Garrett Epps had a good piece on this several years ago (worth reading in full):
The history and meaning of the Second Amendment are a murky subject. A fair reading of the entire text of the Constitution suggests that the most prominent concern of the its framers was protecting states’ control of their militias. Under Article I § 8 of the Constitution, the states transferred to Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions” and “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.” This was one of the most radical features of the original Constitution; under the Articles of Confederation, states had complete control of their militias. Opponents of ratification suggested that the new federal government might proceed to disarm and dissolve the state militias and create instead a national standing army. The Second Amendment most clearly addresses that concern; and that has led a number of historians to suggest that the Amendment really has no relation to any personal right of individuals to “keep and bear arms.”
History is rarely that clear, however, and the notion of personal gun possession as a right is also deeply rooted in American history. UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, author of the forthcoming Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America , notes that since before the Amendment was proposed, many citizens have discussed the right to bear arms as a guarantee against tyranny as well as a feature of a federal system. Indeed, Winkler’s reading of the history finds more support for this anti-tyranny idea than for the Supreme Court’s current doctrine that the Second Amendment supports a right of personal self-defense. But the protection against tyranny was a long-term structural guarantee, not a privilege of individual nullification, he says. “I don’t think there’s any support for the idea that government officials should be afraid of being shot.”
KevinC
3074
WTF is the DOD even doing on a call like this to begin with?
Black Lives Matter is an organization created to respond to the phenomenon of police killing black men and women and getting away with it time and again. Given that, it doesn’t strike me as odd or off target that their focus is on the phenomenon of police killing black men and women and getting away with it, or that their goal is to prevent police from killing black men and women and getting away with it. I’m sure they are for anti-poverty measures, too, but I’m guessing they think that it would surely be easier to make cops stop killing black men and women, or prevent them from getting away with it, by using the law and law enforcement and criminal justice system to that direct effect, than it would be to embark on a broad anti poverty program with the hope that it might have some knock-on beneficial effect in a generation or so.
Welcome to DJT’s wild ride. You’ll love it, I promise.
Nesrie
3078
Clearer yes. Still dead wrong.
Fuck me, they’re all bad apples. Fire them all.
I almost got duped into posting this. If you read through comments and there are a shit ton.
It turns out that this is a year old video, the original poster never claimed that black man handcuffed was an FBI agent. That’s seem to be added on earlier. Even watching all three parts, I still have no idea what actually happened.
I think is pretty likely the cops were hassling the guy because he was young tall black guy and they were looking for a black suspect. The cops should have asked for ID, and the black man should have offered it, before the cuffs we on. He obviously wasn’t the guy they were looking for and may have been part of law enforcement. An example of both sides escalating instead of de-escalating.
Nesrie
3083
Why would that be duped? The entire problem IS that the problem is systematic and didn’t show up yesterday. And it is not that young black man’s job to prove he shouldn’t be treated like garbage. That’s victim blaming. Try spending two seconds being racial profiled and then being told you have to prove that shouldn’t be done… to you.
Black Lives don’t just matter during a protest… that’s the point. They always matter. Last year, the year before, to years ago… all of this is not okay.
Also of note from the thread above: the Louisville police chief recently announced he was retiring on July 1st. A nice gesture to fire him, but an empty one. The officers involved at a minimum should be suspended (and ideally fired and charged, but we know that’s not going to happen as a step 1).
Nesrie
3085
Does the police chief have the say on when the body cameras are even turned on? Are they suggesting he told them to keep them off or something?
I think it’s a “captain of the ship” kind of thing; ultimate responsibility falls on the shoulders of those who partake in the criminal actions—er, “creative policing,” but as both policy and consequences of deviation from it are at least influenced by the chief, some of it resides there as well.
I don’t know if that’s what they are suggesting, but as the chief he is the one who should be making sure his cops are following the proper protocol. If they are not, it is ultimately his responsibility for allowing it to happen. It’s also possible he was already on thin ice for unrelated issues.
Nesrie
3088
He’s still just one man though. I am under the impression that the cops have access/control to turn the cameras on and off at their leisure.
Here is what I am getting at, to be clear though. If there is a widespread problem, a bad policy or some sort of order was given by the police chief regarding those cameras, then sure removing him makes sense.
If two cops just decided they didn’t want any eyes on what they were doing that night… they’re bad cops. Removing the chief does little, and those two men need to go. I guess I just kind of feel like they need to dig deeper to get to the root cause and then clean house… like really clean it.
I agree. I’m concerned this will be part of a “big move” which is really just rearranging the furniture.
Totally agree, but I’m guessing Beshear agrees too.
I agree with you that probably a deeper cleaning needs to happen (and probably in city precincts across the country). I think getting rid of the leadership of the department provides an opportunity for the next chief to do a better job. The mayor is making it clear that this is unacceptable so the next chief will know if they want to keep their job they better make sure everyone is keeping their cameras on at all times.
ShivaX
3092
Yeah, I’m fine with canning the chief. As long as that’s not the end of it.
Nesrie
3093
Experience suggests that might be the end because, well they did something! Doesn’t matter if it was the right thing I guess.
