Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
2
-
This is the typical gun-nut: illiterate in both actual history and law:
"you're suggesting that the founders wrote an amendment while the British Army was invading New York and killing colonists that would place arms only in the hands of government forces?"
1. The so-called "revolution" -- it was in fact a civil war; "revolution" is "overthrow of gov't," whereas the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" ZERO gov'ts because the Founders all along controlled the colony gov'ts.
2. The so-called "revolution" was over when the Founders wrote and ratified the Constitution, completion of which ratification was on: June 21, 1788.
The "Bill of Rights" was written by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution. It was submitted to the states for consideration and ratification on: September 25, 1789.
It was ratified by the required number of states on December 15, 1791.
3. Per the Debates of the CONGRESS that WROTE the "Bill of Rights," the Second Amendment's purpose was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated militia. The Amendment both established that the states could keep their well-regulated militia -- protection against infringement by the Federal gov't -- and established the authority of the CONGRESS -- see Supremacy Clause -- to subject the state militias to Federal regulation.
4. The ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time, and includes FOUR "Militia Clauses," the FOURTH being the Second Amendment. These are the first two:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide" -- Congress "provides" by MAKING LAWS, LAWS REGULATE -- "for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
To "take up arms" against the gov't is INSURRECTION.
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia[/National Guard] . . . reserving to the States [GOV'T] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
5. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES, in this context, "Militia Acts".
On May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted, "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions".
On May 8, 1792, the Congress enacted, "An act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States".
The Congress also enacted subsequent "Militia Acts," including response to the "Whiskey" insurrection in Pennsylvania.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The "phrase" "the right of the people" etc. was drawn from the four STATE constitution Militia Clauses that were the sources of the Second Amendment.
Or tell us, law-illiterate, the purpose of "public arms".
And in the DRAFTS of that which became the Second Amendment are BOTH the words "people" -- the PLURAL -- and the word "person" -- the INDIVIDUAL. Here's the phrase in which the term "person" -- as distinguished from the plural -- was used:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY -- militia service was a DUTY, NOT a "right"] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
That was the ONLY posited individual "right" -- to NOT serve Militia DUTY -- debated concerning the Amendment, and it was OBVIOUSLY VOTED DOWN BEFORE the Amendment was ratified. THEREFORE there is NO "individual right" ANYWHERE in the Second Amendment.
Moreover, that phrase is embedded in a controlling and limiting context, the subject of which is WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Even the "Declaration of Independence" is against you -- yeah, I know: you've never read it, therefore never learned that it includes a list of GRIEVANCES against King George III, these two of which are directly on point -- and they REFUTE your anti-American attacks on the rule of law:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
The legislatures MAKE LAWS REGULATING such as the well-regulated Militia.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition RULE OF LAW.
2
-
2
-
@boeing757pilot See this:
___
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bl4ze1t38 "The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. You can see it uses the word “people” multiple times, pretty clearly referring to each individual person’s right to do all of this stuff."
So you insist that the Framers of the Constitution got it wrong when they wrote, "We the people," instead of, "We the individual"?
Let's look at the first draft -- the so-called "Madison" draft -- of that which became the Second Amendment, shall we? Note how it uses BOTH the word "people" and the word "person". Do you agree that "person" is not "people," and that "person" is "individual"? Or do you reject the rules of grammar -- of which you have an "odd" grasp -- simply because you "DON'T LIKE" them? Read the following as many times as it takes for it to PENETRATE your error:
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, a public institution, and arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn _Heller_.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
2
-
Only as members of the well-regulated Militia, such membership accomplished either by ENLISTING or BEING DRAFTED.
Service in the Militia was a DUTY, not a "right". And one finds that fact in Congress's DEBATES of its writing of the Second Amendment. This is the only "individual right" the Congress debated regarding that which became the Second Amendment:
": but no PERSON [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be COMPELLED [INVOLUNTARY, as in DRAFT] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
The full draft debated included the phrase, "the right of the PEOPLE" -- so the Congress knew the difference between the PLURAL "PEOPLE" and the INDIVIDUAL "PERSON".
Further, as concerns the Militia, the Constitution is also against you in Art. I., S. 8., C. 16:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia".
You are not a "militia," because the Militia is not an individual; and in order to be a member of the Militia -- which is a DUTY, NOT a "right" -- you must either ENLIST or be DAFTED.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@olympicfireball Actually I'm not. In fact I've been researching these very issues for more than 30 years beginning with the foundings of the several colonies.
The states adopted and ratified constitutions during 1776-77, and 1780. The "Militia Clauses" from four of those constitutions were the sources for the Second Amendment. Those distinguish between two military forces:
1. "The right of the people," etc. -- which was the well-regulated militia.
2. Standing armies.
The inclusion of the phrase, "right of the people," etc., which is a REDUNDANCY for well-regulated militia, shows the continuity in the laws.
One of those four "Militia Clauses" is from the Vermont constitution of 1777:
"Chapter I.--The Bill of Rights.
""XV. That the people have a right [no "keep and"] bear arms for the defense of themselves AND [not "or"] the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty they ought not to be kept up; and that they military [which includes well-regulated Militia] should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
SEPARATELY in the SAME constitution:
"Chapter II.--The Plan of Government
"Section XXXIX. That the inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl [private individual right to own guns], in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly."
___
Note the difference between the comments made by you and your fellow gun-nuts: you make law-illiterate assertions without a shred of ANYTHINBG to back them up.
I, in contrast, having an education in law, provide ACTUAL LAW substantiating my statements of the facts.
The problem with you and your fellow gun-nuts is that you are functionally illiterate: you have no regard for truth, and certainly no regard for FACTS AND EVIDENCE, in this context, LAW.
Also of direct relevance are the DEBATES of the WRITING of that which became the Second Amendment. The INTENT was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia -- standing armies being "dangerous to liberty". This is further substantiated by the second of two "Militia Acts" enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wholeNwon Those who jabber about "jury nullification" don't actually know how legal process works, or the civic DUTY of being a juror. They jury does not, as example, get to admit "evidence" or reject evidence. The introduction of the second knife in the movie "12 Angry Men," as example, would in reality result in a mistrial.
The jury instructions given by the court are: apply the law to the facts, the evidence. The evidence as to admissibility is fought over by the two sides in the case. The neutral arbiter -- the judge -- determines what evidence is admitted and what excluded.
"Jury nullification" is a "theory" pushed by law-illiterates and those who reject the rule of law. Who pride themselves in their staunch ignorance of the fact that "freedom" does not exist in conflict with law; it exists and is protected BECAUSE SECURED by WRITTEN law. So-called "sovereign citizens" reveal that self-"nullifying" stupidity by BOTH rejecting ALL law -- and then claiming rights that exist in the law they REJECT. Can't have it both ways.
But let's go to the real point: defending murder. There is nothing moral in defending murder. Defending that which is, actually, domestic terrorism. Words have consequences. They are foolish and irresponsible.
___
From "A Man for All Seasons":
In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law--
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericschryver73 You leave out the detail that a state must agree to the invocation of the Insurrection Act.
And a president CANNOT authorize the use of "any" military force; domestically the law enforcement of that degree falls to the well-regulated Militia/National Guad, per the US Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
AND:
"Art. I., s. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia[/National Guard] . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia[/National Guard] according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
In other words -- "Posse Comitatus Act" -- the regular military cannot be used domestically.
And it's long past due that you amoral anti-Americans stopped the lying about "ANTIFA" -- which is short for ANTI-FASCIST and BLM "riots" that didn't happen. But we know why you hate "ANTIFA": you are PRO-FASCIST. Reminder, history-illiterate: Hitler and Mussolini were FASCISTS.
Do yourself a favor: WATCH the January 6 Committee hearings and cry your eyes out when you discover that ALL but two of the witnesses have been TRUMP REPUBLICANS, most of whom WORKED IN THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.
The FBI investigates -- it does not render judgment on the merits of the evidence it gathers: it turns that over to DOJ prosecutors. And your assertions about the Committee hearings are blown out of the water: the HARD EVIDENCE gathered and presented, and in Federal court rules there are many exceptions to the oversimplified -- dumbed-down -- slinging of the word "hearsay".
The testimony of those who stated the substance of their conversations with others is not hearsay; and the only "hearsay" in Hutchinson's testimony was about the altercation in the SUV limousine. But that is corroborated by a police officer who was on that detail, and it was being talked about within the Secret Service for more than a year.
But the fundamental mistake you make, in addition to being law-illiterate, is viewing the January 6 Committee hearings as a "trial" -- which is another right-wing Fascist lie: their investigation serves two purposes: one, toward legislating; and two, to inform the American people of the facts discovered by its investigation.
You are individually responsible for your decisions: you can choose to stop lying, or you can continue to be an America-hating pro-Fascist insult to reason, facts, and the rule of law.
1