See the Question in Post #1


  • Total voters
    12

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Interesting question, I would say they did not have their right to bear arms. There is another thread on about a diner pulling a gun on protesters and the argument was that he could pull his gun because some of the protesters were armed. Of note, none of the protesters pointed their weapons at the man, yet people were arguing it was okay for him to point a weapon at people exercising their right to bear arms.

I think it's obvious that the right to bear arms is only seen as applicable to some people. Cliven Bundy and his group can point their weapons at law enforcement and the usual suspects will defend them. Philando Castile will just inform you he has a gun is his car and be blown away and the usual suspects will defend the shooting. The right to bear arms is either a right or not, but from my observation, it is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,289
✟272,305.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Depends on the circumstances.

I'll preface this by saying from the outset that I'm not a fan of US gun laws, nor the adversarial approach to policing some US law enforcement agencies appear to take.

However, with a widely armed population and a very high rate of gun violence in the US, policing has taken on certain characteristics. One of those is the assumption that anyone wielding a gun intends to use it. This is not an unjustified assumption - there's plenty of evidence to support it - but applying it as a blanket assumption is not a good practice, as it leads to some 'shoot first, ask questions later' incidents.

For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved. Similar examples could be raised for police shooting individuals who were seeking to run away.

Unfortunately, as with most things, there's a trade off. If you teach your officers to respond by not assuming someone bearing a gun - or even a fake gun- is going to use it, one day pretty soon a cop is going to get killed.

Police have to prioritize their own safety, I'm not going to disagree there. The questions are: where does the risk/reward line lie when it comes to the tradeoff between the lives of the public and the police?; and how do you change the approach of US law enforcement in a way that doesn't involve getting a bunch more cops shot?

Personally, my reading of history is that the Second Amendment was constructed as a doctrine for the defense of the nation against a foreign power (as the US initially didn't have much truck with standing armies), rather than a doctrine of individual access to firearms. That meaning changed in common and legal interpretation through the latter third of the 20th century, to mean (close to) unfettered personal firearms use, which was codified in DC vs Heller.
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I said "No" in the poll because I don't believe people have some sort of absolute right to bear arms and your example somewhat demonstrates that. I think a cop is right to shoot someone who has a gun if they are "brandishing" it or using it in a threatening manner. For example, a cop shouldn't hit someone just because that person has hands, but if that person uses his hand to make a fist and threaten with it then the cop has a right to defend himself and others by hitting that person. Same with a gun. However, with guns, just the possession of a gun is subject to certain additional rules and laws, specifically because guns are so dangerous (incredibly much more so than hands/fists), so they are naturally going to be more aggressive towards someone who simply possesses a gun in certain situations. Sometimes the cops are in the wrong with this but typically they are right to be overly cautious.

But the way the 2A folks pretend the 2A is some kind of absolute right to bear arms is a complete joke, anyway. If they REALLY believed in the 2A in that way there would be more people campaigning for the right to own missiles, bombs, rockets, even atomic and nuclear arms. Obviously, it's not just some open right to "bear arms" - the 2A is clear about it being part of a well-regulated militia. The 2A crowd is really just a bunch of gun lovers who want their toys. And I can understand that - if you're into something you want to have it and play with it and you will support whatever allows you to do that. But their 2A argument is disingenuous as I see it - they know deep down that there is no actual "right to bear arms" but they will twist the 2A to leverage it in support of their passion for guns.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
I think you are misunderstanding the reason that officers shoot someone, simply having a gun is not justification but having a gun and using it in a way that causes the officer to fear for his life does justify use of deadly force.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Interesting question, I would say they did not have their right to bear arms. There is another thread on about a diner pulling a gun on protesters and the argument was that he could pull his gun because some of the protesters were armed. Of note, none of the protesters pointed their weapons at the man, yet people were arguing it was okay for him to point a weapon at people exercising their right to bear arms.

I think it's obvious that the right to bear arms is only seen as applicable to some people. Cliven Bundy and his group can't point their weapons at law enforcement and the usual suspects will defend them. Philando Castile will just inform you he has a gun is his car and be blown away and the usual suspects will defend the shooting. The right to bear arms is either a right or not, but from my observation, it is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.
The officer was not found guilty of any wrong doing in the Castile case. Bundy was not found guilty of anything either. Neither of these cases supports the ridiculous, inflammatory, narrative that The right to bear arms is only supported when the right kind of people bear arms; the not right people can be shot on the spot.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Depends on the circumstances.

I'll preface this by saying from the outset that I'm not a fan of US gun laws, nor the adversarial approach to policing some US law enforcement agencies appear to take.

However, with a widely armed population and a very high rate of gun violence in the US, policing has taken on certain characteristics. One of those is the assumption that anyone wielding a gun intends to use it. This is not an unjustified assumption - there's plenty of evidence to support it - but applying it as a blanket assumption is not a good practice, as it leads to some 'shoot first, ask questions later' incidents.

For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved. Similar examples could be raised for police shooting individuals who were seeking to run away.

Unfortunately, as with most things, there's a trade off. If you teach your officers to respond by not assuming someone bearing a gun - or even a fake gun- is going to use it, one day pretty soon a cop is going to get killed.

Police have to prioritize their own safety, I'm not going to disagree there. The questions are: where does the risk/reward line lie when it comes to the tradeoff between the lives of the public and the police?; and how do you change the approach of US law enforcement in a way that doesn't involve getting a bunch more cops shot?

Personally, my reading of history is that the Second Amendment was constructed as a doctrine for the defense of the nation against a foreign power (as the US initially didn't have much truck with standing armies), rather than a doctrine of individual access to firearms. That meaning changed in common and legal interpretation through the latter third of the 20th century, to mean (close to) unfettered personal firearms use, which was codified in DC vs Heller.
For instance, the shootings of Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez. Both shootings of minors with 'airsoft' style guns, both occurred in under 30 seconds of police arriving, and neither involved any hostile action from the children involved.
over all I agree with your post and feel it is well balanced. I do want to point out that in both the Rice and Lopez incidents the following:
1. Both guns had been modified to look like real guns.
2. in one case the kid turned towards police elevating the gun in the other case the kid when ordered to put his hands up, instead reached for his waist were the gun was.
3. There is very little time to make a shoot, dont shoot decision when someone is reaching for a gun or elevating a gun in your direction. Neither officer was found to have used excessive force under the circumstances.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
536c29d3eab8eae53a094abc


This is everything wrong with the second amendment and who can bear arms. White guy pointing a gun at federal agents, yeah it's okay.

Or how about LaVoy Finicum who thought it would be smart to initiate a shootout with the government. The same people that cheer on the shooting of Tamir Rice and Philando Castile were livid about a man that wanted to go to his death in a shootout.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
536c29d3eab8eae53a094abc


This is everything wrong with the second amendment and who can bear arms. White guy pointing a gun at federal agents, yeah it's okay.

Or how about LaVoy Finicum who thought it would be smart to initiate a shootout with the government. The same people that cheer on the shooting of Tamir Rice and Philando Castile were livid about a man that wanted to go to his death in a shootout.
I do not know of anyone who cheered on the shooting of Rice or Castile, who are those people? Is there any evidence they exist? What is the point of this entire post? It is well known that white people shoot at police, what does that have to do with anything, is it another attempt at an excuse? Or some kind of justification?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?

Missing data and therefore cannot vote.

Was the firearm pointed or brandished at the officer? If so, justified. If not, then it's not. Castile's a good case for an example of an unlawful shooting from what I can tell. Look at the VDCL rallies in Virginia, thousands of people walking around with assault rifles, no one shot, cops dont bat an eye. There's much more to dig into before answering the OP question.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,059
✟1,077,025.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I saw this quote yesterday. Chief Justice Burger served on the Supreme Court from 1969-86, and just seeing this meme made me realize how much our nation's interpretation of the Second Amendment has deteriorated in my lifetime. I agree completely with Justice Burger.

When I express my beliefs about the Second Amendment, its proponents almost uniformly treat my comments with pugnacious outrage, derision, aggression, and hostility. That concerns me, because it shows me how tempermentally unsuited these people are to be carrying guns. These individuals who confront me are bullies, plain and simple, rendered more dangerous because they are armed bullies.

Police officers are professionally trained (and I support additional training). As an added check and balance, many of them now wear body cameras. We want them to be a "well-regulated" militia.

If you carry a gun I think you have to realize that in split-second decisions a policeman may interpret your actions differently from what you want. Hopefully that would make you more prudent and less confrontational. The police officer will be wearing a camera--so he will probably be more cautious.

Anyone who cannot control his emotions should not be trusted with a weapon.

warren earl burger.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think the Second Amendment needs to be altered to say that Americans have the right to carry toy guns until we learn how to behave around real guns.

I grew up in a hunting household. My dad had a number of guns and I don't recall anything like the kind of "gun worshipping" I see from modern day 2nd Amendment Fetishists. My dad would no more take a gun into a Starbucks (even if open carry were a thing then) than he'd dress up in a clown outfit and urinate in public!

America has a pathological relationship with guns at this point in time. And it's tearing us apart. We THINK we are so safe and free, but we are about the only developed nation on earth where it is not just possible but LIKELY that any one of us will die for the bad decision of going to the grocery store on the wrong day.

We, as a nation, watched a psychopath gun down LITTLE KIDS and we didn't do a damn thing afterwards.

What is wrong with us?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think the Second Amendment needs to be altered to say that Americans have the right to carry toy guns until we learn how to behave around real guns...



What is wrong with us?

Whatever it is, it's not because guns exist or the people are allowed to have them. That's for sure. You referred to the attitude of some few gun owners, which is a clue to the underlying and only real issue.

Outlawing guns and repealing or amending the Second Amendment is not going to fix the problem. It's a matter of the mindset of the people involved, and it is perfectly obvious that new restrictions on ownership will not succeed because the cities (Chicago?) which have the highest rates of shootings are also the ones which already have laws that are supposed to prevent such acts.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?
Do police have that right? To shoot someone merely because a gun is found on the person or the seat of his car? I don't think so.

But if he brandishes it, if he points it at someone, that's a different matter, and we should all be able to see that it is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Whatever it is, it's not because guns exist or the people are allowed to have them. That's for sure. You referred to the attitude of some few gun owners, which is a clue to the underlying and only real issue.

Outlawing guns and repealing or amending the Second Amendment is not going to fix the problem. It's a matter of the mindset of the people involved, and it is perfectly obvious that new restrictions on ownership will not succeed because the cities (Chicago?) which have the highest rates of shootings are also the ones which already have laws that are supposed to prevent such acts.

Yet, mysteriously, every other developed nation on earth has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower gun homicide and gun violence rate than the US and they almost all, to a country, have more restrictive gun laws. Hmmmm.

Perhaps Americans are just evil? I find that hard to believe, being an American...but if we can't limit guns to solve the problem perhaps we are just too evil a nation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Fantine
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Do police have that right? To shoot someone merely because a gun is found on the person or the seat of his car? I don't think so.

But if he brandishes it, if he points it at someone, that's a different matter, and we should all be able to see that it is.

Tamir Rice and Philandro Castile beg to differ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SummerMadness
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yet, mysteriously, every other developed nation on earth has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower gun homicide and gun violence rate than the US and they almost all, to a country, have more restrictive gun laws.

You are assuming that the one has caused the other. There is no reason to take that approach, especially in view of the situation I referred you to in which American cities that have verrrrry strict gun laws also have thousands of shootings every year. The "quick fix" that you think is the solution obviously is missing something.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
You are assuming that the one has caused the other. There is no reason to take that approach

While I realize correlation is not causation, I can't help but remember that we in the US watch DAILY as mass shootings happen. These things happen almost nowhere else on earth with the frequency they happen here. Why do you suppose that is? Certainly in no first world country.

We've tried thoughts and prayers and they don't work.

, especially in view of the situation I referred you to in which American cities that have verrrrry strict gun laws also have thousands of shootings every year. The "quick fix" that you think is the solution obviously is missing something.

Then Americans just must be evil. I can think of nothing else to try. MAYBE we could treat mental illness better (with a massive surcharge on guns and ammo that goes to a fund for mental health) but you and I both know that when the ammosexuals talk about "mental health" they don't really want to see any change that will impact their fetish. ;)

No, we're stuck I guess. More AMericans will die this year due to guns on a per capita basis than any other developed nation on earth and we just sit back and wonder why.

The blood is fully on our hands. And I don't want to have to explain it should that time ever come where we have to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,059
✟1,077,025.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
When there are more guns in the U.S. than people, and when people can buy guns without background checks legally at gun shows it is all too easy for people to get their hands on them.

No matter what laws cities have the wide availability of guns makes them very easy to circumvent.

In addition, the types of weapions available--semi-automatic weapons and adapters that can turn them into fully automatic weapons--make them much more dangerous.

What you are saying, Albion, is that "guns" aren't the problem, people are. And so it stands to reason that if almost every other civilized country has far fewer murders and "guns" aren't the problem, then the problem is that the American people are, by default, more violent and homicidal than people in other countries. And if that is the case, then a lot of them should not be owning the means to kill.
 
Upvote 0