Some quick corrections: The Carroll Doctrine states that cops don’t need a warrant to search your vehicle if they have probable cause. Also if you’re being sued for money, that sounds like civil court. You’re only guaranteed trial by jury for criminal matters.
Edit: I stand corrected, you are garunteed jury trial in civil cases over $20
@tampon thief, You’re guaranteed a jury trial for civil matters greater than $20.
And the Carroll Doctrine can lick my star spangled balls.
@tampon thief, I live in cali, I wish I didnt. I want to defend myself but have to jump through so many hoops just to get a gun.
@tampon thief, Pennsylvania v Nimms. Cop can tell you to get out of the car and search you
@tampon thief, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you also have to get out of a vehicle if ordered to do so? Some court case that decided that one I believe
@FPVeteranWolf, that’s correct, the comment above you was close. Pennsylvania v Mimms says cops can get the driver out of the car during a traffic stop for any reason. Maryland v Wilson says the same for passengers. But they cannot search you or your vehicle without probable cause. If they have reason to believe you are armed and they have articulable reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, they can frisk your outer clothing for weapons, aka a terry frisk. You can look up Terry v Ohio if you want to know more about that.
Give this man a medal! 🏅
This helps with my government class
I think I love this guy. Well done!
Written by slave owners, yes. However, the laws can change, and have. Slavery is outlawed now, for example. The second amendment was only supposed to apply to militias, initially. It was reinterpreted time mean any US citizen.
I just realized the joke is probably sailing over my head as we speak.....
@Cloverleaf, the second amendment ALWAYS applied to citizens. The average citizen was considered to be a part of the militia. No reinterpretation required by anyone with half a brain cell. California on the other hand has their head so far up their ass that they need a lesson in the meaning of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
@Gallchobhair, mostly because militia is/was a civilian force
@Cloverleaf, you're actually stupid and a prime example of why Trump is gonna win.
@Cloverleaf, the militia is anyone of age and ability to fight if needed. So pretty much every citizen. Any citizen can choose to not take up arms. Not everyone has to be in the militia but any person can be in the militia if they have the ability to be. Kind of like if you took up arms you were probably infantry but if you also had your own horse you could be cavalry. The well organized portion come into play that the militia will fallow lawful orders give to them by the side they are fighting on. Please don't mistake the militia for the military of today or the past. The militia has always been the civilian public.
@Butthurt Commenter, that was kind of harsh, but maybe you're playing up to your name?
@Cloverleaf, I’m sure most of the replies are explaining how you’re wrong... but I’ll GLADLY pileon.
Militias, as written by the authors meant ALL OF THE PEOPLE. EVERYONE OF ABLE BODY.
And, it didn’t specify which guns people could have and not have, BECAUSE ITS NOT A RESTRICTION ON THE PEOPLE.
Civilians had personal canons and warships.
The second amendment specifically restricted THE GOVERNMENT, TO NOT INFRINGE ON THE PEOPLE.
@Butthurt Commenter, better than some democrat thats gonna take away all of our rights as citizens, then oppress us like other nations.
@Gallchobhair, The second amendment is great, too bad most Democrats (all probably) are fighting against it even though they dont know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. Its sad
@owanobi, my comment was in favor of trump. I was saying the other side was idiots. But now I see both sides are idiots because of people like you.
@owanobi, my personal favorite is when they say “ i would ban all fully-semi automatic rifles”. I don’t know how they would ban that but i still say no
@Gallchobhair, how many shootings
@eleven, would you clarify?
@Butthurt Commenter, easy big fella, we are all friends here. Just walk it off my guy. Trump 2020
@Gallchobhair, Hey I live in California! You're right, we're a one party state where Ћ left controls everything, a few big cities control Ћ entire vote for a state with more electoral points than New York & Texas combined, a bill can be passed into law in less then a week, & you can mix ANY toxic industrial waste product with flouride so it can be 'labled' as flouride & dumped into Ћ tap water supply that we bathe/shower in. If New California happens though, things might change…
@Chula Charlie, I live in California. Because of what happened today, serious 2A infringement, I honestly want the whole place to burn
@Gallchobhair, except at the time the revolutionary war was occurring , the definition of militia was ‘able bodied men who defended their town’. When the constitution was ratified, militias were a state based institution.
It wasn’t until DC vs Heller in 2008 that the Supreme Court actually ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to all citizens and not state militias. Up to that point it was up to the individual states to each define a militia and what that meant for citizens.
As such, before you flame me about ‘well I’ve always been able to get guns even before 2008!’ That’s likely cause your state had a law that defined any citizen would be considered a part of its militia by bearing arms, or defined hunting as part of the duties of being a part of a militia, etc
@Gallchobhair, how many shootings does it take to admit that taking the second amendment literally is braindead stupid and that harsher laws are vital these are dangerous weapons yet America hands them out like hotcakes why do you need a license to fish yet pass a rather ineffective background test that only tests you not everyone you live with not your psychological profile and before anyone says there’s no point in implementing gun laws because of the black market the point of gun control is to make it as difficult as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on military grade hardware a gun that costs a hundred bucks could easily cost a thousand on unregulated waters
@Cloverleaf, if you read the second amendment it says “the right of the people” not militia. The amendment didn’t need clarification about who could bear arms. “ the people” would maintain the militia for a free state. The founding fathers knew that the citizenry needied firearms to protect themselves. That’s why it says, in no uncertain terms, “ shall not be infringed “ and that’s why gun control measures are unconstitutional
@eleven, first, if someone is going to break the law and use a gun, a gun control law isn’t going to stop them. No such thing as a law abiding criminal. All gun control laws do are disarm law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. Case in point, most shootings happen in gun free zones or states with strict gun control laws. A couple months ago in Texas someone tried to shoot up a church. Who stopped him. A good guy with a gun. Second, the term military grade gets used a lot and i can tell you right now. It doesn’t mean what you think. Third, background checks aren’t ineffective, they fail when people fail. Fourth, every time there is a shooting people scream about getting rid of the gun. It’s not about the gun, an inanimate object. Given the right location, say the Boston marathon, someone could take out way more people with their car by driving over people. Lastly, look up how many times guns are used defensively versus mass shootings
@Gallchobhair, and you failed to listen to me you didn’t read past the first statement did you the point of gun control laws isn’t to stop them outright (I and anyone with half a brain fully acknowledge that is impossible) the point is to make it as difficult as possible not everyone has full access to the black market as well as the funds to pay the scalping prices black market sellers get to charge at and not mention who said anything about disarming people what I suggested were more thorough background checks that include you and anyone who might have access to said weapon to make sure that none of you are going to snap one day and massacre a mcdonalds or school and if anyone fits the psychological profile for this kind of person which yeah very very few are going to fit they should have their guns taken away or at least monitored to prevent further tragedy the rest can keep them and go about their business this is about safety not an all out ban on guns
@eleven, i read the whole thing. Background checks are in place. The problem is that you can’t psychologically profile everyone effectively without stepping on their rights. Depending on the doctor you talk to I shouldn’t own a firearm, and I’m related to that doctor. Other doctors who have read my profile and talked to me say I’m fine and they don’t understand how I was flagged. Additionally somebody can go from perfectly normal to unhinged in the span of a single day. The more serious cases are flagged, are denied firearms, and when they do get a gun it’s either illegally obtained, untraceable such as a family firearm, or a human error that slipped through. I’m all for safety, but that cannot be done by limiting exposure to firearms. It requires training and proper handling from an experienced professional. Cops used to teach kids gun safety in schools and there were far less shootings.
@eleven, “why do you need a license to fish”? Is a great question. Has literally nothing at all to do with 2nd amendment. It is a way for the government to extract money from the people. It is getting government permission to go fishing.
Our constitution, the most amazing thing ever written, RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT, not the people. It literally says “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. This is not a convoluted statement. Notice how it doesn’t mention hunting, or any specific type of gun? It’s not permission to buy guns! It is a restriction on the government. Period.
@Gallchobhair, this place burns all Ћ time! We don't manage our forests to remove dead trees & other flammible plant matter. Ћ entire state is a tinderbox!
@Gallchobhair, has Needles successfully implemented their 2nd amendment sanctuary city policy yet? If they have, maybe look at housing prices there, & whether Ћ climate is something you could tolerate.
@big freedom, oh hello again so much fun stomping you to answer the question of the fishing license is that you need a license to hold a rod with a tiny pokey thing at the end incapable of causing significant damage to anyone but the buttons whose only function is to kill requires no license to own or operate yet you think that sounds fine because freedom here’s a newsflash in case you didn’t get the memo you have one life to live so does everyone else families should not have to worry sending their children off to school only for them to shot dead for no reason by some lunatic we’ve allowed access to a button that only kills yet you screech 2nd amendment 2nd amendment that’s the only argument you have I’ll tread on whatever I please and I will not feel bad about it so long as I get to live
@Gallchobhair, yeah teaching gun safety is a brilliant idea and should be a part of things as well as for the profiling I’d still prefer someone who has sudden violent tendencies not have firearms
@eleven, you might want to look up how often guns are used to stop crime and compre them to the crimes committed with guns. And the second amendment’s primary purpose is to ensure you are defended from an overbearing government. If you allow them to stomp on one right you open the gates to them stomping on all rights, which makes you little more than a slave. If you honestly fear guns, no insult intended here, maybe take a course on proper use, handling, and firing and learn how to use them to help you( under the assumption you don’t/haven’t)
@Chula Charlie, I’m unsure. I’ve honestly been too pissed by the state to look up county laws. But i will now, thsnk you for that. The BS I encountered was learning that I cannot go to a range and rent a firearm if I go alone.
@eleven, nah bro, I have a thousand arguments for gun rights. The simplest is 2A. I know it’s hard for you to understand. You want a nanny state government that tells you what you can and cannot have.
I do have one life to live. I’ll choose to protect it. With. My. Guns.
@eleven, how do you determine “sudden violent tendencies” and who does or does not get to keep fundamental ability to defend themselves?
I bet you’re also for silencing “hate speech” as well aren’t you?
Keep expecting government to make your decisions for you.
@big freedom, no say whatever the fvck you want anyone whining about hate speech needs to grow thicker fvckin skin and you have other arguments never heard any of em and nanny govt I’m sorry wanting to restrict dangerous objects so people don’t have to be terrified about their next concert or shopping trip makes me desire 1984 you seem to have this picture of me as a whining leftist crybaby no I offered solutions that meet with middle grounds but no it’s all either all your way or all no guns so my impression of you being an unbearable man unwilling to compromise is one hundred percent correct
@eleven, dude. First of all... punctuation makes your argument (a bit) easier to follow.
And no, I reflexively and wholeheartedly reject ALL gun control measures.
The whackadoodles have finally come out loud and said it “hell yes we’re coming for your guns”.
We have THOUSANDS of gun regulations already. Literally. Thousands.
New gun laws will not stop mass shootings. Unless you are willing to remove all guns (except the police of course...) which will NEVER happen in the US, we will have had people do bad things.
We had more guns/person 30-40-50 years ago and had LESS shootings.
Guns are not the problem.
People that think their slights and perceived injuries are worth hurting others.
The media plastering the manifesto, or talking about stupid angry cowards on the air and making them famous. Eliminate those, and you’ll ACTUALLY save lives.
I, unlike you, actually want to solve the problem. More gun laws do not, and will not, prevent shootings.
@eleven, just to clarify something. The background checks that a currently in effect are the same ones that are used by the ATF for NFA checks, police background checks, DOT, DOD, FAA. Ect. The biggest issue with people who should fail but don't is state and federal agencies not properly reporting infractions to the registry. So instead of trying to put in place universal background checks, not sure what that means being if done right the current system is just that, why not expect the government to fix what's already implemented? I have a CDL, Pilots license, NFA items, CCP, and a security clearance for the Marines. The only one that's different is the clearance. To try to make that a universal BC would probably bankrupt the government in just the man power involved. In reality they were more concerned with a credit/ caracter check than background because the DOD already did that when I first joined.