A phrase I would never have expected to encounter anywhere.
One might fairly say that Malcolm X was less compromising on civil liberties than was Martin Luther King. Which one accomplished more?
And what do civil liberties have to do with the Second Amendment, anyway?
I agree with DrDeth. We make little compromises all the time. As a law former enforcement officer, you should be well-acquainted with the fact that the right to be secure in our persons and our possessions isn’t a matter that hasn’t been encroached in various ways in the interests of balancing liberties with safety or common sense.
is the right to keep and bear arms not a civil liberty?
Maybe I don’t get your question.
There is, as you may be aware, considerable debate about that point.
Even if it is one, do you see any other rights held by others that may come into conflict with it? How do you think those conflicts should be resolved?
It is, and we accept many small compromises on most of our Civil rights.
But again, this is a hijack and has nothing to do with Pro-gun democrats.
What is a law former enforcement officer?
If you are suggesting I am a former LEO, you are wrong. I went back on the job with another agency after I retired. Just couldn’t stay away.
Let’s take a look at a current issue.
For decades the BATFE insisted that bump stocks and assorted external trigger accessories were perfectly legal to possess and use.
Then by Presidential decree the government announced those items were not legal. No Vote, just an order by Trump. Then hundreds of thousands of citizens were forced to surrender their property or become federal felons.
No act of Congress.
No due process.
No compensation for seized property.
Substitute bump stock for any other item regulated by the government and you should see the tyranny in this.
Due process and just compensation for seized assets are civil rights. The “extremist” GOA fought for these civil rights while the NRA betrayed it’s members and went along with having lawfully obtained property confiscated with no due process or compensation.
The GOA is a tough grader but it’s ratings of Pols are an accurate reflection of their overall stances and actions regarding gun rights.
Thank you for the update. Since you oppose the compromise of civil liberties, shall I take it that you perform your duties in a manner that maximizes deference to the privacy and liberty of individuals you are investigating, even if courts have ruled that such deference isn’t owed?
Still looking for a definition of those terms. However, the difficulty in finding “pro-gun Democrats” may illustrate a fundamentally different worldview that plays itself out in party affiliation - one party that sees society as a collection of isolated individuals who happen to be close to each other, each claiming and guarding what it sees as its rights and to hell with the rest of 'em, and one party that has a broader view that sees the inevitable interactions between people as of fundamental importance, and requiring that the actual society that results as being a good thing. A single-minded absorption in gun ownership, to the depreciation of all else, is consistent with only one of those worldviews, and generally with party affiliation.
I have never been charged with violating anyone’s civil rights.
Neither have any of the people pushing for gun control.
I beg to differ. They are actively trying to deny citizens their civil right to keep and bear arms. And they are not attempting this in the lawful manner of amending the Constitution but by court orders, Presidential decrees, and unconstitutional legislation.
That was not the question. Nobody has been up for penalties for violating someone’s civil rights by legally conducting a background check on a gun buyer, but you still think that’s what’s happening.
The question is whether you give more deference to the civil liberties of the people you interview or investigate than is required by law – so as not to be the one compromising anyone else’s civil rights, even if it is legally allowable. (Just like how background checks etc. are legally allowable, but you seem to view as compromising to civil rights.)
Of course
So for example, you will not exercise a Terry stop and frisk?
Detaining someone who has or is about to commit a crime is not unreasonable. The 4th Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches.
But nowhere in the entire constitution does the President have authority to make law without Congress, nor does the government have the authority to confiscate lawfully obtained property without due process or just compensation.
Nowhere does the Constitution give any government body authority to prohibit ownership of militia weapons. Background checks are prohibited by the 5th and 9th Amendments.
Sounds like you’re fine with a compromise on the balance of liberty and security. As long as it isn’t about guns. Pew pew pew!