what this Amendment reads is that the copy passed by Congress reads thus:

"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."

while the copy(s) ratified by the States reads thus:

"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."

The important difference being the capitalisation. In the first, the word State (with a capital "S") indicates the Nation, while in the second the lower-case "s" can suggest a state of being. Although, if put in context with the other version, the meaning of the word state as being synonymous with "nation" is the more reasonable deduction/interpretation.

However, because both "State" and "state" are present in the Constitution as passed by Congress or ratified by the States, interpretations based on either are valid. The States might, individually, use the Congessional version as the basis for their interpretation - and it could be argued that DC, being a Federal territory not a State, is actually obliged to do so.

Edited to add: The interpretation of "State" as indicating "Nation" is further bolstered by it's use in conjunction with "militia". You do not have a militia to provide personal security (unless you're some underworld king-pin ), but to protect the State against oppression.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Leonardo

[preacherman76]

From another thread...

You said this. So, if it is the will of the People to have gun control - even if this is applied on a State-by-State basis - then you agree the SC and Adam Kokesh are wrong to seek to overturn that?

I agree to no such thing. Again the key words are with in the confines of the constitution. The second amendment is a right, not given by the fed or the state, but by our creator. So it cant be taken away by the fed, or the state. It never belonged to either of them to begin with.

Or are you arguing that Federal Govt is always right - even at the expense of the State's (People of that State) right to determine it's own Laws based on interpretation?

Certainly not. God forbid. However states rights begin, where the constitution ends. Neither the state nor the fed has the power to remove constitutional rights. Its the highest law in the land. Now the constitution has never touched base on subjects like gay marrage, or drug use. So those types of subjects should be decided on by the states. There are thousands of potencial subjects the constitution has no say over. All of which should be decided by the state.

[questionmark]

Probably that the Washington DC law is unconstitutional? What law says that Washington DC is immune to the Constitution? There is no such law as that. A bunch of federal bureaucrats assumed that it was true though, so we wind up with Adam behind bars for DC's intransigence.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "except for any place the government prohibits your rights". And some people can't find infringement on our rights...it's absurd. The right to bear arms isn't the right to shoot people with them, it's not the right to "wave it around" at people. It isn't a right that says "provided it's not loaded." An unloaded firearm is a useless thing, besides use as a cudgel.

There are so many laws already on the books that can be interpreted in so many ways on a case by case basis that if the government wanted to run you through, it could. If the average American commits three crimes a day, we all should be behind bars by their stricter interpretation. If a cop wants to arrest you for any reason, they can cook one up easily enough. "You're loitering and acted suspiciously." is all a report would need. People bring illegal guns to DC for other purposes and they aren't prosecuted because law enforcement is subjective at best and oftentimes discriminatory.

http://www.threefelo...86/Default.aspx

The law is there, the law exists whether rightfully or not. And that is not to be decided by somebody choosing to ignore the law but by the appropriate constitutional bodies. Last I remember is that the carry laws were upheld by the SC so the law is valid.

But if it comes to be that if you don't like a law you can ignore it I might set up a booth on a highway and start charging toll.

[preacherman76]

And read my post(s). All of them.

Kokesh is taking a stand against the States having self-determination in favour of the Federal Govt. Is this what you support?

Because in many previous threads here, posters supporting Kokesh have supported States being more independent and self-determining, with a smaller Federal Govt. That is the opposite of what the same people (including you) are supporting here.

So, which is it? Or is that support simply based on anyone attacking any form of authority?

And this isn't about the "Constitution" - it's about who gets to interpret the relevant Amendment for what it means.

It isnt about fed vrs the state. Its about the first 10 amendments, solidified in the Bill of Rights, that makes those rights untouchable to BOTH the fed and the state. For the second bolded part, the constitution makes it clear that state rights begin, only on subjects where the constitution claims no authority. So when the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that means neither the fed nor the state have the power to tell Adam he cant have a loaded shot gun in the streets of DC. And luckly for us, the SC made the right call on this, and defended not the federal government, but the constitutional rights of the people.

[preacherman76]

The law is there, the law exists whether rightfully or not. And that is not to be decided by somebody choosing to ignore the law but by the appropriate constitutional bodies. Last I remember is that the carry laws were upheld by the SC so the law is valid.

But if it comes to be that if you don't like a law you can ignore it I might set up a booth on a highway and start charging toll.

The SC (the highest constitutional body there is, short of a convention) has said that DC's gun bans are unconstitutional. DC is in violation of the SC ruling. And lastly yes, if the people determine a law to be unconstitutional, then that same document declares any such law invailid

[Leonardo]

The SC (the highest constitutional body there is, short of a convention) has said that DC's gun bans are unconstitutional. DC is in violation of the SC ruling. And lastly yes, if the people determine a law to be unconstitutional, then that same document declares any such law invailid

DC isn't a State and is bound by the Constititution as ratified by Congress. See my previous post on the subject.

So when the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that means neither the fed nor the state have the power to tell Adam he cant have a loaded shot gun in the streets of DC.

The Constitution doesn't 'say' that (in the sense you mean it), because that is only a partial quote from the relevant Amendment. Again, see my previous post on the subject.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Leonardo

[preacherman76]

The Constitution doesn't 'say' that (in the sense you mean it), because that is only a partial quote from the relevant Amendment. Again, see my previous post on the subject.

That partial quote is the summary of the entire amendment.

[questionmark]

The SC (the highest constitutional body there is, short of a convention) has said that DC's gun bans are unconstitutional. DC is in violation of the SC ruling. And lastly yes, if the people determine a law to be unconstitutional, then that same document declares any such law invailid

Yes, THE GUN BANS, not the carry laws, they were upheld.

[Leonardo]

That partial quote is the summary of the entire amendment.

No, it's not because it doesn't convey the reason the people have a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. for what purpose). The Amendment makes this reason explicit.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Leonardo

[preacherman76]

Yes, THE GUN BANS, not the carry laws, they were upheld.

They werent upheld by the constitution. The carry laws in DC infringe on the rights of people to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

[preacherman76]

No, it's not because it doesn't convey the reason the people have a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. for what purpose). The Amendment makes this reason explicit.

The founder's were more then clear in their several writtings on the subject that no free man will ever be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms.