The Second Amendment

[Albion]

Yes, you added the fact that it was altered to look like a real gun. So my question is, if it was a real gun would that of been justification for his death? If not the fact that it it was altered is not relevant.

Oh, it's relevant. But it does not automatically answer your question. My point was that we have to have the complete picture before we decide.

 

[Belk]

Oh, it's relevant. But it does not automatically answer your question. My point was that we have to have the complete picture before we decide.

How is it relevant then? Please explain because I do not understand.

 

[Albion]

Do YOU think it matters if a policeman shoots someone who has levelled a gun at him? Do YOU think it is right for a policeman to shoot a child who is playing with toys? It seems to me that there is no question but that the two situations aren't identical.

 

[Belk]

Do YOU think it matters if a policeman shoots someone who has levelled a gun at him? Do YOU think it is right for a policeman to shoot a child who is playing with toys? It seems to me that there is no question but that the two situations aren't identical.

We are talking about Tamir Rice who did not level a gun at the officer. If the gun he had was a real weapon rather then a toy, how would that be relevant to his death?

 

[DaisyDay]

He had the benefit of the doubt all he had to do was put down the phone, it was obvious that the officer thought it was a gun because he was repeatedly saying put down the gun. How simple is it to follow directions?

How could he put the gun down when he had no gun? He may have been startled and confused by the commands shouted at him out of nowhere.

 

[Strathos]

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?

If that's the only justification they have, that shouldn't be an excuse. If the person is brandishing a gun aggressively, then maybe. But just having one shouldn't mean you can be shot.

 

[Brihaha]

Well, all right. While most of would agree that honest and responsible legislators do exist, many of us are also horrified at those who are indeed dishonest, biased, or unreliable, etc.

Still in all, the way any observer describes an action has the effect of coloring the event and the person doing it. We can make the action seem repulsive or foolish...or, on the other hand we can, by choosing other jargon, make it and the person appear to be high minded and fair.

We see this all the time during political campaigns and on the websites that either favor or oppose some elected official.

I can agree with your post here. Our biases tend to influence our statements. I'm certainly guilty of bias too. I just believe too many folks do not educate themselves before voting. Our tribalism has grown too powerful it seems. And it leads many people to vote against their own self-interests. I've always voted as an independent, voting for four dems and three reps for president. And the one time Ross Perot experiment hahaha. If we want things to improve we will need to demand competence and action from those we elect. Accountability is essential, yet seldom seen. Peace

 

[morningstar2651]

Was the firearm pointed or brandished at the officer? If so, justified. If not, then it's not.

If I didn't say the gun was aimed at someone, then you can safely assume it wasn't. This isn't some sort of "gotcha" scenario and I'm not trying to trick you into taking a stance you disagree with by moving the goalposts. We can assume that the person being shot didn't aim their gun at anyone or shoot at anyone.

I'm not trying to omit some key piece of information that would change the answer to the question. We can also safely assume that the police officer was on duty when they shot this person and was not convicted for shooting this person. I wouldn't mention their job if it wasn't relevant, and the question would be irrelevant if the officer was not acting as an agent of the state.

The person being shot was exercising a constitutionally protected right. Did they really have that right if law enforcement can legally shoot or kill them for exercising that right?

I think you agree with me on this one.

 

[morningstar2651]

If that's the only justification they have, that shouldn't be an excuse. If the person is brandishing a gun aggressively, then maybe. But just having one shouldn't mean you can be shot.

I agree, but the question wasn't whether or not the person should have been shot. The question was whether or not they ever really had the right to bear arms if they could be shot or killed by law enforcement for exercising that right.

 

[Albion]

I can agree with your post here. Our biases tend to influence our statements. I'm certainly guilty of bias too. I just believe too many folks do not educate themselves before voting. Our tribalism has grown too powerful it seems. And it leads many people to vote against their own self-interests.

Hi. I certainly can agree with those sentiments. It's discouraging to know (and hear from these voters themselves) how they voted against their own values, often because of something trivial--always voted that party, one issue was all that mattered, and so on.

 

[98cwitr]

If I didn't say the gun was aimed at someone, then you can safely assume it wasn't. This isn't some sort of "gotcha" scenario and I'm not trying to trick you into taking a stance you disagree with by moving the goalposts. We can assume that the person being shot didn't aim their gun at anyone or shoot at anyone.

I'm not trying to omit some key piece of information that would change the answer to the question. We can also safely assume that the police officer was on duty when they shot this person and was not convicted for shooting this person. I wouldn't mention their job if it wasn't relevant, and the question would be irrelevant if the officer was not acting as an agent of the state.

The person being shot was exercising a constitutionally protected right. Did they really have that right if law enforcement can legally shoot or kill them for exercising that right?

I think you agree with me on this one.

Thank you for this expansion of your OP context. In such a case, then Yes, that person's right to bear arms was violated in the most extreme manner possible. The right exists, but rights can be violated. The primary purpose of a government to even exist is to protect, not infringe upon, people's inalienable rights. We don't look at government this way anymore, and it's for that very reason we permit the erosion of our rights under the false guise of "safety," "security," or "peace."

 

[98cwitr]

State legislatures have been so corrupted by gerrymandering that they don't represent the people. People call my legislature the clown college, and it does seem like it's filled with Pennywises at times.

There needs to be a law requiring districts to be drawn using a standardized fair software package. Every state. Don't take our rights away.

I fully disagree in relation to the federal government. The state legislatures seem to hold to constituent opinion far better than federal Congress; and that's directly the fault of the 17th amendment.

 

[98cwitr]

That's not how the NRA sells it.

The NRA stands for Negotiating Rights Away. They're a horrible organization and have been for decades. They get rich on donations, blow the money on themselves rather than fighting for our rights, and then sell us out when it's time to pony up. They shouldn't receive a dime from any truly progun person. Plenty of other true-to-word progun groups out there.

 

[Oneiric1975]

The NRA stands for Negotiating Rights Away. They're a horrible organization and have been for decades. They get rich on donations, blow the money on themselves rather than fighting for our rights, and then sell us out when it's time to pony up. They shouldn't receive a dime from any truly progun person. Plenty of other true-to-word progun groups out there.

Well the NRA did a great service for you "pro-gun" folks. They turned the Second Amendment into a parody of itself and helped usher in our ammosexual lifestyle here in the U.S.

You are right, though, they got super-corrupted by the massive amounts of money pro-gun people gave them. They were really powerful in getting politicians to toe the line but it appears they may have overstepped their boundaries. Ghoul La Pierre is certainly livin' the high life on you folks.

Glad you are abandoning the NRA. It will bifurcate the politician-throttle the NRA has held for so long and maybe allow decent gun laws to be enacted and the ammosexuals dialed back just a bit.

There's been too much blood and the pro-gun folks don't seem to want to take any responsibility for their hobbies.

 

[Pommer]

The primary purpose of a government to even exist is to protect, not infringe upon, people's inalienable rights.

We do not possess “inalienable” rights under our Constitution.

 

[disciple Clint]

How could he put the gun down when he had no gun? He may have been startled and confused by the commands shouted at him out of nowhere.

Isn't it enough that the man got killed, making him out to be incapable of understanding what was going on is going too far.

 

[DaisyDay]

Isn't it enough that the man got killed, making him out to be incapable of understanding what was going on is going too far.

A man, not from here, being startled by cops shouting for him to do what couldn't be done is hardly making him "incapable", just human. Do you think the cops were "incapable of understanding" that a man holding a phone or a wallet is not dangerous to them?

 

[Oneiric1975]

A man, not from here, being startled by cops shouting for him to do what couldn't be done is hardly making him "incapable", just human. Do you think the cops were "incapable of understanding" that a man holding a phone or a wallet is not dangerous to them?

I speak English quite well and I KNOW that if out of no where a bunch of armed men started shouting at me I would be confused and probably make serious mistakes. Thankfully I'm white so it's less likely (statistically speaking) that I will wind up dying that way. Maybe it could happen but I KNOW I'd be "incapable" of doing right under that kind of pressure.

 

[hislegacy]

I speak English quite well and I KNOW that if out of no where a bunch of armed men started shouting at me I would be confused and probably make serious mistakes.

I would think that the uniforms, badges and flashing lights on the cars would give anyone involved an indication of who they are.

 

[SummerMadness]

I would think that the uniforms, badges and flashing lights on the cars would give anyone involved an indication of who they are.

They were plain clothes police that followed him in the dark as he walked home. Amadou Diallo was murdered because he was a young black man walking home, thus he was a suspect.