Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The polls are ARTIFICIALLY "close" because some aggregators include the junk Republican "polls" which are intended to make it appear close so when Trump is blown out -- I've been saying for months that this is building to a landslide for Harris/Walz -- he will whine that the election was "stolen".
The official state voting data is in stark contrast to the polls: see "The TEC Show" on youtube. In Michigan, as example, women are outvoting men 57 to 43.
And the Harris-Cheney town halls in Republican areas revealed that the breaking points for sane Republicans are the January 6th insurrection and the Dobbs decision. And that includes men.
And there is an additional significant "silent bloc" of Republicans not saying who they're voting but it is Harris/Walz.
Last but not least, see the extraordinary, brutally beautiful speech delivered by Michelle Obama in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Barack has the warmth and humor and that smile, but her speech at the DNC topped him, and this speech tops that.
I've been saying since December of last year that women, instead of getting tricked into debating abortion for 5 decades, should have responded by teaching the rest of us -- most opponents have been men -- about problem pregnancies. Because that is the issue: problem pregnancies. Michelle Obama speaks to that -- women's reproductive experiences are the central substance. And it is directed at male voters.
The whole speech is a powerful and factual barnburner -- you will be riveted:
Michelle Obama Speech in Kalamazoo, MI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtQqGOOLh8o
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The LOONY defenses of the murderer promote domestic terrorism. And Terrorist-in-Chief LOVES their irresponsible and dangerous contribution to the chaos and domestic violence he foments against the rule of law. The following is FUNDAMENTAL.
___
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.
___
Who is the "Devil" in this situation? The VICTIM. ANYONE can be put in the position of "Devil". The attacks on McDonalds, and minimum-wage employee, the death threats against the backpack manufacturer are domestic terrorism. What will these fools do if one or more of those innocent people are harmed or worse -- cheer? Stop and think for the first time in their lives?
All them need to sit down, STFU, and ask themselves how they lost their minds and moral compass. Or why they are indistinguishable from MAGA.
1
-
1