If you don't see how similar your argument here is to people defending Stop and Frisk I don't know what to tell you.
Hmm...I'm not exactly sure how you can read the 2nd as not defining owning "a killing machine" as a constitutional right. I don't disagree with your sentiment that the right can be restricted or regulated, or even in certain cases rescinded, but it most certainly exists.
The Civil Rights movement wasn't entirely non-violent. Black Panthers, Malcolm X, New Panthers, etc. King was highly visible, but so were the others.
Can you own a chain gun? How about a hand grenade? Maybe a modern tank. Oh, I know, how about an atomic bomb? You mean we can limit killing machines?
Really? Just like Huey Newton assaulted those police officers huh? Yeah no... The violence was caused by the racist whites. Anything said to the contrary is revisionist history.
I believe I said that I don't disagree with the sentiment that the right can be restricted. Which means I agree that it can be. So...what was your point again?
So you think violence can only be on one side? That makes no sense. Regardless of how violent whites at the time may have been, if blacks were violent, too, then they were violent, too.
Well regulated militia is also part of the amendment too right? Then there's this: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/militia-act-establishes-conscription-under-federal-law
The fact that you don't apply logic and the same rules to every situation is the problem. Not me. I'm against Stop and Frisk for the same reason I'm against all of your gun ideas. They are both unconstitutional. Should we let people Dviss1 thinks are mentally ill be searched randomly by the cops? Kingspeed gets an extra search at the airport every time he flies?
Yes. You have to apply for the right permits, but yes you can own one. Probably, yes. We have demolitions experts who use controlled explosives with the right permits. Define modern. For a small fortune you can absolutely own a tank in the US, and you can fire it if you have the right permits.... of course, it might not go well for you. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/10/steve_preston_killed_in_tank_e.html
I don't mean to get semantic if it's not what you meant, but what do you think an "arm" is? Where we differ is that I don't think (and based on voting, a majority right now don't think, though as you assert that may change) that doing more regulation of a law-abiding citizen makes it safer. I submit that people aren't safer in theaters now because you've infringed on the law-abiding citizen's right to yell "Fire!", they're safer because we've made it so you can't smoke inside them, they have to have multiple exits, you have to have adequate walkway sizes, max capacity codes, etc. As just a puerile example, the current laws in FL ban guns from schools at all hours. Yet a criminal brought a gun to school. And violated the law against murder. I'm all for constitutional regulations, but as I wrote above (that hasn't been commented on yet), registries have been shown to be abused by those in power. Even "background checks" without due process have removed Constitutional rights from people. I think we already have a lot of laws on the books about gun ownership and use, to the point that I couldn't purchase one. Yet somehow people get killed in BAL, CHI, Parkland, Chattanooga, Navy Yard, Fort Hood, etc. when bad people violate laws that good people have to live by. As stated above, I can live with that (or leave the country) for things like driving, health care, abortion, etc. I don't have to live with it for Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Keeping and Bearing Arms, Voting, Self-Incrimination, etc.
My point was misplaced. It should have been directed elsewhere. Sorry for that. I guess that's what happens when you try to juggle too many threads.
The irony of your statement is that Dr. King was a gun-owning Republican who supported black people's right to own a gun. As did many other black people.
