sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Resisting with arms is the essence of the 2A.
You claiming that the 1967 incident shows brandishing does not make it so. Luck of the law perhaps? To my knowledge not firearms related chargers were applied, or reported. I'm not sure brandishing a firearm, as a legal concept, existed back then. It could have, I don't know. Either way you clearly apply this legal concept, brandishing, to that 1967 event.And I should hope nobody here would need to have the difference between a defensive action and an offensive action explained to them. But the very fact you posted this here after I asserted that the '67 Black Panther incident was brandishing, suggests, sadly, that too many don't understand the difference.
So much for any regard for Heinlein's much abused quote.
Charles
Not my words, and I am certainly not advocating violence. You know me better than that. The article is interesting and it is open carry related. Civil disobedience is a part of our history.
ETA we should be welcoming the black community to our fold, not pushing them away. Want non violence then support non violence, and be willing to step up for those who are most abused, BY VIOLENCE.
"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."
Plus just what do you think the second amendment means? Without the threat of violence to secure a free state the second means NOTHING! The founders made it quite clear what they intended. You cannot separate the first phrase of the 2A from the second phrase.
My apologies if it appeared I was directing my response directly to you. The link precipitated the reference.
Self defense (immediate need) is accepted and understood. Planned physical violence in response to a past event or as a preemptive measure is NOT acceptable. Therein rests the difference - hence application of the forum rule.
My apologies if it appeared I was directing my response directly to you. The link precipitated the reference.
Self defense (immediate need) is accepted and understood. Planned physical violence in response to a past event or as a preemptive measure is NOT acceptable. Therein rests the difference - hence application of the forum rule.
You claiming that the 1967 incident shows brandishing does not make it so.
In Ferguson those photos show me citizens exercising their 2A on private property peacefully. You see something different it seems.
Resisting with arms is the essence of the 2A.
If you listen to their video you would clearly see they are talking about self defense. Unless I missed it I didn't see anything advocating planned violence. And while I do not agree with some of the NBP platform, I agree with their constitution stance.
Not only that WE NEED THEM! No other minority votes in the type of block that they do. Some of us, that includes you call for voting to protect our rights. Yet we should disenfranchise a huge block that could change a election because they are blunt and honest?
--edited by moderator--
--Please do not quote/perpetuate the personal arguments(s)--
Shots over the bow are for the navy.
Shots over the bow are akin to our firing warning shots - definitely fraught with problems and potential liability, both criminal and civil.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson
Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith
Paris Aug. 30. 1787.
"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
In 67, and in the WA state house recently, was it alleged that those folks "pointed a gun at anyone."...But somewhere between having a gun in a holster and pointing it at me without cause, is a line between peacefully carrying a gun for self-defense and brandishing or even assault. ...
I get it, your definition of brandishing is very different than mine. In fact I reject the whole premise of brandishing as a violation of the law. Just to set the record straight as to my position on this topic. I believe that the actual violation of a citizen's rights must be addressed by the state. Holding a violator accountable after the fact if you will. Holding a citizen accountable for a "could've violated another citizen's rights" is counter to liberty in my view....Charles
Shots over the bow are akin to our firing warning shots - definitely fraught with problems and potential liability, both criminal and civil.
It's interesting that, the 2A doesn't apply to the navy though. Oh it is fraught with problems, and it should be avoided, but it is a recognized and enumerated right not to be infringed. Which also implies the right to use that right.
A shot over the bow to me is a warning if you continue this path it won't be good for you. I cannot seem to understand the logic (or lack of) that would hold the people who exercise their rights in issuing a similar proclamation to their "rulers".
In 67, and in the WA state house recently, was it alleged that those folks "pointed a gun at anyone."utbagpiper said:...But somewhere between having a gun in a holster and pointing it at me without cause, is a line between peacefully carrying a gun for self-defense and brandishing or even assault. ...
I get it, your definition of brandishing is very different than mine. In fact I reject the whole premise of brandishing as a violation of the law. Just to set the record straight as to my position on this topic. I believe that the actual violation of a citizen's rights must be addressed by the state. Holding a violator accountable after the fact if you will. Holding a citizen accountable for a "could've violated another citizen's rights" is counter to liberty in my view.
A shot over the bow to me is a warning if you continue this path it won't be good for you. I cannot seem to understand the logic (or lack of) that would hold the people who exercise their rights in issuing a similar proclamation to their "rulers".