Georgia Republicans eviscerated the Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Martin248, Apr 1, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin248

    Martin248 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Seattle
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

    The whole idea of the Second Amendment is that the people themselves form a well regulated militia that ensures the security of a free state. Not only are the people armed for their own self defense but also for the security of their community.

    Fundamental to this idea is that the State simply does not have a monopoly on the use of force. Not only do citizens have a right to bear arms, but the police have no more right to use deadly force than any other person--the standard is the same--and any member of the public, that well regulated militia, can act to stop crime when they see it.

    Until now.

    Georgia's Republicans are eviscerating a fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment:

    https://www.news4jax.com/news/georgia/2021/03/09/house-unanimously-passes-overhaul-of-georgia-citizens-arrest-law/

    Under the bill, people who are mere bystanders or witnesses generally would not have the right to detain people. Deadly force couldn’t be used to detain someone unless it’s in self-protection, protecting a home, or preventing a forcible felony.

    See something? Don't you dare do anything about it. Call the AUTHORITIES, Georgia has no interest in being a free state.
     
  2. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,389
    I don't know that I agree with your characterization. It's not hard to see a distinction between defending yourself/your people/your property/your neighbor from a present threat, and detention of a person who is no longer a threat because of a past act.

    In general, you may make any proportionate (and that varies) defense of yourself, because time is of the essence to avoid harm. If the threat of harm is past, what follows is no longer defense, but starts to look more like a judicial act.

    If those two idiots in Georgia had chased me up the street and brandished weapons as it sounds like they did, it's likely that a gunfight would have ensured, because I would have felt threatened and needed to defend myself from them. It's a good example of why we DON'T try to detain people fleeing.
     
    bdickens and LoonWulf like this.
  3. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    13,101
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    bdickens likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice