When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
this just in: now that trump hates law enforcement, the loves them.
MSNBC guest and Sirius XM radio host Mark Thompson said on Monday that he believes criticizing the FBI and law enforcement is a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
During a discussion about the Nunes memo and the subsequent Democratic response on MSNBC, Thompson said he had “never seen anything” like the criticisms of the FBI and law enforcement from Republicans.
“And the other thing, just to draw together, this whole thing with the NRA. The NRA and Trump are attacking local law enforcement. The White House is attacking the FBI,” Thompson said. “We’ve never seen anything like this coming from Republicans.”
So I've been reviewing the 2A arguments and decisions and I've come across something that interests me;
In 2A, the first part "A well regulated militia, ... But when all hell breaks loose, these relatively small organizations are going to be the ones organizing the fight. Well regulated? Yes, they are. Manned and able to fight her enemies in order to defend the Constitution of the United States of America? Yes, we are.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Thanks Fooger, that is an interesting read. Especially the outline of the Ohio groups, - is that a common thing in other States?
Your discussion of the larger 'militia' makes a certain amount of commonsense to me Fooger, at least at a level of principle. From the little I know about your revolutionary war, and the founding of the US, it easy to see that the drafters might have had something like this in mind. Whether that still makes the same sense today, when you do have a standing military, you have military reserves, and you have the national guard (this is different to the reserves, I think?), that is another matter - one for you (US) to resolve. You would probably say it is resolved, but the law (statute and case (interpreted)) is always evolving - just look at the history of 2A to see that.
But the militia you describe has no status in law or policy, as far as I can see. Would (does) its members have status under the Geneva Convention and the other rules of war? If it acted on US soil, against US citizens (as suggested up thread), what status would they have in law? If acting against an invader on US soil, would the law protect them as combatants? If it is a (quasi)military force, how is to be organised, mobilised and employed? If your thesis holds, these questions should be (have been) answered.
If we accept that the armed population IS the militia, that brings the 'well regulated' into the discussion. As you have indicated, a person with a gun is pretty useless without some training, and more importantly I suspect, leadership/direction. This is probably going in a direction that runs counter to the notion of a heroic individual with a musket, but if a militia is going to have any effect, it will need to. How would (does) the military see the militia, how would they interact with it in time of crisis (or at any time)?
Would 'well regulated' necessitate some criteria for membership, maybe behavioural standards, age, health etc? Would it require attendance at training? Being 'registered' (ie contactable by some leadership)? Sunject to discipline/authority of some sort - whose? Would participation in criminal activity, or a criminal history, be grounds for exclusion from the militia, and therefore allow for seizure of weapons from such individuals?
How would membership or otherwise of the militia sit alongside personal protection? Would only members of the militia be allowed personal protection weapons? Or would that be allowed entirely independently of the militia?
As you might guess, I am something of a policy wonk, so I look at the notion of a militia as how and where it fits, how it would 'work', what its functions might be - unfortunately I lack to detailed knowledge of the US to do more than pose these questions. However, from where I sit, the armed population does not look like a militia. It could become one, but that is unlikely without some intervention (such as you described in Ohio).
From the little I know about your revolutionary war, and the founding of the US, it easy to see that the drafters might have had something like this in mind. Whether that still makes the same sense today, (...) that is another matter - one for you (US) to resolve.
But the militia you describe has no status in law or policy, as far as I can see. Would (does) its members have status under the Geneva Convention and the other rules of war? If it acted on US soil, against US citizens (as suggested up thread), what status would they have in law? If acting against an invader on US soil, would the law protect them as combatants? If it is a (quasi)military force, how is to be organised, mobilised and employed? If your thesis holds, these questions should be (have been) answered.
This (and the rest of the questions you raise) are why I, too, don't dismiss the "well-armed militia" clause as independent from the rest of the amendment. Because, as you say, it's necessary to interpret this statement from the point of view of the authors, despite the fact that many Americans have a somewhat farsical view of "the militia" consisting of every white or freed man, woman and child.
Looking at the main body of the US Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16:
The Congress shall have Power (...) to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It's quite clear that, under the Constitution, "The Militia" is a body which is organized and regulated by the State and Federal governments, and is a thus a subset of the citizenry, rather than the whole of it. And this makes sense, given that the Revolutionary War was fought mostly with militiamen organized at the colony/state-level. The Continental Army was not formed until 1775, and never constituted a majority of the armed forces of the US during the war. "Such part of them..." makes it apparent that the militia is not entirely a full-time army, but as a whole, the militia are clearly a force distinct from the population at large, organized and trained by the Federal government, and by the States at its delegation.
For further insight into the mindset of the drafters of the Constitution, we look back to the Articles of Confederation, written in 1776-1777 (ten years prior to the constitution), which requires that:
Every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Further evidence of the militia being a body which is organized, regulated, and supplied by the state, and not just a bunch of hillbillies with rifles. Regardless of latter interpretations, this is clearly indicative of the intent of the founders.
TL;DR: If you are a US citizen who feels honor-bound to uphold your duty under the Constitution, join the National Guard as the founding fathers intended.
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
PA:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]
MA:
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
[Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]
NH:
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Affirms that the Militia is a formal institution, regulated by the state.
Originally Posted by Braineack
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Affirms that the Militia is a formal institution, regulated by the state.
Originally Posted by Braineack
[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]
MA:
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
Affirms that the Militia is a formal institution, regulated by the state.
Interesting how the Courts have historically upheld the notion that the Militia, being a body organized and equipped for the common defense, are required to be subordinate, and governed by, the civil authority (eg: the state.) This argues strongly against the notion that Bubba, with his rifle and his pickup truck is "The Militia."
I'm curious to hear your (Scott, and the People, generally) views on Article 1, Section 8, as per:
The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The power to suppress insurrection is a curious and important one. It suggests that the founders supported the use of the Militia against the people to suppress an internal revolt against civil authority and established government.(This is the literal definition of insurrection.)
This is kind of the exact opposite of the argument commonly made by those in support of a broad 2A interpretation, to wit: "The right to bear arms is intended to permit the people to resist the government," when in fact the Constitution itself says precisely the opposite thing.
This is kind of the exact opposite of the argument commonly made by those in support of a broad 2A interpretation, to wit: "The right to bear arms is intended to permit the people to resist the government," when in fact the Constitution itself says precisely the opposite thing.
I think this is where you have to take into consideration the Founders' heavy influence from Locke. When the government becomes unjust, it ceases to be legitimate and revolution is the just response by the people.
So, insurrection against a legitimate government should be stopped. Insurrection against an unjust, illegitimate government should be encouraged.
yeah, because the Founders were very much against a standing army.
I mean, they weren't going to write in the constitution "it's legal to try to overthrow your govt if you think they are tyrannical"; I don't believe that was ever the intent. everything is always and has been about defense. therefore:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
(fun fact: I'm related to Webster)
being armed is your protection against a tyrannical gov't.
first read this:
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
some spirit:
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
even Hamilton was in on the game:
"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
I think this is where you have to take into consideration the Founders' heavy influence from Locke. When the government becomes unjust, it ceases to be legitimate and revolution is the just response by the people.
So, insurrection against a legitimate government should be stopped. Insurrection against an unjust, illegitimate government should be encouraged.
An interesting perspective.
Posit: Who gets to make the decision as to whether the government is unjust and illegitimate?
Lee Harvey Ozwald? Timothy McVeigh? Julius Rosenberg? Jane Anderson? John Wilkes Booth?
History is replete with those who called themselves patriots while attacking the foundations of what they considered to be an an unjust government. Most of us call them criminals, murderers or treasoners, because we disagree with their judgement.
That which is reasonable and just to one person may seem tyrannical and illegitimate to another. Rule by Mob was certainly not something which the framers of the Constitution intended as a basis for the succession of government. This is how tinpot dictatorships work, not representative democracies.
Posit: Who gets to make the decision as to whether the government is unjust and illegitimate?
Lee Harvey Ozwald? Timothy McVeigh? Julius Rosenberg? Jane Anderson? John Wilkes Booth?
History is replete with those who called themselves patriots while attacking the foundations of what they considered to be an an unjust government. Most of us call them criminals, murderers or treasoners, because we disagree with their judgement.
That which is reasonable and just to one person may seem tyrannical and illegitimate to another. Rule by Mob was certainly not something which the framers of the Constitution intended as a basis for the succession of government. This is how tinpot dictatorships work, not representative democracies.
Of course, I don't think I suggested that the Founders were intending for lone individuals to make determinations of just or unjust governance. They did write quite a bit on the principles of just revolution, you know...something they were keenly interested in, for very personal and practical reasons.
Our solution has served us well for over 20 years now - the US clearly doesn't have one and unfortunately never will due to the 2A.
has it?
ABOUT THAT AUSTRALIAN GUN BAN THAT GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES KEEP TALKING ABOUT...
by Kevin Ryan
In 1996, following a mass shooting, Australia banned many types of semiautomatic firearms. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) banned the possession, ownership, sale, transfer, manufacture, or importation of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns and rifles. It also confiscated such weapons already in circulation via a buy-back program. According to gun control advocates, the measure was a great success, decreasing gun violence and eliminating mass shootings.
However, a newly released paper now finds the following:
“As best one can tell from the available evidence, Australia’s massive 1996 gun control effort was a failure. It did not reduce either suicide or homicide rates below what, based on pre-1996 trends, they would have been in the absence of the NFA, and may even have increased the number of fatal gun accidents. Based on national surveys, the gun bans and buybacks did not make any contribution to the decline in the share of Australian households that owned guns that had already been going on before 1996, and may have even slowed this decline. Available evidence also indicates that the NFA had no long-term effect on the number of guns in civilian hands in Australia, since the nearly million guns that were surrendered and destroyed were counterbalanced by over a million new civilian guns imported into the country in just the first 19 years after the ban.”
Here are the specific findings:
ON THE DECLINE IN HOUSEHOLDS OWNING FIREARMS: The percent of households owning firearms had already been declining before the NFA. After the ban? The rate of decline actually decreased.
Only 16% of total Australian firearms were bought up. And the buyback was followed by a huge surge in Australians purchasing non-banned guns to replace those lost to the buyback. The number of guns in Australia today is actually higher than it was pre-ban.
ON THE DECLINE IN FIREARM HOMICIDES: Gun violence was already declining for years before the NFA was passed, and post-ban declines were no steeper. More tellingly, nonfirearm suicides and homicides declined even more sharply than firearm suicides and homicides, clearly indicating that something other than gun controls were causing reductions in homicides and suicides in general.
ON THE DECLINE IN FIREARM SUICIDES: Banning semiautomatic rifles and multi-shot, pump action shotguns is certainly irrelevant to firearms suicides, which almost always result from a single shot, and almost never utilize the types of firearms banned.
ON FIREARM ACCIDENTS: Prior to 1997, gun accidents had been declining, but after the NFA went into effect the trend was reversed, and gun accidents increased. One possibility is that some gun owners who turned in banned types of firearms replaced them with unbanned types of firearms with which they were less familiar. This might in turn have resulted in accident discharges resulting from incorrect handling of gun types that their owners did not know how to safely load, unload, fire, or maintain.
ON THE DECLINE IN MASS SHOOTINGS: Supporters of the Australia ban point to the fact that there have been no mass shootings (killing 5 or more people) since the law took effect. In the 18 years before the 1996 ban, they say, there were a total of 7 mass shootings in Australia. Thus, the ban must be the reason there have been no mass shootings.
Yet here’s the thing: only 2 of pre-ban mass shootings were committed with the type of firearms covered by the ban. 5 of the 7 were committed with firearm types that are still legal in Australia. Since three-quarters of the mass shootings in Australia prior to the ban were committed with firearms unaffected by the ban, how can one conclude that the ban is responsible for the lack of mass shootings? Again, other factors are likely at play.
And mass murders did not actually cease after 1996; only mass murder by SHOOTING stopped. Mass murder by other means (knives, fire, car attack, etc) actually increased, from 0 in the 18 years before the ban, to 6 in the years after it, a reminder that there are many means to commit violence, even in the absence of semiautomatic firearms.
A FATHER who armed himself with an unloaded rifle during a home invasion has been left wondering what he could have done differently, after having his guns seized.
Police took David Dunstan’s three firearms from his farming property at Bungowannah on Thursday afternoon.
Mr Dunstan, who has a gun licence, went to his nearby gun safe and grabbed a .22 rifle after finding the man outside his home.
He said he didn’t point the weapon at the offender, and essentially used the gun as a “prop”.
The father of three forced the man into his vehicle and drove him towards the Albury police station, and was met by officers nearby.
Police seized his guns, which he uses for pest control at his property, later that day.
“I just don’t know what I should have done, what would have been the right way to do it,” Mr Dunstan said.
“My gun licence is for vermin control.
“I suppose, technically, trying to protect yourself is not classed as that.
“I’ve always done the right thing, but I feel like I’ve done the wrong thing.”
It followed an incident at a property in Splitters Creek three hours earlier where the man allegedly smashed his way into a home and tried to enter a child’s bedroom.
That owner had armed himself with a hockey stick.
Mr Dunstan's firearms licence will undergo a review following the incident.
Police did not want to comment on the development, but had earlier urged people to call Triple-0 during emergencies.
The alleged offender has been denied bail and will return to court November 6.
the gun probably saved his life -- but we dont like to keep statics on that (even though it vastly outnumbers the number of deaths by gun)
The situation in economically depressed Venezuela is so dire, workers at one zoo are slaughtering animals to feed others -- with two emaciated pumas poster kids of sorts for the distressing state of affairs.The zoo -- located in the town of San Francisco in Zulia state -- closed down this month after horrific pictures surfaced showing starving animals.
The list of malnourished creatures includes a lion, a Bengal tiger, a jaguar and several birds of prey, zoo staffers told AFP recently.
Ducks, pigs and goats have been sacrificed to feed other animals.
The bone-thin pumas were saved from poachers, and photos of them published in the newspaper Panorama have shocked people across this oil-rich country -- saddled by hyperinflation and acute food and medicine shortages as a result of lower petroleum prices.
The big cats were skinny when they first arrived at the zoo, but later got better. However, with Venezuela's latest crisis "it is as if they shrank," one zoo worker said.
A male and a female Andean condor, born in captivity and brought to the park as part of a breeding program to save the endangered species, have gone weeks without being fed properly.
Two birds of prey were so hungry they cannibalized a cage mate, staffers said.
"The Bengal tiger had been the heftiest, and the lion, as it was very old, was skinny but it also lost weight," a staffer said.
To get around the lack of meat, zoo officials started hunting iguanas, which run wild in the zoo, and fishing tilapia from lagoons in the facility.
I'm gonna build a world
Independent and exempt
All alone I'll be an empire
With no mortgage and no rent
And I don't need to live in your stinking zoo
You can't even feed the animals donated to you
Your storage sheds are ramshackled, flies decorate the walls
And you expect me to die here in this ****-filled tiny stall?
And I know you're watching! everything I do
Call me threat to your children call me socially unglued
Call me master of insanity, unable to relate
Call me lazy, bane, and filthy
Call me monstrous reprobate
02-27-2018, 08:03 PM
0
