Does the 2nd amendment support bringing a gun to work and aiming at your colleague?

My question is does he get to carry his gun on his person when interviewing Trump in person?

It is never responsible to point anything gun shaped at anything you don’t want to see a new hole in.

The Second Amendment supports the right to keep and bear arms (and by implication, whatever is necessary to maintain those rights and keep them meaningful). That’s all. And no, this is not responsible behavior by a gun owner. Even in a world where the Second Amendment is so politicized, I expect that all but the most partisan gun owners would agree.

The hell with Fox News.

Of course it does. What’s the point of having a gun if you can’t have some fun with it?

Pointing a gun loaded or unloaded at someone constitutes assault.

“It is a crime to threaten someone with physical harm if you seem to have the means and intent to cause the threatened harm. That crime is called assault.”

“Assault is generally defined as a threat that puts someone in fear of imminent harm, although state statutes do vary and assault is a particularly confusing crime because the term is sometimes used to refer to the related crime of battery as well. Pointing a gun at a person is likely to threaten their sense of safety and can certainly give the impression of intent to harm, so people are charged with assault for it.”

Don’t think the guy felt threatened however but still not a good idea in my book loaded or unloaded. There are better ways of displaying the capabilities. Lets just say poor judgement.

awf course it’s faahn. faahn.
ya ahr all jus’ a bunch awf special snowflakes, ta git all mad jus’ because some true american points his god given equalizer at ya

I don’t like guns much.
I guess I’m lucky to live in a place where people don’t carry them around.
I’m glad I didn’t have one around when I was angry at my ex or the time I got depressed and drunk about it.
Guns are too dangerous in my opinion and of course should not be brought to work or pointed at anyone.
Thanks.

Be useless bringing a gun if you work in a casino, not if you’re a crap shooter hahahahahaha <hiccup>

Hannity, a well-known supporter of President Donald Trump is blaming CNN for the incident…On Twitter he says “CNN fake news lies. Juan is one of my best friends. Love u my friend”.

LOL. Probably not, but if Juan Williams would have put one through the center of Hannity’s chest, then that would have probably been legal self defense. Man, I would pay to watch that go down. You could build a show around it. Suit Twinks Behaving Badly tonight on Pay Per View.

What a jackass, this is not something responsible gun owners do.

@Espiritus_Corvus Suit Twinks Behaving Badly tonight on Pay Per View. Hilarious! I am all on board for a cage match between Hannity and Maddow…and my money is on Maddow who would Cat Scratch his lame snowflake sorry ass to pieces.

@Lightlyseared What’s the point of having a gun if you can’t have some fun with it?

Isn’t that what President Trump seems to think about nuclear weapons?

No, that is not the way it works. And you NEVER point a gun at ANYTHING you don’t intend to shoot. To do so is a violation of the rules of gunplay and of proper, safe gun handling. (Also, you always treat a gun as if it’s loaded. It is not a toy. Keep it pointed in a safe direction AT ALL TIMES!)

@Strauss well exactly… and he has a point. It’s good job he got elected otherwise we would never see what those things can do.

Yes, but only if the following conditions are true:
1. Sean Hannity is a memeber of a well regulated militia
2. His commanding officer gave a lawful order to do do so.

Otherwise, no. The 2nd amendment applies to well regulated militias.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

@gorillapaws There is no sensible way of reading the Second Amendment such that it applies to well regulated militias. The clauses just aren’t in the right place to make “well regulated militia” fulfill either the semantic role or the grammatical function of a subject in the sentence. The most that can be argued is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms protected by the amendment is limited to their use in the context of a well regulated militia (although the Supreme Court disagrees with even that interpretation).

@JeSuisRickSpringfield See this.

Also, In DC v. Heller, the decision was 5/4. It was a terrible decision that contradicted hundreds of years of precedent by “activist” conservative justices. Justice Steven’s dissent is worth reading in full.

Here is a particularly relevant excerpt:

“The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.” In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.6 While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers.”

How do you get around “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infriged” “Well regulated militia” did not mean regulated by government or even by the states it meant regulated by citizens. That’s not the national guard btw.

And that is my fear at this point. A standing army, three former generals in the administration and a hot headed, short tempered, impulse prone person of questionable sanity as Commander-in-Chief.

@ARE_you_kidding_me The phrase “well regulated miliita” doesn’t exist in a vaccum. That exact language was used in other documents at the time of the founding. It actually applied to the slave militias in the south. See the first link. Do you have a source that supports your claim that the phrase meant regulated by the citizens?

I think there are 2 reasonable readings:
1. Is supported by the first link I posted. That the southern states relied on slave militias to round up escaped slaves in order to preserve and maintain Slavery. They had a fear that the government would try to disarm these militias at some time in the future as a loophole meant to defeat slavery by making it impossible to enforce. In this interpretation, the 2nd amendment is seen as a compromise to appease slaveholding states’ concerns.

2. The amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias (roughly equivalent to the National Guard) such that states had enough force to resist a hypothetical overtaking of the government by a tyrannical force at the federal level. Remember there was a large suspicion at the time of centralized, federal power.

At no point is it reasonable to assume that “well regulated militia” means Bob, Sam, and Roy can get together and call themselves a militia of the citizens. That’s an example of a “poorly regulated militia.”

Furthermore, even if both interpretations are wrong (and they’re not wrong), the right isn’t an unlimited right. We don’t have the right to keep and bear Nukes for example. The amount of firepower a single person can wield now is likely beyond the comprehension of the founders. You couldn’t grab a couple of handguns and massacre dozens of people in less than 2 minutes back then. It’s perfectly reasonable to put statutory limits on guns even if I’m wrong about the “well regulated miliitia” phrasing (I’m not). We have the freedom of speech, but you can still go to jail if you use your speech to commit fraud and trick people out of their money, or use your speech to share government secrets with a foreign power, or yell “fire” in a theater and cause a stampede that hurts people, or use your language to sexually harass other people, or threaten violence against others… You get the idea.

^^^ “At no point is it reasonable to assume that “well regulated militia” means Bob, Sam, and Roy can get together and call themselves a militia of the citizens. That’s an example of a “poorly regulated militia.”” sometimes we call it a “gang” or a “posse”

@rojo, not to be confused with the POSSE COMMITATUS

While I don’t disagree that a mob is not what was intended “well regulated” using the vernacular of the time simply meant “in good working order or precise” This did not mean imposing regulation as it would contradict the first phrase. What I have read indicates that the intention was to make sure the populace had access to what was comparable to what an infantryman would be armed with. Today that would roughly equate to an AR-15 or something like it.
Nobody expects to have the right to have nukes a bazooka, hand grenades… give me a break.
The well regulated thing strikes a nerve with me because our gun laws suck. I’m actually not against reasonable regulation in the modern sense of the word. I think the states need to have a tiered permitting process that includes different levels of training that would not only establish benchmarks for safety and education but serve to be“well regulated” as in people know what the fuck they are doing. Right now getting a simple handgun permit is a joke, it’s essentially a background check and a few hours at the range. I take flak from my hard line conservative peeps for that but I believe this was the intent and not a free for all as you describe as well. As to who is supposed to raise and ultimately ensure the militias are up to par was likely left open ended for a reason.

@gorillapaws The phrase “well regulated miliita” doesn’t exist in a vaccum.

Here is a link to The Federalist Papers: No. 29, which discusses contemporaneous issues about militia and a standing army.

Complete Federalist Papers pdf.