Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
what you fail to understand is that the second amendment is the safeguard of all our rights. a citizenry armed and trained in the use of arms is required to ensure the preservation of liberty. If you have read the writings of the Founders, you would understand this. as to resistance in modern times it not only can succeed , but has. you are obviously not a student of history.
I am a student of history and retired soldier (US Army 1974-1994)
 
Free access to guns may help in resisting an immoral and tyrannical government. But it also makes it easier to have an immoral and tyrannical revolution. At the present time the later seems like more of a risk than the former.
 
I have news for you and I’m surprised having served in the US military that you are unaware of this. If you ever did need to take on the US govt in the 21st century to preserve your liberty, you might need more than guns with all the weaponry it possesses.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Then wouldn’t it make more sense to change how the police intervene than to make everyone provide their own protection?
Click to expand...
how do you control people? the cops already have rules for engagement. what do you do when the local sheriff/mayor/town council decides to do his/her/their own thing like in the recent riots. they choose a path of non-interference.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Then wouldn’t it make more sense to change how the police intervene than to make everyone provide their own protection?
Click to expand...
how do you control people?
Click to expand...
With laws
the cops already have rules for engagement.
Click to expand...
According to your article they are not very good rules for engagement,
what do you do when the local sheriff/mayor/town council decides to do his/her/their own thing like in the recent riots.
Click to expand...
You hold them to account when they violate the law.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Free access to guns may help in resisting an immoral and tyrannical government. But it also makes it easier to have an immoral and tyrannical revolution. At the present time the later seems like more of a risk than the former.
Click to expand...
Not in recent cases. In recent cases, what mad it easier was the failure of government to do its job. Broward County sheriff’s department, Broward County schools, FBI, in Parkland, the Air Force in Texas, and other cases.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
With laws
Click to expand...
laws were in place in virginia and the cops didn’t react.
Click to expand...
If the laws said they should have reacted, then hold the cops to account. If the laws didn’t say that, then change the laws (or regulations). Stop dancing around the point and state clearly which of these two you think is at fault.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If the laws said they should have reacted, then hold the cops to account. If the laws didn’t say that, then change the laws (or regulations). Stop dancing around the point and state clearly which of these two you think is at fault.
Click to expand...
i asked how you control people. you said laws.

the cops didn’t intervene, what law would you write that makes them have to intervene that would not be unconstitutional?

the supreme court ruled in 2005 that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm

the fault is thinking someone else will protect you and you don’t need to protect yourself.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If the laws said they should have reacted, then hold the cops to account. If the laws didn’t say that, then change the laws (or regulations). Stop dancing around the point and state clearly which of these two you think is at fault.
Click to expand...
i asked how you control people. you said laws.

the cops didn’t intervene, what law would you write that makes them have to intervene that would not be unconstitutional?

the supreme court ruled in 2005 that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm
Click to expand...
The case of Ms. Gonzales that you refer to has been over-hyped by the media. It is actually narrower than they say. It was a ruling that Ms. Gonzales’ case based on the 14th amendment was not a proper use of that amendment in her suit against the city and the police department. It certainly did not place any constitutional limits on future legislation that might strengthen the legal requirements of police to protect people. What constitutional impediment do you imagine stands in the way of such a move?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It certainly did not place any constitutional limits on future legislation that might strengthen the legal requirements of police to protect people. What constitutional impediment do you imagine stands in the way of such a move?
Click to expand...
And yet no state or local entity has done so. 🤔
 
Last edited:
I well understand the military’s capabilities as a 19K40. first of all if the government became oppressive to the people to the point that people took to arms , many in the military would not support actions against their own people. It would not be a force on force action. it would be a guerrilla action. targeting those who were oppressors and those supporting them directly.
as I said before history is replete with example were governments that became tyrannical and the people resisted, some succeeded and some did not. question you have to ask yourself is do you want to be a part of the generation that lost freedom for future American’s. by removing their means of resistance. " Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it." Santayana we should pray daily for this not to come to pass and vote out those who have no respect for the Constitution.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The case of Ms. Gonzales that you refer to has been over-hyped by the media. It is actually narrower than they say. It was a ruling that Ms. Gonzales’ case based on the 14th amendment was not a proper use of that amendment in her suit against the city and the police department. It certainly did not place any constitutional limits on future legislation that might strengthen the legal requirements of police to protect people. What constitutional impediment do you imagine stands in the way of such a move?
Click to expand...
the public duty doctrine and i don’t see the government opening that can of worms.
“[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”.
Click to expand...
A 1989 case found the same thing. Also from the Times:

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.

Going back even further, to 1981, a federal court of appeals found the same lack of responsibility. From the Wikipedia page on Warren v. District of Columbia:

In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. http://tribunist.com
Click to expand...
 
I’m far more concerned about a tyrannical revolution by a citizen militia than I am about a tyrannical government. And that says a lot when I consider who is the commander in chief at the present time. I usually don’t pray about elections because God is not a registered voter in the US nor a member of a party. But I do hope sooner rather than later the present resident of the WH is voted out if he isn’t driven out beforehand by Congressional action.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It certainly did not place any constitutional limits on future legislation that might strengthen the legal requirements of police to protect people. What constitutional impediment do you imagine stands in the way of such a move?
Click to expand...
And yet no state or local entity has done so. 🤔
Click to expand...
That is no proof that it would be unconstitutional to do so, and that was the worry expressed by upant.
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The case of Ms. Gonzales that you refer to has been over-hyped by the media. It is actually narrower than they say. It was a ruling that Ms. Gonzales’ case based on the 14th amendment was not a proper use of that amendment in her suit against the city and the police department. It certainly did not place any constitutional limits on future legislation that might strengthen the legal requirements of police to protect people. What constitutional impediment do you imagine stands in the way of such a move?
Click to expand...
the public duty doctrine and i don’t see the government opening that can of worms.
Click to expand...
Since you apparently disagree with the consequences of the decision on the public duty question, you must want some can of worms opened. Why not this one? The fact that you don’t think it likely to happen just shows that what you want to happen does not have much popular support.
“[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”.
Click to expand...
A 1989 case found the same thing. Also from the Times:

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.

Going back even further, to 1981, a federal court of appeals found the same lack of responsibility. From the Wikipedia page on Warren v. District of Columbia:

In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. http://tribunist.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I suspect these summaries of the decisions do not fairly represent the scope of their applicability. Courts always try to rule in ways that are as narrow as possible and still adequately rule on the case before them. Often these cases come down to particular features of the case that are not present in all similar cases. Therefore it would wrong to conclude from these decisions that one should not expect the police to do what they reasonably can do to “serve and protect.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top