is it true if you don't use it, you lose it?

> We respect that Second Amendment right, but those rights don’t count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct, and impede law enforcement officers — and most especially when you mean to do that beforehand.

Absurd. None of those things happened. Not to mention the accusation of a thought crime. (Once again, without evidence. Bovino just claims he "meant to do that beforehand".)

They just make up shit now, without even the pretense of evidence.

I’ll support any opposition candidate/leader that promises Nuremberg 2.0 for these treasonous assholes.

I was once pulled over by a police officer when I was a teenager. I was let off with a warning, but he was sure to give me a little speech that culminated with "driving is a privilege in this country - not a right".

Only later did it dawn on me how messed up his speech was - we do not have any rights except those which law enforcement allow us to have.

I absolutely believe in the necessity of police and respect officers who do the job. But there's a reason they must always be bound and subservient to civilian oversight and the court system.

These are positions of power. They are inherently going to attract the worst kinds of people and carve out special privileges for themselves. People who think order and authority and respect are more important than nerdy, pedantic laws.

So this will sound inflammatory to some, but please consider this as an analysis of the current situation and absolutely not an advocation of a course of action.

How many of you would see a group of masked ICE/Federal enforcement bearing down on a single individual on the ground and believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent?

That is the standard for justifiable homicide.

I think if somone had have killed those ICE/Feds at that moment, the law as ut is written would be on their side.

The reality is, of course, that the law as it is written is nothing if it is not upheld. It is not currently being upheld, the law in practice is what people have the power to do. That law is rudderless and flows as power shifts.

In lieu of any other anchor, people will inevitably seek the power to enforce their laws. That is a civil war,

Creating this thin but clear line between where illegal use of violence is upheld and inviting legal use of violence is perilously close to instigating such a civil war.

And I am not certain that it is unintentional.

Does this overview of the "origins of the 2nd amendment" sound legitimate?

//The Second Amendment arose from English rights, colonial experiences with oppressive British rule, and fears of a powerful federal government, codifying the right to bear arms for a "well regulated Militia" to ensure self-defense and resistance against tyranny, balancing state militias with potential federal power. It drew from the English Bill of Rights (1689) and was championed by Anti-Federalists concerned about disarming citizens, leading to its inclusion in the Bill of Rights to reassure states and individuals.//

Is there any constitutional principle more fiercely supported by U.S. Republicans than the 2nd ammendment?

The U.S. was founded on opportunistic immigration. Was there ever a question about the legitimacy of immigration to the founding of the U.S.? No. Only battles over who gets to police it.

So it is merely a narrow, self-serving concern of consolidated authority of this Republican administration that is on display with ICE. Racism.