St. Louis Chief of Police Sam Dotson Says You Only BELIEVE You Have a 2nd Amendment Right!

“I understand the Second Amendment, and I understand everyone’s right, or their belief that they have a right to bear arms,” he says. “It doesn’t give them a right to use that weapon.” *

Apparently , according to this would-be tyrant, we only BELIEVE we have a right to keep and bear arms and we do NOT have a right to use them! Obviously, Chief of Police Sam-the-Nazi Dotson DOESN’T understand the Second Amendment at all! This is a VERY DANGEROUS man for St. Louisans!

chief-sam-dotson

A local television evening news program reported on March 25th, 2014, that Sam-the-Nazi-Dotson said, when referring to this year’s Soulard Mardi Gras celebrations, “Concealed carry permit holders should leave them at home!” This is a clear case of a tyrant arbitrarily passing an ordinance by decree. There is no law! In fact, the highest law of the land–the Constitution–confirms that you DO have the right. But according to this scum you have to do what the police say because the police say it.

THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE! Hate mail badly needed for St. Louis Police Chief Sam-the-Nazi-Dotson, who said that you only BELIEVE you have a right to keep and bear arms. He has a blog and a Twitter account which are linked on the official website of the St. Louis Police Dept: http://www.slmpd.org/

Please share so as many people as possible can tell this pig what we think about him. Don’t mince words–tell it exactly as it is. This man is truly an enemy of the very Constitution that he took an oath to protect and defend. We have to stand up to these people and call them out for what they are: oath breakers and traitors who should be tried for treason and sentenced when found guilty. Those who act like sheep will be ruled by wolves. How do you like being ruled by a police state!

* SOURCE: Riverfront Times – New St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson: “More Guns Is Never The Answer”

policestate

Follow SayNoToTyranny on Twitter.com

TheNewSurvivalist.com

Advertisements

128 Responses to “St. Louis Chief of Police Sam Dotson Says You Only BELIEVE You Have a 2nd Amendment Right!”


  1. 1 Greg Zotta February 27, 2014 at 1:22 am

    The Second Amendment states: “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.” There are many naïve people out there who have not a clue about the US Constitution and the people’s rights and St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson is one of them. What part of … “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” does he not understand? People have a God-given right to be able to defend themselves and their family. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or tradition; it is about the people being able to defend themselves from an overreaching tyrannical government. Where would this country be today if the Founders were not armed to fight the British? Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    • 2 B C February 28, 2014 at 7:42 am

      …what about the whole first half of the Amendment? Seems pretty clear to me that if you want to keep and bear arms, you need to be part of a WELL-REGULATED militia (i.e. the National Guard, in today’s terms). It always amuses and annoys me when that part is conveniently ignored. If you’re going to use the Constitution as a shield, use ALL of it, not just the parts you like.

      • 3 KB February 28, 2014 at 7:55 am

        Militia does not mean National guard. It is every able bodied citizen. Do some research before posting your propaganda.

      • 4 recondo February 28, 2014 at 7:58 am

        what do you not understand about a militia? the militia is the people. the national guard(s) are an arm of the national military.. funded by the federal government. well regulated means orderly, structured and disciplined as to not be a mob. the security of a free state; so no other state or states or federal force can subject one state to do its bidding. the right of the people to keep and bear arms; to ensure their is a militia,

        revisionist history doesn’t work on American Patriots, only progressive liberal sheep.

      • 5 Jay February 28, 2014 at 8:16 am

        The national guard is a part of the military, not a militia. The militia is raised on times of need by able bodied men (or women) to respond to threats. Now, read the second portion again. Does it say the right of the military? Does it say the right of the state? Does it say the right of the military? No, it says the right of the PEOPLE. It says that so the people maya be armed to defend themselves and their property and in times of need rise up and join the militia. Even the SCOTUS has stated the right to own a firearm is NOT dependent on service in a militia.

      • 6 Josh C. February 28, 2014 at 10:55 am

        Well regulated is as ” To be made Regular” . Drilled, disciplined, trained and in conformation. It refers to the ” Ready Militia” of the day, the frontline troops, the first tier of the Militia. The ” Minute Men”. If he were familiar with history, he would know that the Militia of the day were tiered, with a small, well trained, regularly drilled front line group, made up of mostly single and enthusiastic volunteers who were close to town, and ready to respond. The second tier was older, outlying people, farmers, woodsmen and veterans that could be called up and assembled in due time as reinforcements. The third tier was the population at large.

        A quote: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

        There was never any intention of placing any ” Requirements” on the people to qualify them for gun ownership, although there was much discussion of requiring gun ownership. This was abandoned as too much of a financial burden for the population at large, and most states in fact had a requirement for the State to provide arms for those Militia Volunteers who could not afford them.

        And although there was discussion of Drilling and making regular of the general population, it was thought to be too onerous and burdensome a requirement. Perhaps we should refer to one of the Authors of the Constitution itself on the subject; Alexander Hamilton, arguing for the ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers:
        “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
        No mention of requiring them to pass training or qualify for ownership.
        More;
        “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
        I could fill the page, but the point is obvious.

      • 7 ppuck64 February 28, 2014 at 10:57 am

        Hey, BC:

        “The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
        — “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
        — Tench Coxe, 1788.

        “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
        –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

        “Well-regulated” means well-trained, like the regulator on a wind-up pendulum clock keeps the machine performing in perfect time. If you’re going to use your propaganda to subvert the meaning of the Constitution, at least do some research. Moron.

      • 8 Tevis Tumulty February 28, 2014 at 11:49 am

        Wrong. A similar wording would be “a well informed society being necessary for a free republic, the right to freedom of speech and press shall not be infringed”. The founders were just putting in context of their time one reason why the right to bear arms should not be infringed.

      • 9 Dave February 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm

        BC, try not to think to hard. The national Guard is not a state militia. A militia doesn’t have to be sanctioned by the government nor is a militia a recognized army as there are only two sanctioned private armies in the world.

        Militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

        To be a member of a well regulated militia does not mean you have to be affiliated with the Department of Defense. Our constitution has been devised in a way that has fail safes to prevent to much power being held by one agency or organization. To think that you have to be a member of the military to defend your country as a well formed militia is contradictory.

        oh, and since you think that you have to be apart of the government to be in a militia, tell that to the boys prior to 1776. I bet they would love for you to travel back in time and tell them that they can not be a militia because they are not part of the government.. who happens at that time to be England… so…

      • 10 Walt February 28, 2014 at 4:17 pm

        Your thoughts are flawed. Women were not allowed into the militia. Yet they were allowed to own arms. The militia, and the RIGHT of the PEOPLE are 2 different things. You could be 65 and own arms. But not allowed in the militia because of your age.

      • 11 Theresa Smith February 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm

        Does NOT say you have to be a part of a militia to keep and bear arms. It says that a Well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nowhere does it say you have to be a part of the militia to keep and bear arms.

      • 12 Greg Zotta February 28, 2014 at 5:32 pm

        BC, did you notice the comma after state? Read the Federalist papers and you will learn the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable right i.e. God-given, Natural Right.

      • 13 survivalist February 28, 2014 at 6:24 pm

        No. “Well-Regulated” means “well-trained.” By state statute, the National Guard is the “organized militia.” The people are the “unorganized militia.” So the 2nd amendment is the same today as yesterday. But even more importantly, you have to look at the spirit in which it was written (the reason the founders gave in their other writings) and the reason was so the people would have a defense against tyranny in govt, which would include the police, national guard, etc. The 2nd amendment is one of the checks built into our system by very wise men who had a lot of experience with dealing with tyrannical governments.

      • 14 Wayne Moore February 28, 2014 at 8:44 pm

        The first part is a dependent clause. It describes the reason, not the requirement, for the exercise of the right. Without the second part, the first part is incomplete, and contains no verb; no action. You’ll notice that the second part says “the right –> OF THE PEOPLE <– to keep and bear arms" which indicates that it is a right that the people, not any militia, enjoy. Then comes the verb phrase: "Shall be infringed" with the verb modifier, "not." In other words, it is an imperative, meaning that the government is not allowed, under any circumstance, to infringe the right that each individual has. (Obviously, this does not apply to a person who has been stripped of the right by due process of law.) The second part can stand alone as a sentence, without the part about the militia.

      • 15 Steve Larson February 28, 2014 at 9:19 pm

        It may SEEM pretty clear, but it obviously is not. Maybe, in your infinite intelligence, you can explain to us what a dependent clause is. (HINT: It means the first part DEPENDS on the second, not the reverse as you seem to believe. Try this: A well informed electorate being necessary for educated voters, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Now, SHOW ME where I said a person needs to be a member of the electoral college in order to read. SHOW ME where I said they even need to vote. All this statement says is that IN ORDER TO HAVE THESE THINGS——-> The people’s right to keep and read books is sacrosanct. Same with the 2A that you seem to lose your grammatical abilities with, Mr. “pretty clear to me”.

      • 16 David Krutsinger February 28, 2014 at 9:24 pm

        The National Guard didn’t exist back then, the militia was ANY able bodied man between the ages of 15 and 50.

      • 17 Walt March 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Exactly, and even if you were 55, or a woman. You did not have to surrender your weapons.

      • 18 JWW February 28, 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Let’s see how to do this here: Well regulated-Trained, disciplined, and equipped;Militia – body of armed citizens; free State- the free people of a country. So here is the first part translated for your weak mind to comprehend: A well-trained,well-disciplined and well-equipped body of armed citizens, in order to preserve their civil liberties against tyranny or invasion.

        Militia, in this case, means a group of people, with sufficient arms and munitions, who are NOT associated with their government in any way.

        Your argument is now invalid.

      • 19 Joel Smith February 28, 2014 at 10:19 pm

        It amuses me when people think that only the Guard is the militia. The National Guard is what is called the organized militia. The unorganized militia is every male 17-45 capable of serving, including state militias. 2A also protects an individuals right to arms, as affirmed by the SCOTUS. So whether you are militia or not, you have the right to keep and bear arms.

        10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes:

        a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      • 20 Spencer February 28, 2014 at 10:30 pm

        Actually, the national guard is not the militia. They would have you think they are, but if a militia is to be maintained, for the protection of the people from tyrrany, it must be free from the orders of the government oppressor. The national guard was created in 1933 by fdr, another liberal, as a means to boost the active regulars if the need arose. Furthermore, if the national guard were todays militia, why do so many states have a separate militia that is both sanctioned by the state and most importantly, not under the control of the federal government. Let us move to the sherrifs now. They are not the police as one would also suppose. The trational role of the sherrif, in addition to keeping the peace is to also act as captain of his parish or county irregular militia. The irregular militia is made up of all men able and willing to bear arms in defence of their families, homes and communities. There is no age or physical restrictions on members of the militia as there is the national guard. So bc i suggest you get educated on the facts before you start with you nonsensical drivel.

      • 21 Eric Black March 1, 2014 at 2:09 am

        Hey scumbag you put your head in the sand and play stupid. Its shit heads like yourself that are the reason why our country is as weak and dumbed down as it is. Go be the naive pussy you are and keep your two cents to yourself

      • 22 Lonnie G Hopson March 1, 2014 at 9:33 am

        “regulated” means to be proficient in the use of the “arms,” it DOES NOT MEAN “NATIONAL
        GUARD!”

      • 23 2nd Amendment March 1, 2014 at 9:35 am

        Not to mention…the courts have upheld that it has NOTHING to do with the National Guard. It always amuses and annoys me when that part is conveniently ignored.

      • 24 sh March 1, 2014 at 9:48 am

        Go back to school and learn what a “comma” is. Then read it and understand it.

      • 25 Wayne Moore March 1, 2014 at 10:34 am

        @Setve Larson: It seems to me that you’re making the same argument that I was making.

      • 26 wri7913 March 1, 2014 at 10:35 am

        There was no standing army back during the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were formulated. In fact these documents make it clear that the Framers did not intend to allow a standing army. Realities changed but the intention was for all abled bodied citizens to be armed as a protection against Tyrants in our own government.

        When Government loses fear of its people, the things we have seen these past five years occur and statements by people like the police chief are made

      • 27 Dave March 1, 2014 at 11:30 am

        No…… it says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not, the right of the militia.

      • 28 Jason March 1, 2014 at 12:36 pm

        B.C. let me break this down a bit, as this is a common error. The militia is civilian, not military, County Sheriffs have the ability to call up the militia when needed, but even they are not “in charge” of it always as the militia is the citizens. Also, the amendment states that the formation of a militia is a reason for the government not being allowed to interfere with the Right to bear arms, not the only reason. The 2nd amendment does not grant the Right of the people to do so, it protects that Right by limiting government from infringing on it. At the time it was written “Well Regulated” meant ready and trained, not government regulation. It would make no sense to make a provision empowering government to regulate a Right in the same statement that is prohibiting government from infringing on that Right.

      • 29 Steven March 1, 2014 at 1:06 pm

        BC, that amendment was written in context of England not allowing their citizens to be armed. That is how they ruled in tyranny in the first place. Militia, in those days were not trained fighting men. They were simply farmers and other business men that wanted to protect their possessions. Being a militia has nothing to do with being in the national guard or other such things.

      • 30 Steve March 1, 2014 at 3:30 pm

        You Sir are Stupid.

      • 31 Randy Thompson March 1, 2014 at 5:39 pm

        Are you the only stupid child that your parents raised or were there more?

      • 32 Justsomeguy March 2, 2014 at 7:58 am

        No offense guy, but it amuses and annoys me when people comment about things that they have no understanding off. Your definition of the militia doesn’t match anything that was ever said by any of our founders, nor does it match the definition that is found in Title 10 USA 311.

      • 33 Jason Henderson March 2, 2014 at 10:30 am

        B C, it’s obvious that you are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what the term “well-regulated militia” means legally. 10 USC 311 defines the militia as: “…all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and except as provided in section 313 of title 32 under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” On to the rest of the phrase: “well-regulated” means “well-practiced”. In other words, competent in the use of arms. Competent marksmen. People who can hit what they aim at. Maybe you should educate yourself on a subject before you opine. Better yet, let someone else do it. your attempt is obviously a complete and utter FAILURE.

      • 34 GReg March 2, 2014 at 10:38 am

        The national guard is not the same as a well regulated militia. You are taking it out of context. You have to understand that when this document was written, rich people had their own militias and they came together to fight off the evil European aggressors. There wasn’t a national or even state level organized militia. So in today’s terms, it really means anyone banding together as a group for the purpose of maintaining sovereignty. Trying to say that you only have a right to keep and bears arms is if you are a part of the very thing you could be fighting against defies logic. How could you fight to maintain a free state if you can only bear arms if you work for the state? Seems awful counter-intuitive.

      • 35 robert burns March 2, 2014 at 1:51 pm

        BC That( , ) inbetween does not mean “or” it means and!

      • 36 Rodney Rains March 2, 2014 at 4:54 pm

        That is not what it means this was written by people who knew that you needed a standing army. They had just finished fighting a tyrannical
        state militia and knew a time might come when they would have to do it again.

      • 37 Steve Holsten March 2, 2014 at 9:00 pm

        Damn, what a freaking useless dumbass. You’re reading it bass ackerds!

      • 38 Corey March 2, 2014 at 9:06 pm

        The second amendment covers two topics. It gives states the right to have their own militias separate from federal control AND gives individual citizens the right to own firearms without that right being infringed.

      • 39 Walker March 2, 2014 at 9:10 pm

        BC, well I hate it when I’ll-informed libtarded apply their personal perspective to the 2nd Amendment when they don’t know what the Hell they are talking about. Study your federal case law moron. Case law established that the militia is every able bodied citizen. The state National Guard force is NOT the militia as it lies under federal authority. So, shut your hole, and go chug the Fool-Aid.

      • 40 Gary Allen March 2, 2014 at 9:23 pm

        You obviously need to study some history and what “a well regulated militia” means as it pertains to the founding fathers and then you might have a different idea. Try Stephan P Halbrook’s The right of the people to or the power of the State bearing arms, arming the militia and the second amendment.

      • 41 Mike March 2, 2014 at 10:08 pm

        BC, perhaps before you put down other people’s understanding of the Constitution you should spend more time reading the words of the men who wrote and ratified it. If you do you will find that the understanding of the term militia, to them, was simply everybody. All able bodied men. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, among many others of them made very clear that all free men have the natural right to bear arms as a preventive against tyranny. That’s right, to use against their own, or other governments if it becomes necessary. It never did, and does not refer to the National Guard.

      • 42 JP Kirkpatrick March 2, 2014 at 10:50 pm

        BC; If you knew as much as you profess to know, you would know that the Militia is all able bodied men 17-45 years of age, and THAT definition is in US Code (US Law). The Militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment relates to the Citizen Militia, not the National Guard. The National Guard is the Organized State Militia, totally different.
        You need to brush up on your Civics Classes…

      • 43 nightmare for commies March 2, 2014 at 11:36 pm

        maybe we can help fill up his wall of the fallen if he doesn’t want to be an AMERICAN peeps are getting sick of him and crap like him

      • 44 John T March 3, 2014 at 4:28 pm

        It’s people like you who are the problem. A well regulated militia does not mean the national guard lol.

        Even if it did, it’s irrelevant, because it clearly states that in order for there to be a well regulated militia, “peoples” right to bear arms shall not be infringed… it really isn’t hard to follow the logic in the sentence…

      • 45 G CArlson March 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm

        When it was written there was no National Guard only well armed citizens banded together to fight for freedom

      • 46 Truth March 3, 2014 at 7:47 pm

        Just because we changed the term militia does not mean we can change what this meant in the original text

      • 47 LifeLibertyHappiness March 4, 2014 at 10:53 am

        BC, what do you think a militia is? If you look at the Revolutionary War, it was the every day citizen, not under the military. They could come and go as they pleased and were there in support of the larger military. Today, we are the every day citizen that if the time came, could form up and support our larger military. It always amuses and annoys me when that part is conveniently mislabeled by ignorant liberals. If you are going to use the Constitution as a shield, use ALL of it, not just the parts you like (and think you understand).

      • 48 Scottie La Botte March 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm

        Ok the first part does say militia. And if you look at Heller it says that everyone not already attached to the military is militia so that question is out the window. They also said the people is only used in certain places in the constitution and in those cases it means all of us. So basically it could say So the people can be an effective militia their rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now you go look at Heller and then come back and we will discuss it.

      • 49 Bob March 7, 2014 at 10:02 am

        A well regulated militia is a STATEMENT OF FACT ended with a comma! Followed by “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE” that means individual citizens, not armies! You might want to brush up on your English reading skills before you say more stupid shit. By the way a militia can be ONE PERSON!

      • 50 Jen March 12, 2014 at 12:08 pm

        mi·li·tia/mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
        noun
        1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
        2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
        3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
        4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

      • 51 Greg Zotta August 27, 2014 at 10:10 pm

        Hey BC, The Second Amendment states: “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.” Did you notice the comma’s? And the militia does not mean the National Guard.It is obvious from your comment that you have not read the Federalist Papers which clarifies what the Founders meant. Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” And the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right.

    • 52 MSR February 28, 2014 at 9:09 am

      He does not believe in God or answer to God, so therefore your right is moot…

      • 53 MSR February 28, 2014 at 11:11 am

        PPuck, as usual, and probably due to your Public School Education, you have conveniently left out the commas in your your interpretation of the Second Amendment.. A usual tactic of a Anti-Gun Zealots… You have just proven who the real Moron is and your ignorance of Grammar and the English Language.

      • 54 ppuck64 February 28, 2014 at 12:43 pm

        MSR, I believe you’re confused as to who you’re replying to. I posted:

        “Hey, BC:

        “The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
        — “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
        — Tench Coxe, 1788.

        “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
        –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

        “Well-regulated” means well-trained, like the regulator on a wind-up pendulum clock keeps the machine performing in perfect time. If you’re going to use your propaganda to subvert the meaning of the Constitution, at least do some research. Moron.”

        Since my post is CLEARLY neither anti-gun nor grammatically incorrect, I can only assume you’re confused.

        Also, if you’re going to chide someone about grammar, you might want to be a little more careful of your own. For instance, your reply…

        “PPuck, as usual, and probably due to your Public School Education, you have conveniently left out the commas in your your interpretation of the Second Amendment.. A usual tactic of a Anti-Gun Zealots… You have just proven who the real Moron is and your ignorance of Grammar and the English Language.”

        …contains numerous grammatical errors and looks far more like the results of a public school education than any other post on this page.. If it really IS the result of a “Private School Education,” then clearly your money was ill-spent.

    • 55 James H March 2, 2014 at 1:08 am

      You guys are a bunch of sensationalists looking for something to steam about. This dude deals with hundreds of injuries every year during these events and 99% of them are stupid shootings where someone gets into an argument and pulls out a gun and shoots someone just because they don’t like what they’re saying.

      He didn’t say it was a law, it was a recommendation that would save himself and undeserving shooting victims a lot of problems but is not law, you can obviously still carry if you wish.

      Also he did NOT say “You only believe you have a 2nd amendment right” that quote was made up by this sensationalist reporting. Think a little bit before you fly off the handle for such a pittance of a quote (again, re-read his ACTUAL quote, not YOUR propoganda). The dude is not trying to disarm you, he’s trying to stop the pointless bloodshed he has seen YEAR AFTER YEAR at these events.

      By the way I’m originally from StL but living near Mobile, AL now, and they have the EXACT SAME ISSUES here with people getting shot every single year over stupid arguments, sometimes by belligerant assholes with a concealed carry license.

      • 56 John T March 3, 2014 at 4:29 pm

        99% eh? Post some states buddy.

        People also get stabbed over stupid arguments.

        They have their heads caved in with bats.

        They are choked with bare hands.

        Run over by cars….

        Funny thing is none of those are rights specifically protected under our constitution.

        When someone tries to injure, rob or kill me, I don’t really care about how much paperwork he has.

    • 57 James H March 2, 2014 at 1:15 am

      I recommend that you all read this article:

      http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/02/st_louis_police_chief_sam_dotson.php

      You can obviously see that this is not some tyrant trying to bust down your doors and take your weapons, you guys sound like a bunch of neanderthals wanting to storm the streets or hang this guy for treason.

      Take some time to do a little actual research before reading 1 sensationalist headline made up by some asshole using buzz words to get you riled up and calling for his head.

    • 59 Steve Holsten March 2, 2014 at 9:04 pm

      Alex Jones will be looking into this Faggot Pussy’s misinterpretation of our constitution.

    • 60 Vincent Ross June 20, 2014 at 10:17 am

      Irrelevant. The supreme court has already ruled that wherein a comma exists in an amendment, the Right is dilineated as that portion of the sentence which is able to make a coherent sentence on it’s own…. for instance “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”… is an incomplete sentence, and hence incomprehensible by itself. This is the explanatory portion, and not the statement of the Right. However, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is a complete, coherent statement in itself, and thus, under the rulings of the Supreme Court, is the statement of the Right itself.

  2. 61 Glenn February 27, 2014 at 3:45 am

    So, I guess we only “believe” we have the right to free speech, or to practice our faith,Unlawful search and sesure (I can see where Chief likes us to “believe” we only have this one). Or how about that we only “believe” we can not self incriminate? Let’s continue down the line… Speedy trial NAH!!!! We only “believe” we have that right. Jury Trials… Heck take that and excessive fines as well… We only “believe” we have a right to those as well.
    I guess the states only “believe” they have powers separate and are protected from the federal govt as well. Wow!!! Now I get this whole Bill of Rights is just a “fantasy” in his mind and that believing is just a state of mind and that we have nothing in fact.

  3. 62 Ben February 27, 2014 at 10:38 am

    He also loves him some drone use. He is a total puppet of Mayor Slay. Drones Dotson

  4. 63 PH February 27, 2014 at 11:02 am

    A “right” is something endowed by our Creator and it is governments duty to protect it. Once you have to ask permission, it is no longer a right and it has been infringed upon.

  5. 64 Loesch Stache February 27, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Anyone have info on which station reported this? SLMPD claim to know nothing about this statement.

  6. 66 Melvin P. Arbuckle February 27, 2014 at 11:17 am

    I have not only the right, but the duty to use any weapon at my disposal in defense of self, my loved ones, or any random innocent I encounter. That small boy who calls himself a police chief can kiss my ass.

  7. 67 Bill Moss February 27, 2014 at 11:39 am

    The ignorance of such a person that is sworn to protect and serve the people and to protect the Constitution is amazing. Does he even know the words he swore and what they mean. Does he have to go back to school and take remedial courses in reading comprehension? No he knows what he swore he is just on a power trip and is overstepping his bounds. The constitution was voted on and ratified. The founding fathers put the Second Amendment in there to protect us from tyranny which can exist even in the city level of government in the office of the Police Chief. So in closing Chief SCREW YOU. The Constitution trumps your decree. When I come to your town deal with it. Lock me up for legally carrying and I will own you lock stock and barrel along with your filthy city. I served to defend the rights of Americans and the Second Amendment was one of those rights. Nowhere does the Constitution Give you or anybody in government above you, even the President to rule by decree. You need to be fired ass wipe..

  8. 69 Oliver Pechmann February 27, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    “Zeig Heil, mein Fuhrer Dotson!”

  9. 70 Gerrick Reed Busl February 27, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    With all due respect to the Office, Col Dotson, Chief, your MBA and Management degree are commendable, but before you make ridiculous statements about Constitutional Law you should probably add a degree in Constitutional Studies to your collection of degrees! You could even sign up for Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101 on line and learn enough to not be so dangerous in your understanding of our Founding Document. You and your officers, if acting on your misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, are very likely to end up on the wrong end of wrongful injury or death lawsuits if you injure of kill American Citizens who are legally carrying weapons in your jurisdiction. Except for declared Martial Law your orders NEVER trump the Constitution, so you should reconsider your position on the Second Amendment, because YOU are wrong, and any Appelate Court will find you guilty as charged for felonious assault or second degree murder/manslaughter!

  10. 71 MaddMedic February 27, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
    Really? Molon Labe…

  11. 72 wmearl February 27, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    He is correct, there is no right to shoot another human being, building or animal. You have to go to God for that. There are laws prohibiting the shooting. Shouldn’t be any prohibiting or infringing on the right to keep and bare arms. Then he will also tell you that you have no right to tanks, nukes or fighter aircraft, but they are all ‘arms’. Arms race ring a bell?

    • 73 slw February 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm

      You’re an idiot. The state of Missouri, as well as many other states, affords people the right to protect themselves. So, he is wrong, as are you. There ARE laws prohibiting “shooting people”, but those rights do not supersede the inalienable right of life. If you shoot someone in defense of your life, that is your right. (because, you obviously don’t understand, I decided to explain it.)

  12. 74 Billy February 27, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    To Sam Dodson I am a Marine Veteran Live in Illinois. You can say , We may think we have the right which is wrong thinking on your part. Police are employed by We The People, ” You have your job so you can serve and protect the people not bully and think you are something that your not. There is a lot of tension in America . The American people are tiring of police acting like they are the SS under Hitler. Pick well your words and the way your treating , We the People. Semper Fi

  13. 75 wesmantoddshaw February 27, 2014 at 10:43 pm

    Reblogged this on The Nonconformist and commented:
    Just another fucking fascist cop.

  14. 76 Ed Barton February 28, 2014 at 6:48 am

    let that scumbag piece of crap come to the sticks and say we aint got a right to use our guns. he will find out real quick how much we use our guns and WILL protect our right to keep and bear arms. and USE THEM.

  15. 77 lora February 28, 2014 at 8:46 am

    I’m all for the 2nd ammendment, but did anyone stop to think maybe that he is warning a bunch of drunk mardi gras goers with guns that it may be wiser if they left them at home that day, considering its a celebration, not citizens rising up against a tyrant government. Maybe he just doesn’t word things in a manor that are organized and well thought, which as entirely seperate issue as a public figure.

  16. 78 Robert Cruzen February 28, 2014 at 8:58 am

    The second amendment is to keep assholes like this guy in check.. And this moron is police chief??? It is time to fire them all.

  17. 79 john sambol February 28, 2014 at 10:02 am

    Hey douche bag, when the revolution DOES COME, i HOPE YOUR THE PRICK THAT COMES TO MY HOUSE TO GET MY GUN. I’l shove my militia
    so far up your ASS, you’ll be able to read the constition by picking your nose. YOU ANTI-AMERICAN TYRANICAL PIECE OF SHIT

  18. 80 William Bennett February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    US SUPREME COURT – Marbury vs Madison –
    Decision that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void.

    The claim to a government’s right to determine what guns we the people may be allowed to own violates both the Second and Tenth Amendments, and under Marbury vs. Madison, any laws passed to limit our Second Amendment rights are automatically null and void.

  19. 81 James Weaver February 28, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    I will not recognize or abide by any law that violates the Constitution of the USA. Any law regulating firearms is inherently null and void as soon as a government body tries to put it in place. Every gun control law passed in the country is un-constitutional.

    This person, Sam Dotson, is a traitor to his Oath and should not be in any position of authority. I do not believe, I know that I have the right to exercise basic preservation of my own life by what ever means necessary from any attacker. I will not put the safety and preservation of my life nor my family in the hands of someone else.

  20. 82 Dan Vickers February 28, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    I hear a lot of comments about the 2nd Amendments use of the word “Arms”. But I haven’t heard anyone say exactly what the word “Arms” means. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about guns, What are “Arms”? “Arms are rocket launchers, tanks, F-15’s. There are even Nuclear Arms. Who decides which of these I can own? The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit me from owning any of these. As long as these items are “Arms” I should be able to keep and bear all of them. Street gangs should be carry all the “Arms” they want.

  21. 83 Guy Montag February 28, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    He has a point. After all, I hear there’s an amendment recognizing the right of a citizen to subscribe to a newspaper but that doesn’t give them the right to ever start reading said newspaper (the same naturally goes for having the news on your TV but only if you put in earplugs before you tune in). That’s certainly reasonable.

    Wanna bet Dotson learned his critical reasoning skills from the fire-chief in Fahrenheit 451?

  22. 84 Todd February 28, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    This is a poorly written piece of jibberish that shows a clear lack of understanding of the law and of basic concepts of group living and the social contract.

  23. 85 Steve Larson February 28, 2014 at 9:36 pm

    The only conceivable reason to arm public servant police more heavily than the public they serve is if the government fully intends to be more powerful than we, the people.

  24. 86 Ron Peterson February 28, 2014 at 11:12 pm

    Hey chief, you only believe I won’t shoot you in the face if you come and try to take my guns ! Read the constitution and re read the oath you took. if you can’t abide by that oath then quit.

  25. 87 Dennis Martin February 28, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    Most people seem to forget that the second amendment was not written by the government to give us a right. We already had that right, endowed by our creator! The second amendment was written TO the government. The constitution laid out what the government’s job was and what they could do. But the states refused to ratification the constitution until there were provisions added to define what the government COULD NOT DO. (Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It clearly says they added these amendments to restrict government) Why should 9 out of 10 of the first amendments be interpreted as restrictions on government, but we are to believe that #2 grants us some right from the government? That’s idiotic.
    The second amendment, like the other top ten, removes their power against the people. It says “Hey government, we the people grant you zero power to regulate firearms”. Period.

    • 88 James H March 2, 2014 at 1:22 am

      That is completely false, I am not pro gun control by any means, but there is a ZERO percent chance the forefathers could guesstimate what types of weapons would be developed in the future and have enough information to say that there should never be ANY firearm regulation.

      By that line of reasoning who’s to say that someone couldn’t argue that a nuclear bomb wasn’t an armament? The U.N. has a worldwide ban on flamethrowers for a reason, average citizens don’t *really* need rocket propelled grenades, sad as I am to say it.

      Part of the problem you have to consider is that, while you might *think* you have your weapons perfect under control, and you’ll spout some neanderthal rhetoric about how “you’ll fuckin kill any scumbag that tries it” but the fact is, legally owned weapons are stolen EVERY DAY and used to perpetrate heinous crimes. Some weapons are simply too dangerous to be prevalent in the general populace.

      • 89 Greg Zotta March 2, 2014 at 2:04 am

        Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

      • 90 Dennis Martin March 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm

        James,
        The old “the forefather couldn’t foresee what types of weapons would be developed in the future” argument has been tried for years and is ridiculous. The weapons the government is trying to ban are not bombs and nuclear weapons. No one in the firearms community is against the government regulating dangerous explosives.
        The government is trying to ban and confiscate weapons that people use to defend themselves. Weapons that work like hunting rifles, but just “look scary.”
        Also, you cannot legislate morality to a criminal. You can’t stop a criminal from stealing weapons and killing people simply by taking away the guns. According to the FBI, more people are killed by cars and hammers every year than assault rifles. I saw an exhibit once at a police station of all kinds of confiscated illegal firearms and ammunition made by criminals from common household hardware. Evil people will find a way to kill you if they really want to kill you. Guns are the great equalizers to the law abiding citizen.
        But I do agree with you that “legally owned weapons are stolen EVERY DAY”. Just look at what the Connecticut legislature is doing to it’s citizens right now.

      • 91 mike March 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm

        The founders also couldn’t have foreseen television and radio, email and the internet. Would you suggest the right to freedom of speech does not extend to those media because they were unforeseen?

  26. 92 sudan March 1, 2014 at 5:13 am

    Those in power are afraid of those with power. Disarm the nation the nation, control its people.

  27. 93 Kirby Crowley March 1, 2014 at 6:57 am

    But why are you calling for “hate mail”? How ’bout just plain fact-filled, articulate, and yes, impassioned, mail?

  28. 94 Rory March 1, 2014 at 7:43 am

    It should be absolutely clear to all thinking people what the founders intended when they penned the 2nd amendment. Do you think maybe the fact that they were fighting a tyrannical government attempting to enslave them had any bearing on the words they chose? They well understood the human condition and therefore the need to provide protection for their posterity from those who would abuse power.

  29. 95 Freedomfighters Long March 1, 2014 at 8:43 am

    I dont care who you are working for Law or not..I will drop you like a fly if you think you can take my rights. come get you some. you will be leaving mo

    • 96 Freedomfighters Long March 1, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      I guess i should of read this story 1st Because he’s talking illegal guns….

      • 97 James H March 2, 2014 at 1:24 am

        THANK YOU!!!!! I’ve been saying this the entire time. If people read this article

        http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/02/st_louis_police_chief_sam_dotson.php

        They’ll see that this new police chief is not some tyrant or traitor, he is a legitimately caring police chief who wants to clean up one of the most dangerous places in the nation

      • 98 Greg Zotta March 2, 2014 at 2:14 am

        “I understand the Second Amendment, and I understand everyone’s right, or their belief that they have a right to bear arms,” he says. “It doesn’t give them a right to use that weapon.” Dotson is talking about all gun owners with that comment. And if it would be up to him he would disarm the people. Dotson also wants to use drones. We do not need drones flown in the US. Dotson is a typical political police chief. His answer is to remove all guns, whereas for the many street police officers it does not matter.

      • 99 survivalist March 7, 2015 at 1:02 pm

        No, he was NOT talking about illegal guns. He was talking about the 2nd amendment. Dotson is VERY anti-gun, in the hands of legal rightful citizens. He just brought our recently passed 5th amendment, which has to do with open carry, before the state supreme court trying to get the court to overturn it. Those of us in St. Louis know Dotson well. He is scum.

  30. 100 Tammy Smith March 1, 2014 at 10:01 am

    There is no possible way I would go to St. Louis without a side arm.The chief may have been telling folks, if you are intoxicated with a weapon you will be charged with a felony. Maybe he should have been more clear with his comments. I don’t think I would want to be a cop in stl.

  31. 101 Stormy Weather March 1, 2014 at 10:31 am

    All you welfare mongers who believe National Guard is a militia, shut up, go cash your welfare check, keep getting fat on your welfare cheese, play your super Mario, or flappy bird video games and we might save your sorry asses from destruction when big brother comes to your neighborhood to collect. Maybe if you’d stop watching Avengers long enough to study history of The Third Reich you will see the systematic way a government when in tyranical control can bend you over and screw your proverbial ass for whatever reason they want. Sorry for the big words! Wake up stupid!

    • 102 James H March 2, 2014 at 1:28 am

      You’re actually a real piece of trash posting this kind of vicious, childish stereotype-ridden rhetoric. First, get your facts about this story straight. Next consider that one person who is confused about what constitutes regulated militia doesn’t make him a welfare monger who plays video games and watches avengers all day. How belligerant and passive aggressive can one rant get?

      Finally, on a personal note, I’d highly recommend you stop trolling these websites for stories to intentionally blast your blood pressure. These stories are filled with buzz words written by a sensationalist reporter who’s entire hope is to rile up a biased crowd.

  32. 103 JD March 1, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Sorry pal,but the part of a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms are 2 separate things.

  33. 104 Henry reiber March 1, 2014 at 11:08 am

    my two cents, after reading all this is easy to see why it took so few so long to agree and sign this document and why so few understand

  34. 105 thomas gentry March 1, 2014 at 11:47 am

    Every person has the right to keep and bear arms if you dont understand the rights ,you don’t need to be in the job you have now.

  35. 106 Kelly Skullyho March 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    AMERICANS …….look and read and THINK ………… WE ARE going to be POLICED very soon …………… but there are OATH KEEPERS …………. get ready for the WAR like in UKRAINE …………… go read this link http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us-concentration_camp-locations.htm ASAP

  36. 107 Daniel Todahl March 1, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Ill show you how i have the right to use it.

  37. 108 art March 1, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    very wrong
    every person has the right to bear arms.

  38. 109 Matt March 1, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    How can it be that the news reported it on March 25th, 2014. It’s only march 1st??

  39. 113 Roy March 2, 2014 at 10:29 pm

    This asshole is an idiot and better stay out of Alabama if he wants to keep his ass in tact because the good ole boys here would turn him out like a punk bitch.

  40. 115 James March 3, 2014 at 12:30 am

    What the hell is wrong with these men? He will die with his words and beliefs!

  41. 116 Lee March 3, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    I have the right to form a Militia, I have the Right to Bear Arms that the SCOTUS has confirmed. I will not comply. You Sir are part of the Red Coats of old supporting King Obama.

    Molon Labe- Come get them

  42. 117 Joe March 3, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    Fuck You Sam Dotson! Liberal Fucking Trader!! You should be stripped of your uniform and brought up on Treason Charges for Anti-American Constitution Statements!!!

  43. 118 Bill March 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    Officer Dotson: Do you have a brain cell that really works? the veterans fought to keep this country free so you could exercise your right to free speech. the second amendment gives us as citizens of the united states to keep and bare arms, foreign and domestic. don’t tread on me.

  44. 119 Damian August 27, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    Now this pig should be hug tied n have his balls cut n stuffed in his mouth

  45. 120 Greg Zotta August 28, 2014 at 1:01 am

    The gun grabbers always come out when an EVIL doer commits an evil act. Their response is MORE restrictions on guns, which have an adverse effect on law abiding citizens. In ALL fifty states MURDER is against the law, yet EVIL doers who commit murder do not care about the law and the law does not prevent them from doing the act. Background checks do nothing to stop evil doers; they only restrict law abiding citizens and create a database for confiscation from the government. There are people, who do not want to own a gun, then they should not get one, but they should not try to force their agenda on others.
    The Second Amendment states: “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.” There are many naïve people, like Shannon Watts, Sheila Jackson Lee,Bob Beckel, Donnie Douche, and Martin Bashar out there who have not a clue about the US Constitution and the people’s rights. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or tradition; it is about the people being able to defend themselves from an overreaching tyrannical government. You have a God-given right to be able to defend yourself and your family. And the Founders did envision the people being able to arm themselves with the weapons of today, because they had fought a revolution against a tyrannical government. Where would this country be today if the Founders were not armed to fight the British? Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    The Statists’ goal is for total confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens; the assault weapons ban, registration and amount of rounds are the slippery slope. The registration lets the government knows which law-abiding citizens own guns and how many guns they own making it easier for confiscation. And one bullet can kill. So, if the government implements the ban and the killing continues the government would have a reason for banning more guns and limit the amount of rounds till eventually, the government would call for total confiscation. For those people who think that confiscation will not happen need only look to what occurred after Katrina where the government disarmed law-abiding citizens of their guns.

    • 121 Dennis Michael Westbrook August 12, 2015 at 9:19 pm

      It’s more than just the 2nd ammendment, there is also another federal law signed by Theodore Roosevelt called the Dick Act of 1902. It is within that same law that this law cannot be repealed. There is another federal law signed by Lyndon Johnson called the Gun Control Act of 1968. Obvisously Chief Dotson either does not know what he is talking about or he is trying to brainwash people…typical commicrats.

      • 122 American Patriot May 23, 2016 at 11:28 pm

        Let the bastards try standing against us!
        He’ll find out right away, just who has rights, and who doesn’t!
        It is WE THE PEOPLE, nothing mentions ANY government rights, as government T is the PROPERTY of the PEOPLE, WE OWN THEM ALL, and EVERYTHING they have!
        Any law that violates the Constitution, is NULL AND VOID. No president, nor court can create or pass arbitrary laws.


  1. 1 St. Louis Chief of Police Sam Dotson Says You Only BELIEVE You Have a 2nd Amendment Right! | Divine Freedom Radio Trackback on February 28, 2014 at 12:36 am
  2. 2 St. Louis Oath Breaker Trackback on February 28, 2014 at 8:44 pm
  3. 3 St. Louis Chief of Police Sam Dotson Says You Only BELIEVE You Have a 2nd Amendment Right! | TheShootersHangout.com Trackback on March 1, 2014 at 12:35 am
  4. 4 Eric Gonchar Trackback on March 3, 2015 at 3:07 pm
  5. 5 arthur falcone Trackback on March 3, 2015 at 11:33 pm
  6. 6 GPS Trackback on March 7, 2015 at 10:29 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: