Again, probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. Do you even understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable, articulable suspicion"(RAS)? Further more, some random person making unsubstantiated claims to a law enforcement officer doesn't come close to RAS, nor probable cause. That is call hearsay, gossip, and a waste of time. If a law enforcement officer uses that to initiate a detention, it's called a "violation of right under color of law", among other serious offenses.
Probable cause is still required to initiate a traffic stop. No matter what is claimed today, "reasonable-articulable suspicion"(RAS) requires an officer personally observe acts or other behavior to initiate a "Terry Stop". RAS doesn't allow for general traffic stops; probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. At best, if a call is received an law enforcement find the vehicle which was alleged to have committed some claimed "wrong", the law enforcement would need to follow and observe the driver, witness a violation, and initiate a traffic stop.
In many states, traffic violations aren't enforceable by non-law enforcement. That is the case in the State of Georgia. That means that a citizen's arrest can't be effected in such instances. A law enforcement officer must observe a violation in order to issue a ticket, or effect an arrest. Though, instances like vehicular manslaughter, such restrictions aren't as heavy, as there is a mixing of traffic law and laws governing crimes against others(malum in se).
If the US Supreme Court actually expects everyone to believe the claim that precedent matter(stare decisis; though the US Supreme Court's exist precedent on quite a few issues ranges from suspect to an outright violation of individual rights.), then how does the Court reason this recent decision against decisions like J.L. v Florida? In fact, how does it rationalize tolerance of law enforcement insert itself in an individual's(or multiple individual's) private affairs, based on the claims of an anonymous source?
I myself am an ex-law enforcement officer, which I have discussed lightly in prior topics. One of the major discussions during more than a few training sessions and private discussions was the taboo of allow law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop(or any similar "detention") based off of an anonymous call to 911. One of many points of contention discussed was a law enforcement officer which was potentially looking for a reason to initiate a detention using a "burner" cellular phone, or one that isn't attached to a service provider, getting a "be on the lookout"(BOLO; a general notification, either over a general radio frequency or posted on a computer-aided dispatch system, concerning a potential issue or possible "criminal activity") notice issued(very easy and far too often a good portion of a given day's radio chatter), and using that as the basis for initiating a stop/detention.
I abhor this decision. Unless there is a verified witness, whom will swear to events he or she claims occurred, then a "BOLO" should, at best, continue to be a tool to alert officers to be vigilant of a potential problem or criminal activity. Though, the onus should continue to be on law enforcement to find probable cause(with more restrictions than exists today, given the far too lax and unconstitutional reasoning created by court fiat), based off of personal or verified third-party(sworn witness('s)) observations and statements, or other legitimate clues.
Is there plain text in the Constitution that prohibits all imprisonment? I don't know anywhere that it says so. The 13th Amendment even explicitly specifies that involuntary servitude is okay for crime punishment.
The plain text of the Second Amendment gives ALL PEOPLE (not only citizens, not only Americans, not only the law abiding) the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS (not only the ones available when the Amendment was adopted, not only personal arms) at all times in all places with no exceptions. I say that because it does not give any exceptions.
Of course, to say that I have a constitutional right to take a nuclear bomb into a federal courthouse is facially preposterous -- nobody believes the Amendment means that -- which means nobody is actually a 'textualist' in the strict sense because that would be preposterous. Textualists are people who think we should focus much more on the plain text, and do much less interpretation, but even the ones who pretend to be hard-liners really aren't, because none of them will make the claim that convicted homicidal maniacs have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs.
Therefore the plain text cannot be used for interpretation. We MUST apply human reason to it. People who say otherwise are, in my opinion, nutters.
I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous argument, not stating a fact. Perhaps you would do well with learning to argue, prior to attempting to argue. While that might sound condescending, I can assure you it isn't.
Give the liberals some credit. The reason the 2nd Amendment is difficult to interpret literally is because the literal reading is absurd. The plain text clearly gives every convicted death row inmate the right to take hydrogen bombs into their high-security prison cells -- because what else does "shall not be infringed" mean?. So, since we can't possibly look to the text to figure out its limits, we pretty much have to find the limits by applying reason -- and reasonable people sometimes disagree.
If your claim were true, then imprisonment would be unconstitutional, across the board. Though, we know that isn't true. People need to stop attempting to apply small portions of an issue to support their argument and start applying the whole issue during a discussion. At the very least, your argument might hold more legitimacy.
Firstly, no one has the right to question me on my "need" for a select-firearm/full automatic firearm. We don't question people on their need for an automatic transmission in their motor vehicle. A fully automatic firearm doesn't mean that said firearm operates in "god mode"(unlimited ammunition), so the positives gains from a full automatic firearm are not that great. Though, it isn't within society's scope of authority to question my "need", or even question why I want anything.
Secondly, a semi-automatic firearm can provide close to or the same rate of fire as a full automatic firearm(through "bump-firing", or other, "non-permanent" alterations). Still, though, one is required to reload the firearm in question. So, how exactly are "full automatic" firearms "more deadly" than semi-automatic firearms? I guess it is the same logic that is used to claim that silencers/suppressors make firearms "more deadly", when it's just as untrue. Though, I have learned(sadly) that in this instance, the anti-firearm crowd rarely, if not never, uses facts and truth to argue their points(I would rather have an honorable, and honest debate, rather than petty politically arguments which are totally unrelated).
Lastly, "full automatic" firearms are one of many types of arms that the Second Amendment covers. After all, the militia needs to be capable of fighting a war, if the need arises, and most, if not all, militaries utilize full automatic firearm, through select-fire mechanisms(safe, semi, and full auto fire options; though, not always).
What about nitrogen asphyxiation? You don't get most of the normal cues that would tell your intended targets to flee(the explosion, damage to property, and other signs), thereby potentially netting a larger kill amount, and making the job of identifying cause of death extremely difficult.
You're wrong. See the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, McDonald v Chicago, and a number of other case law for why you're wrong.
Militias have historically been focused on the male population, for obvious reasons. If human females were the naturally stronger(physically-speaking) sex, then it would have been females that were historically a part of a region's militia. There wasn't some grand conspiracy to "disenfranchise" females, or any other group.
It is high time that people drop the sexism claims, just like so many other discrimination claims. Most people don't want equal treatment, they want their version of "equal treatment", in which there exists legislative inequalities, and not just some societal inequalities.
So, you are arguing against a legal, and wholly legitimate act(self-defense), by bringing up a wholly illegal act(stealing; theft is, after all, malum in se and not malum prohibitum, like the numerous firearm and drug laws) and twisting it make your argument seem to make sense. To be clear, you have only shown yourself to be a fool. The commission of a theft isn't lessened if the perpetrator receives a benefit that far outweighs the loss to the victim. While it might make a "heartwarming story" to a number of idiots in the world today, it is still a criminal act.
If self-defense if never acceptable, then taking a life in the course of "official duties" is also never acceptable, or right. Therefore, all those within the various law enforcement and military institutions all over the world should be severely punished. Oh, wait, "taking a life is never acceptable"(so, no punishment for the aforementioned groups), correct? Yeah, your argument makes sense.
I am willing to assume that you couldn't tell me what the term "well regulated" means, within the context of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. To be nice, here is a hugely important hint: It doesn't mean "well controlled(in the legal sense, through legislative decisions), or heavily restricted".
Remember EVERYTHING the British did to the colonialists was 'legal'. The point of the Second Amendment is for those times when what is legal (or what is illegal) is WRONG!!!!!
What nonsense. The Constitution does not legitimize sedition.
The US Constitution, and a number of the amendments provides the means(by protecting certain rights, such as those that seem to always end up being attack by tyrannical elements) for the people of the United States to engage in sedition, if necessary. The people don't need anything "legitimized", as we give our consent for those in authority to hold positions of authority. If those people abuse the authority given, then we("the people") will turn to the available political mechanisms to remove such abusers from office. If said abusers attempt to hold onto power, then we move onto more aggressive options.
Current printing technology provides one the ability to print a lot of documents "easily and are far easier to use". So, yeah, it is a fair comparison. In fact, "the press" can spread false information far faster than any group could kill, though none of that matters. "Want" and "need" is of no business, and isn't applicable, when discussing any individual rights. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of a "right", in the context discussed here.
How language was used at the time any amendment(or law, for that matter) is ratified is the only "use of language" that matters. One will see such discussions occur during legal challenges(if the judge or judges actually care to do their job as required by their oath, and not applying personal political interest in their work) over how a word was used during the time a law or amendment was written/ratified. The wording could be clearer, sure; though, the wording is clear enough to discover the intent when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. The only people that claim the meaning of the Second Amendment isn't clear are either ignorant of how to utilize research, or are attempting to argue against the protections of the already existing Right(the Second Amendment, like all other such amendments, provides no new right, or rights; it only protects a right, or rights, that have always existed.).
I am not going to delve into the meaning of the Second Amendment, or any other legal discussions. I am not here to educate people that won't bother to do a slightest bit of research. There is a lot of information available, almost all of it is available online. It would do everyone well to read the available information, as it affects us all.
Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun". There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency, and are literally days from a grocery store. Oh, but you felt it was intelligent to make a claim, with no facts(your "feelings" don't count) because it's the "cool" position to take.
I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.