I’m not American so can someone clarify 2nd amendment in this context for me? Can someone actually shoot an ICE agent and evoke 2nd amendment as a defense? How does it work? What about the state’s monopoly on violence?
2nd amendment is right to bear arms. It’s supposed to protect citizens against tyranny. The problem is that most people who have them seem to also love Nazis.
You can’t use the 2nd as a defense for anything other than your right to have a gun. In the South we have Castle Doctrine. We can legally shoot to kill to defend our property and belongings at our homes. If we feel threatened, we can legally kill someone. Most people try to avoid that, or so I thought. Now that I see all the cruelty coming out of the woodwork, I’m not so sure.
The second amendment is meant to protect the public’s ability, not “right,” to overthrow a tyrannical government by protecting their legal right to maintain the tools to do so. That’s because once such a rebellion actually starts, “legal rights” become irrelevant since the validity of the state itself is being challenged.
So no, you can’t use the 2nd Amendment as a defense in the incumbent government’s courts. You can only use it to win, replacing the government and not having to face a trial at all.
(Also, to be clear, the 2nd is definitely about rebelling against tyranny, not hunting or self-defense against crime or whatever else the liberals try to twist it as – remember, it was written by folks who had literally just finished doing the same.)
If you shoot a federal (or any other kind of) law enforcement agent and they can prove it was you then you’re going to prison for the rest of your life. Everyone knows, or should know, that. The idea is that these officers will be less likely to take violent action against protesters if they have reason to believe they will be personally shot while doing so. A court battle being likely to go your way doesn’t help much if you take a bullet to the face.
The 2A protects your right to own a firearm, and depending on where you live and how you do it, carry it around with you. Self defense is pretty much the only argument you can make in court to justify actually using a firearm to shoot another person, and cops are essentially immune from any responsibility for their actions which means self defense claims are not accepted if you shoot them. There have been cases where cops showed up at the wrong house in the middle of the night, knocked down the door, entered the home unannounced with guns drawn, and the homeowner was still found guilty of murder for shooting one of them. The state has a vested interest in not setting the precedent that it’s OK to shoot cops under even very narrow circumstances which means these guys are totally fucked if they actually do anything with those guns besides stand around and hope they deter the cops from getting too violent.
That’s not to say what this guy is doing isn’t worth doing, but anyone considering doing this should be aware of what they’re up against. I would be very wary of being the only person in a given area doing this as well. The strategy doesn’t seem like it would have the intended effect if all they have to do is shoot one person and claim they felt threatened because he had a gun.
Breonna Taylor was shot in her own house during a (likely racially motivated) no-knock raid. Her boyfriend shot back at the police and wounded at least one if them. I wouldn’t say he got off “scott free” but he was acquitted.
So in the case where unidentified masked men raid you without a warrant, you absolutely can shoot them. The problem is the law is going to bend over backwards to convict you, so you need an absolutely airtight case, and expect to spend 4 or 5 years in jail awaiting trial at a minimum.
The second amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Many liberals support stricter gun laws so that there are stronger background checks, limits, etc in order to try and reduce mass shootings, etc. The right wing folks are generally the opposite, trying to remove limits and make them accessible.
So no, you cannot evoke the second amendment as a defense for shooting anyone. It would only be a potential legal defense against laws limiting gun ownership. The second amendment says you can own a gun, not that you can shoot people with them.
As for the state’s monopoly on violence, that pretty much stands except in clear cut cases of self defense. So if someone were to shoot an ICE agent (and survive the situation to make it to trial), it would have to be some pretty extraordinary circumstances that would allow the person to avoid conviction of a crime.
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.
Probably some of the most talked about commas in history. But the idea that most people accept today is that the 2nd amendment allows you to have guns. That’s about it. It doesn’t give you the right to shoot anyone.
Lol no they did not. People carried firearms openly since the beginning of our nation. They didn’t magically just start doing this. There is a reason they called the colt the pistol that won the west, and there is a reason we literally gained our independence using mostly privately owned firearms. There wasn’t really big laws until around 1934 for the NFA. Which is during prohibition.
Owning firearms has been an non issue for well over a century prior to the NFA.
But also, “militia” was and is defined to mean roughly “every able-bodied adult male.” It was very clearly about preserving the ability for the citizenry to assemble to defend themselves militarily. (That’s specifically in contrast to having a standing professional army, which is supposed to be unconstitutional BTW.)
it only covered militias though, which were all eventually became the national guards…because having miscellaneous bands of disorganized militias is obviously dumb as fuck
which all comes back to…the constitution is a bunch of empty words that mean nothing
I’m not American so can someone clarify 2nd amendment in this context for me? Can someone actually shoot an ICE agent and evoke 2nd amendment as a defense? How does it work? What about the state’s monopoly on violence?
2nd amendment is right to bear arms. It’s supposed to protect citizens against tyranny. The problem is that most people who have them seem to also love Nazis.
You can’t use the 2nd as a defense for anything other than your right to have a gun. In the South we have Castle Doctrine. We can legally shoot to kill to defend our property and belongings at our homes. If we feel threatened, we can legally kill someone. Most people try to avoid that, or so I thought. Now that I see all the cruelty coming out of the woodwork, I’m not so sure.
Cops aren’t afraid of the law because they are immune to the law. They’re afraid of guns because they’re not immune to bullets.
Plenty of people willing to kill unarmed people for a paycheck…not a lot willing to die for one.
The second amendment is meant to protect the public’s ability, not “right,” to overthrow a tyrannical government by protecting their legal right to maintain the tools to do so. That’s because once such a rebellion actually starts, “legal rights” become irrelevant since the validity of the state itself is being challenged.
So no, you can’t use the 2nd Amendment as a defense in the incumbent government’s courts. You can only use it to win, replacing the government and not having to face a trial at all.
(Also, to be clear, the 2nd is definitely about rebelling against tyranny, not hunting or self-defense against crime or whatever else the liberals try to twist it as – remember, it was written by folks who had literally just finished doing the same.)
Lol
If you shoot a federal (or any other kind of) law enforcement agent and they can prove it was you then you’re going to prison for the rest of your life. Everyone knows, or should know, that. The idea is that these officers will be less likely to take violent action against protesters if they have reason to believe they will be personally shot while doing so. A court battle being likely to go your way doesn’t help much if you take a bullet to the face.
The 2A protects your right to own a firearm, and depending on where you live and how you do it, carry it around with you. Self defense is pretty much the only argument you can make in court to justify actually using a firearm to shoot another person, and cops are essentially immune from any responsibility for their actions which means self defense claims are not accepted if you shoot them. There have been cases where cops showed up at the wrong house in the middle of the night, knocked down the door, entered the home unannounced with guns drawn, and the homeowner was still found guilty of murder for shooting one of them. The state has a vested interest in not setting the precedent that it’s OK to shoot cops under even very narrow circumstances which means these guys are totally fucked if they actually do anything with those guns besides stand around and hope they deter the cops from getting too violent.
That’s not to say what this guy is doing isn’t worth doing, but anyone considering doing this should be aware of what they’re up against. I would be very wary of being the only person in a given area doing this as well. The strategy doesn’t seem like it would have the intended effect if all they have to do is shoot one person and claim they felt threatened because he had a gun.
Breonna Taylor was shot in her own house during a (likely racially motivated) no-knock raid. Her boyfriend shot back at the police and wounded at least one if them. I wouldn’t say he got off “scott free” but he was acquitted.
So in the case where unidentified masked men raid you without a warrant, you absolutely can shoot them. The problem is the law is going to bend over backwards to convict you, so you need an absolutely airtight case, and expect to spend 4 or 5 years in jail awaiting trial at a minimum.
The second amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Many liberals support stricter gun laws so that there are stronger background checks, limits, etc in order to try and reduce mass shootings, etc. The right wing folks are generally the opposite, trying to remove limits and make them accessible.
So no, you cannot evoke the second amendment as a defense for shooting anyone. It would only be a potential legal defense against laws limiting gun ownership. The second amendment says you can own a gun, not that you can shoot people with them.
As for the state’s monopoly on violence, that pretty much stands except in clear cut cases of self defense. So if someone were to shoot an ICE agent (and survive the situation to make it to trial), it would have to be some pretty extraordinary circumstances that would allow the person to avoid conviction of a crime.
Probably some of the most talked about commas in history. But the idea that most people accept today is that the 2nd amendment allows you to have guns. That’s about it. It doesn’t give you the right to shoot anyone.
for the first…150-200 years of this country, sctous had very clearly made out that amendment to only pertain to militias specifically.
The Constitution is just empty words meant to justify whatever the fuck the powers that be want.
Lol no they did not. People carried firearms openly since the beginning of our nation. They didn’t magically just start doing this. There is a reason they called the colt the pistol that won the west, and there is a reason we literally gained our independence using mostly privately owned firearms. There wasn’t really big laws until around 1934 for the NFA. Which is during prohibition.
Owning firearms has been an non issue for well over a century prior to the NFA.
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/
But also, “militia” was and is defined to mean roughly “every able-bodied adult male.” It was very clearly about preserving the ability for the citizenry to assemble to defend themselves militarily. (That’s specifically in contrast to having a standing professional army, which is supposed to be unconstitutional BTW.)
it only covered militias though, which were all eventually became the national guards…because having miscellaneous bands of disorganized militias is obviously dumb as fuck
which all comes back to…the constitution is a bunch of empty words that mean nothing