Do you support the second amendment?


Sounds like warrant-less search :frowning:

Dubious legality, judging by the headlines.


Terry v. Ohio says that it is legal.


Floyd v. New York required written oversight that defines who can be stopped; effectively ending the program since you can’t write “black people” in the policy manual.


I think you missed my point.

Yes, European nations did rebel and have revolutions, but none of the big
ones resulted in separating from their motherland and becoming a separate

France did not win their independence from a larger nation.

The British didn’t have a revolutionary war that took them away from King
of England. Yes, they won some reforms, but they didn’t gain total

And regarding the American Sovereign… you laugh. Who’s our sovereign if
not “We the People”? Again, I’m not saying that individuals are the
sovereigns, I’m saying that “We the People” as voters are the American
Sovereign. (Which is true and what I was taught as as political science
major at a liberal school)

God Bless


Easy enough, start with known criminals, their associates, people committing “broken window” offenses and anyone whose behavior and words give the officer reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or has been committed.


Easy enough?

How does the officer know who that is without already stopping them??? :thinking:


Right because officers do not spend significant amounts of time in their beats (just 8, 12 or even 16 hours at a stretch) and have no grasp on who the players are.


Ugh, I can already feel the anti-harassment suits rolling in… “That cop been leanin’ on me, your honor!”

I don’t think “Stop and Frisk” is your answer. What else ya got? I like permits.


That is why the police have qualified immunity.


Of course. They don’t pay the settlement. The Police Department does.


That is not what qualified immunity means. If the officer’s actions fall under qualified immunity, the criminal would have no grounds to sue either the department or the officer.


I’m not sure if what you think it means is the same as what it actually means… PDs get successfully sued literally all the time for that very reason. All. The. Time. You just don’t sue the officer, you sue the employer. Which is great for the litigant because a PD has a lot more money to sue for than a $50k a year beat cop with 3 kids.

In sum, your Stop and Frisk solution to gun crime doesn’t seem very workable.


Yes, but there are degrees of freedom. There are encompassing laws that are meant to oversee others. Some of these are the common British laws which still form the basis of law in many countries, one of which is the right to live without terror, and I think the majority is in agreement the situation is no longer tenable. A regulated militia was an issue and concern in the time of independence, and the amendment served those times well. These were farmers and folks who focused on making a living. Now there is way too much leisure time and time to form fantasies fed by the entertainment and news media. I have found there are groups that have a best interest in ensuring the term does not go beyond generalities. I’m one of those who would not like having my 2 rifles taken away. These things are not central to my life, and it’s # 3 in my interest.(guitar #1 :blush: ).

So yes, but a new amendment for our times.

BTW: The government should retrieve all that money sent oversees, no refusal accepted, and distribute it among the injured. If we don’t, some other rich sicko will do the same. Here’s a real reason to flex some muscle.


Reports had already come in regarding the general location of the shooter. And a quick look at the already present victims and the general direction the rounds are coming into the crowd from would be enough to verify that the people on stage were not the target of interest. Also the people on stage(most likely security) would probably have a clear view that the rounds were NOT coming from in the crowd. That would mean that they would most likely be able to locate the hostile contact and possibly eliminate it. That being said if the law enforcement saw them firing up than they would once again be able to confirm that they are not the assailant. The reason the security could NOT fire was because the shots were coming from a crowded hotel. If they were to open fire they might have hit innocent guests in the hotel.


That is your perspective. Since due process is a constitutionally protected right in and of itself, I still see hypocrisy, just like the hypocrisy of railing against judges who expand other constitutional rights as activist, but are all for expanding the Second Amendment beyond that which is needed for a “well regulated militia.”

But no, I like the idea of being a strict constitutionalist on the whole shebang. For the sake of a well regulated militia, it is about time we really regulate it well. How about one or two standard long rifles every one can own to hunt or join in the national guard as needed?


The UCR does not track education or economic level, but it does track race. It was developed by white people after all, starting back in the day of Jim Crow.


Exactly. This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of strict constitutional interpretation. If stop and frisk is supported by one decision, then out with that part of the Fourth Amendment.

By the way, that decision does not make stop and frisk legal. You should double check. You cannot search someone just because you stop him. There has to be a reasonable suspicion based on “specific and articulable facts” other than, “He’s black.”


Yeah. More guns wouldn’t have solved the problem for the crowd unless someone happened to be carrying their modified sub-1/2moa bolt-action Remington 700 - AND knew how to get that level of performance out of the rifle under those circumstances.

At that range, return fire from a handgun pointed perfectly at the shooter would miss by probably 50 feet and most of your ARs aren’t sufficiently precise for that range either. Not when collateral casualties would be unacceptable.


Hi, Jon!

I don’t mean to sound mean, but do you not get the cited material? 60% (I think it cited a greater percentage but I can’t remember the exact quote) of guns used in crimes have been traced to authorized dealers!

Please, repeating a demand does not make it a “win” argument.

…as for your “speedy” reaction of gun totting citizens, how many crimes have they stopped–I can’t recall a single incident… well other than that guy that claimed that some people were looking to break into his home and while the 911 operator or the police commanded that he stayed in his home (where there was no threat to him) he proceeded to go out of his home and hunt them @#$%%$#@ down. There could have been other cases but just as contorted as that one.

Maran atha!



Hi, Brendan!

You are missing the point.

When auto manufacturers start building guns into their vehicles, yes.

When makers of swimming pools put in contractions that cause people to drown, yes.

A gun is a tool for killing. When 60% of guns that are used in crimes can be traced back to authorized dealers, you are as blind as the money grabbers in Washington who cannot see that there’s a huge hole in the gun distribution industry.

Maran atha!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit