(07-07-2022 03:09 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The intent was to to have a well equipped militia.

Seems like the bolded is controversial. Going back to Lad's point about the rocket launchers... if the point was a well-equipped militia then they would seemingly have been positively in favor of rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons, etc.

I think they would have been in 1780.... or 1850. The creation of a standing military to protect us from international army invaders reduced/eliminated the need to repel and army... and if one DOES invade, we have a draft to bring all those people proficient with a semi-auto weapon and give them the fully-auto weapon they need... so 'cutting edge' weaponry is no longer necessary in the home... but someone who knows what to do with it still is.

That's the thing about it... and there were plenty of movies about this back in the 1980s... and we've certainly seen it in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Croatia and now Ukraine... where a person with civilian weapons defending their home is able to repel an army that is significantly better equipped... but a person with NO weapons does not have that chance.

So that's one purpose of the 2nd. Other purposes involve home protection from animals or criminals, or the ability to acquire food. Rocket launchers aren't good for that. Another would be as clarified in the Preamble to the BOR... which states:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Pretty clearly, there was concern even back in 1790 that the Federal government could become too abusive and and intrusive, and that arms might be needed to combat this.... otherwise, 'arms' wouldn't have been part of the list of things that were specifically designed to 'extend public confidence'.

So yes, you (at least as a state) are expected to be able to resist your own, abusive government.... using arms if necessary... and the National Guard (which is really more like 'the state guard') certainly has those sort of rocket propelled or automatic weapons if necessary.... but again, they might need people (beyond state officials) who know how to handle a gun, who don't work for the federal government to come operate them in very short order.

(07-07-2022 05:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a weird one. Accountability of public officials is incredibly important, and this feels like a step in the wrong direction.

Quote: People will no longer be allowed to take close-range recordings of Arizona police under a new bill signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday.

House Bill 2319, sponsored by Rep. John Kavanagh, makes it illegal for anyone within 8 feet of law enforcement activity to record police. Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway.

Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions.

It goes into effect on Sept. 24.

Kavanagh wrote in an op-ed said HB 2319 was meant to protect officers from potential harm or distraction outside of the incident they were already involved in. He initially introduced the bill with a 15-foot restriction that was later amended down to address concerns it would be unconstitutional.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/pol..._azcentral

I don't have a problem with this and it makes sense to me

If you're involved in the action, you can record at any distance

If you're not involved in the action and want to record, you can... but you must remain 8 feet away.... unless that isn't practical (confined space). That keeps the police from being distracted from their jobs and/or facing concerns for their safety (and responding accordingly, which isn't good)

I understand the concern at a glance, but police being put under additional pressure, NOT from being recorded, but from 'bystanders' trying to literally insert themselves into the police action, potentially even TRYING to provoke them is something NOBODY in society should want. It reminds me of the photographer who literally punched Bernie Madoff in the chest so that he could get an 'angry face' picture of him... and that was probably 40 years ago. I've certainly seen plenty of videos where I thought the cops were being interfered with by people with cell phones and worried about the reactions.

I think a deeper dive into the reality of these situations may give you a different perspective.

I think the 15 to 8 was because 15 feet is too far for the scrutiny you/we all seek and/or not a reasonable limit... i.e. people could easily be 12 feet or 14 feet and think they are 15.... and thus unreasonable. Staying 8 feet away from an armed police conflict doesn't seem unreasonable to me.... since I think most people know what about 6 feet looks like... It's the width of your arms reach... so a little more than that.