Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Rebel HQ"
channel.
-
307
-
184
-
178
-
162
-
154
-
145
-
86
-
38
-
34
-
26
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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' 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.
6
-
The FOUNDERS CONFISCATING Guns --
___
Chapter DCCXXIX.
An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.
Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
[Section I.] Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
[Section II.] And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
[Section III.] And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such arms or the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
[Section IV.] And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.
___
Passed July 19, 1776. "Ordinances passed by the Constitutional Convention, June-September, 1776," The Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801, Vol. IX, 1776 to 1779 (Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1903), Edited by Commissioners James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, at 11.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dalecrocker3213 The Proud Boys are FASCISTS. And that their "president" is an Afro-Cuban only means that there are people who act against their own interests. There were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis while Jews were being mass-murdered. There were Chinese who collaborated with the Japanese while the Japanese were slaughtering millions of Chinese.
There are fools such as you who defend those who reject and overtly attack the Constitution and laws. BE CLEAR: the rights you claim only exist because they are secured in written law. Destroy that written law and those "rights" cease to exist.
Yes: the Proud Boys are white supremacists -- and Fascists -- as are the Oath Keepers and their ilk. You don't have to take the word of the REPORTAGE -- NOT OPINION -- of the LEGITIMATE media; you only need to listen to the rhetoric of the Proud Boys and their ilk. They falsely claim, as example, that the Second Amendment establishes a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't, gov't being BY DEFNINTION rule of law. Ask yourself: what LAW would authorize destruction of the RULE OF LAW?
The "Bill of Rights" is not the entire Constitution; and the ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time. It incorporates FOUR Militia Clauses, the Second Amendment being nothing more than the fourth of them. This is the firt:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIOS, and repel Invasions".
These are the directly relevant portions of the second:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
Thus the well-regulated Militia is ALWAYS GOVERNED AND REGULATED UNDER BOTH US and state constitutions and laws. The armed anti-gov't gangs, such as the Proud Boys ilk, are not "militia"; in fact, they are classified in law, in all 50 states, as "paramilitaries," and PROHIBITED thereby.
"Taking up arms" against the gov't is the CRIME of INSURRECTION, which the Founders classified as TREASON. There is NO right to commit insurrection or treason.
And what is the motivation of the Proud Boys and their ilk? WHITE SUPREMACISM, and the false fetishization of the so-called "revolution" as a populist fascism.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jasonandersen5975 Another history- and law-illiterate heard from.
In fact, if you READ AND COMPREHEND my comment you'll see the MADISON DRAFT of that which became the Second Amendment. And I provide the SOURCE so you can see it for yourself.
Jefferson was in France during the writing and ratification of the Constitution. He was also in France during the writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Which means that he had nothing to do with either, and his views on the matter are NON-LAW OPINION.
In contrast, as I stated clearly in my comment, the "Madison" draft is LEGAL AUTHORITY. AND I detailed how conflicting views of a law are resolved: by recurring to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, which is LEGAL AUTHORITY.
I don't provide anything in my comment that is my opinion. RATHER I SUBSTANTIATE with the OBJECTIVE FACTS.
You can bullshit and minimize all you want, but that won't change the facts.
There is also THIS:
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The various "One True Religion" colonists who founded colonies based on "freedom of religion" meant freedom for ONLY THEIR "religion".
But that changed with the state constitutions -- see below -- and their eventuation in the First amendment separation of "religion" and gov't; so, no, the United States is not a "Christian" nation --
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
As said, those provisions and their equivalent in the other state constitutions eventuated in the First amendment separation of "religion" and gov't. And Jefferson was proudest of his "Religious Freedom Act" of Virginia, which did away with a single gov't-sponsored "religion".
The LIARS on the point are the "Christians" who ignore the Commandment written by their "God" --
"Thou shalt not lie."
And ignore that the Constitution, with the First Amendment separation, is the SUPREME Law of the Land - there is NO law HIGHER than SUPREME.
BACK OFF, fake "Christians": you don't get to impose your unsubstantiated subjectivist tyranny on the rest of us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
These are by the Founders on separation of "religion" and gov't:
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
2
-
2
-
This is where the Founders put the "religious" subjectivists --
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Four facts and a Massachusetts gun control law:
1. There is an account of Samuel Adams giving a speech at Fauniel Hall, Boston. During the speech muskets were arrayed along the front edge of the stage. After he finished the speech the guns were gathered up and put back into the PUBLIC STORES.
2. He was talking about STATE rights to establish gun control without the Federal gov't, including the Supreme Court, infringing that right.
3. Note that he says "PEACEABLE citizens".
4. His statement is OPINION, NOT LAW.
Last but not least, this is a gun control statute enacted in Massachusetts:
___
ACTS
Passed at the Session begun and held at Boston, on the Twenty-seventh day of August, A. D.
1746.
. . . .
CHAPTER 11.
AN ACT TO PREVENT THE FIRING OF GUNS CHARGED WITH SHOT[T]
OR BALL IN THE TOWN OF BOSTON.
Whereas by the indiscreet firing of guns laden with shot[t] and ball within the town and harbour of Boston, the lives and limbs of many persons have been lost, and others have been in great danger, as well as other dammage has been sustained; for the prevention thereof for the future,--
306
Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and House of Representatives,
[Sect. 1.] That no person or persons, from and after the publication of this act, shall presume to discharge or fire off any cannon laden with shot[tl, from any wharf[f]e or vessel in that part of the harbour of said town which is above the castle, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifteen pounds for each gun so fired or discharged; one moiety of said penalty to be to and for the use of the poor of said town of Boston, and the other moiety to him or them who shall inform, complain and sue for the same, to be recovered by action, bill, plaint or information, before any of his majesty's courts of record within the county of Suffolk; and upon refusal thereof, such person shall suffer three months' imprisonm[en]t without bail or mainprize.
And be it further enacted,
[Sect. 2.] That no person shall, from and after the publication of this act, discharge any gun or pistol, charged with shot[t] or ball, in the town of Boston (the islands thereto belonging excepted), or in any part of the harbour between the castle and said town, on pain of forfeiting forty shillings [for] each gun or pistol so fired or discharged, to be recovered before one or more of his majesty's justices of the peace for the county of Suffolk, and disposed of in manner as aforesaid; or shall suffer ten days' imprisonment. And for themore effectual conviction of any person or persons so offending, it shall be lawful for any person
to seize and take into custody any gun so fired off, and deliver the same to one of the next justices of the peace in said town of Boston, in order to its being produced at time of trial.
Provided, nevertheless,--
[Sect. 3.] That this law shall not be so construed or understood as to prevent soldiers, in their common-training days, with the leave and by order of the commission officers of the company to which they belong, or other persons, at other times, with the leave of one or more of the field-officers of the regiment in Boston, from firing at a mark or target[t], for the exercise of their skill and judgment, provided it be done at the lower end of the common; nor from firing at a mark, from the several batteries in the town of Boston, with the leave of the
captain-general, and nowhere else.
[Sect. 4.] This law to continue and be in force for the space of three years, and no longer. [Passed and published September 13.]
. . . .
____________
_The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay: to Which are Prefixed the Charters of the Province, and Historical and Explanatory Notes, and an Appendix, Published under Chapter 87 of the Resolves of, The General Court of the Commonwealth for the Year 1807, Volume III (Boston: Printed for the Commonwealth by Albert J. Wright, Corner of Milk and Federal Streets, 1878), Edited by Ellis Ames and A. C. Goodell, at 305.
2
-
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
-
@Will he heck as like To include the competent, such as "Biden" and "H. Clinton" among the incompetents is beyond asinine: it exhibits and ignorance of politics based on not actually paying attention. Doubtless macinnis relies on his ignorance as excuse to not vote, because "superior' to those who do, and then, in circular "reasoning," uses that as excuse to not vote.
It's obvious that macinnis rules out both the competent and incompetent as legitimate to govern. So what is his alternative -- chaos? If so, then his candidates are such as MTG and Boebert, etc.
Biden spent 36 years in the Senate, and 8 years as vice president. Clinton was wife of a state governor, then in the White House for 8 years, then a Senator -- and voted "Most Popular Woman" for 20 years -- before running for president. They knew and know how to govern. They are competent. So macinnis is opposed also to competence.
During all those years Trump was operating his criminal enterprise ripping off banks and the taxpayer. MTG is trailer trash, Gaetz is a sexual predator who targets the underage, and McConnell is all about extreme right-wing power and attacking the social safety net in behalf of the billionaire donor class.
Research "The Federalist Society" -- the source of the judges McConnell put on the Supreme Court. They are an extreme right-wing group of lawyers whose goal is to "repeal the 'New Deal,'" and take the country back to before civil rights and FDR. That's why the decisions of such as Alito cite English religiocrackpots as "reason" to overturn progress in the evolution of human rights law.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ello8116 He was chased AFTER and BECAUSE he shot a person. Otherwise there was no need to chase him instead of the many other unauthorized vigilantes carrying AR-15s.
Rittenhouse crossed the state line, carrying an illegal gun, to a city with which he had not connection, to "protect property" against racially-profiled Black Lives Matter. Period. Full stop.
And the judge made his BIAS obvious when he restricted the prosecution to characterizing those who were shot as "rioters, looters, and arsonists," even though there was NO EVIDENCE, either in or out of court, that those shot were any of those things.
And then his racist musing ""joke" about "lunch": "I hope the Asian food isn't brought by boat."
Defenders of racism, being racists, will pretend to be stupid when confronted by OBVIOUS racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, yes, but not as it has come to be understood.
As example, the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth Colony were seeking "religious freedom" FOR THEMSELVES. Quakers were so suspect that they had to register with the gov't, and essentially had to have passports in and out of the colony.
The Puritans founded Massachusetts-Bay Colony were seeking "religious freedom" but FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. In order to be eligible to run for election, and hold public office, one had not only to own property but also to have the RIGHT "religion -- THEIRS. And they established, in law, that "Papists" -- Catholics -- were PROHIBITED even being IN the colony.
And established in law that those with "wrong" "religions," including Quakers, were BANISHED from the Colony, subject to EXECUTION if after banishment one returned to the Colony. See what happened to Quaker Mary Dyer.
So the various groups of colonists who were seeking "religious freedom" had no problem with establishing theocracies -- "religious" tyrannies -- so long it was of their respective 'religion," and they were in charge.
___
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
-
@TheHugeDwarf Massachusetts-Bay Colony banished "Papists"/Catholics. And in the law if they returned to the colony, they were executed. The same for Quakers.
Sam Adams was a tax collector; but he used the taxes collected for his political ends, so when elected to the General Court -- the state legislature -- there was a legal cloud over his head.
When the "Boston Massacre" occurred (it was not a "massacre" despite Sam Adams' propaganda seeking blood by calling the thoroughly-outnumbered British troops "murderers) one of the witnesses, a teenager who would die of his wounds, was from France -- he only spoke and read French. Adams had him, on his death bed, sign an affidavit soon determined to have been written by Sam Adams. The problem was that the affidavit, though attributed to the witness, was written in English -- which set Sam Adams up for a charge of perjury. He escaped that by stirring up "religious" hatred against Catholics -- the witness had been a Catholic.
It is also said that Sam Adams wasn't actually about "revolution"; he was about re-establishing "Puritan virtue" -- a state "religion". And his history shows that he never missed an opportunity to foment violence in order to achieve that goal.
Sam's cousin John Adams wrote the Massachusetts-Bay constitution -- except the section establishing a state "religion": that was written by Sam.
Maryland was dominated by "Papists"/Catholics. Jefferson's "Religious Freedom Act" nonetheless established "religious" freedom -- i.e., one didn't have to be Catholic in order to have rights.
Roger Williams, a minister banished from Massachusetts-Bay because he gave sermons promoting "freedom of religion" -- not of the practice, but of one's choice of "religion" -- founded "Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations" colony on his idea of religious freedom.
So all the talk about how the colonies were founded by people seeking "religious freedom" glosses over the actual facts: Massachusetts-Bay was a theocracy, a "religious" tyranny, for a substantial portion of its history. In its laws one finds its "Capitol Offenses" -- those requiring the death penalty -- were drawn directly from "Deuteronomy" and "Leviticus". And some of those are pure impossible nonsense -- such as the provision prohibiting having sex with animals.
And when Henry VIII wanted to divorce one of his wives he conveniently "interpreted" a prohibition in "Leviticus" as "ambiguous" so he could rationalize the divorce.
1
-
@thystaff742 Nope: it was about separating the two. It is INFORMATIVE to ACTUALLY READ how the Founders put the "subjectivists" who reject all rules based on their "religious" claims in their place. The following couldn't be ore clear on the point --
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
"Religions" are neither outside the rule of law, nor equal to or above it; and claiming to be acting in accordance with one's "religion" does not exempt one from the rule of law.
1
-
@thystaff742 "Nope, it was about keeping government out of the church."
Wrong: it was about keeping "religion" out of gov't as the LAWS established by the FOUNDERS clearly demonstrate --
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
Let's be clear instead of full of shit:
In Massachusetts the priests who engaged in pedophilia were protected by the "religion" but prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned under SECULAR CRIMINAL law.
Or do you want us to believe that a "religion" would have the "right" to practice human sacrifice, and even cannibalism, and the gov't couldn't do anything about it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derrickburwell7777 Then I guess we don't need "religion" DICTATING o us that the words they insist on putting in OTHERS faces, regardless whether they want it IN THEIR FACES, are the words of a "God" that can't be proven to exist, but is really handy for bullying and attempting to lord it over everyone else.
Be honest: tell us how you don't see your ARROGANCE, whereas your "Christ" preached HUMILITY -- and instructed his followers to practice their "religion "IN PRIVATE".
What do you NOT understand about the following? --
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Either you abide by the SECULAR law, which is the SUPREME -- HIGHEST -- Law of the Land or you are not law-abiding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm 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's 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 purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed 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, via its propaganda front 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 the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets 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" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second 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 execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the 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 outlier Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To Mike Collins --
___
No law protects private/fake "militia"
This chronology illustrates both the evolution, elaboration, and increasing specificity of law, and its continued consistency over centuries:
____
Militia Act from October 1658 (rendered in contemporary spelling):
"Military, [S.] 11. . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., DRAFTING] & raising of soldiers for any expedition, shall be directed to the Committee of militia of the several Towns who may execute the same by the Constable & the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to suppress all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government."
For emphasis:
"the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to SUPPRESS all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government."
The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672. Containing Also, the Body of Liberties of 1641. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, Published by Order of the City Council of Boston, 1889), William H. Whitmore, Record Commissioner, at 179.
In the above, "Committee of Militia" is part of the town gov't. Above the town gov't and "Committee" was a military command structure, in law, which included, at the top, the governor as commander-in-chief of the Militia. The governor was not going to "take up arms" against the gov't/himself.
___
Rendered in contemporary spelling:
At a GENERAL COURT Held at Boston the 3d of May 1676.
This COURT taking into Consideration the great Disappointment the Country hath suffered by reason of non-appearance of Soldiers Impressed [DRAFTED] for several expeditions: Do judge meet that every person Impressed [DRAFTED] as a Soldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every such Foot Soldier shall pay the sum of four Pounds, and every Trooper shall pay the sum of six Pounds: and if their neglects or refusal be accompanied with Refractoriness, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, such person shall be punished with Death, or some other Grievous punishment.
And the Committee of Militia in the several Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all such as shall be Delinquents as is above expressed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrant to the Constable to levy the said fines, which said fines shall be improved to purchase Arms for the Towns use; Provided it shall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any person aggrieved, and just reason alleged and proved to make abatement of the said fines as in their wisdom and discretion they shall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cases aforesaid, be sent to the Committee of Militia in the several Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the strict Execution hereof.
By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr.
The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686. (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343.
Law REGULATES -- which includes imposition of PENALTIES.
___
The "Declaration of Independence," which applied exclusively to England, includes a list of grievances against King George III, these two of which are directly on point:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"Legislatures" MAKE LAW, which REGULATE.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
"Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition rule of law. As John Adams, who participated in writing the "Declaration," and authored the Massachusetts constitution, said: "A system of Laws, and not of men."
___
June 21, 1788: Ratification of the US Constitution completed:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
"Art. 4, S. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and . . . against domestic Violence."
"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble."
"Amendment XIV., S. 3. No person . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", shall be eligible for any US or state gov't office, civil or military.
___
The first Congress, both House and Senate, under the newly-ratified Constitution, debated and wrote the proposed Bill of Rights. The Debates of that which became the Second Amendment show its purpose was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated Militia -- standing armies being feared.
September 28, 1789: Proposed Bill of Rights submitted to the states for consideration and ratification consisted of TWELVE proposed amendments; the first two were rejected, making the 3rd the 1st, and making the 4th the 2nd.
December 15, 1791: Ratification of remaining Ten Amendments completed.
___
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes:
May 2, 1792: "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
May 8, 1792: "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."
More than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted a Militia Act in response to the "Whiskey" insurrection:
November 29, 1794: "An Act to authorize the President to call out and station a corps of Militia, in the four western Counties of Pennsylvania, for a limited time."
And this is how, per Art. I., S. 8., C. 16, the Militia is ARMED:
July 6, 1798: "An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe. . . .
___
Source of all US statutes above: The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 2, 1845. Vol. I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters.
___
From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
"(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
___
From _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) citing _Presser_:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
___
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
___
1
-
1
-
@bl4ckkn1g8t5 The genocide is being committed by Netanyahu, who supports TRUMP. Biden is faced with the slow task of changing 80 years of unconditional support of Israel's genocide and land-grabbing.
And if you were actually paying attention, know anything about foreign policy -- Biden's expertise -- and how to LISTEN to public diplomatic statements, then you would know that Biden has put Netanyahu in a box; he has got through to him that --
1. Israel needs the United States more than the United States needs Israel.
2. The US provides money and weapons to Israel -- not the reverse. At the time VP Harris, Senator Schumer, and others made coordinated statements, Sec. of State Austin let out that the DOJ is evaluating the sorts of weapons the US will be providing to Israel -- the latter a shot across the Netanyahu gang's bow.
3. Weeks ago Netanyahu announced that the IDF was about to invade Gaza's city Rafah. Weeks later, after Biden began with, "That would be a mistake," the IDF HASN'T invaded Rafah.
But I guess you presume to be an expert on foreign policy -- and have better judgment on the issue than Biden despite the fact that you have much less information than does Biden. And don't seem to be aware of the current status of the situation and how much Biden has cornered Netanyahu.
Politics, diplomacy, democracy, take time; foreign policy, with as many relevant players in the loop as there are, takes time. Instant gratification is for the young -- which is why they are so often wrong.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dalecrocker3213 FACTS MATTER:
___
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thelapander You mean Bill Maher?
You mean when she was still silenced by the NDA, REQUIRED by Trump, so she denied the facts in order to comply with the NDA?
Guess who else lies -- constantly:
DONALD TRUMP.
Why are you okay with Donald Trump's constant lying? Is it because you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite who is only "morally" concerned when (1) it is someone else lying about Trump -- which Michael Cohen did in DEFENSE of Trump, or (2) it is someone else telling the TRUTH about Trump?
Your position is bogus as it requires you to defend Trump EVEN AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW and the KNOWN FACTS.
"HANG MIKE PENCE!" -- Trump's MAGA "tourists".
Clue, lying punk: not only because of the COVID pandemic, but also because it was the peaceful transfer of power ceremony, tourism was SUSPENDED at the Capital.
What we are watching in New York's criminal trial is -- as seasoned lawyers and prosecutors have repeatedly pointed out, is a MOB trial. The witnesses for the prosecution are typically not people who attend the "Christian" Sunday mass that YOU don't attend either. They are mostly, themselves, WITNESSES to the crimes about which they are testifying BECAUSE they were perpetrators of the crimes.
THIS is how LEGAL REALITY WORKS, law-illiterate liar: whatever the witnesses testify to UNDER OATH is CORROBORATED by HARD EVIDENCE. The New York criminal trial is a DOCUMENTS case. The DOCUMENTS were generated by and obtained from the Trump criminal enterprise, and other WITNESSES including TRUMP ALLIES who testified UNDER OATH to FACTS that prove the PROSECUTION'S case.
And we know why you choose to be ignorant, to be stupid, to NOT KNOW the FACTS: because you HATE it being put in your face that "celebrity" Trump is a morally bankrupt degenerate pig who puts on an ACT that you fell for. He is a third-generation NEW YORK con man and career criminal.
Trump is a SERIAL adulterer -- "Thou shalt not commit adultery" -- "God". And constant liar -- "Thou shalt not lie." -- "God.
And constant defamer -- "Thou shalt not lie against others." -- "God".
That's why, based on TRUMP'S LIES about it, you DID NOT watch the January 6th Committee hearings -- to which testified, UNDER OATH, ONLY TRUMP REPUBLICANS from Trump's White House, DOJ, and campaign. THEY provided the first extensive evidence to the public of Trump's CONSTANT COMMISSION OF CRIMES.
And you want to call Stormy Daniels a liar for COMPLYING with Trump's REQUIRED NDA!? Trump doesn't comply with the RULE OF LAW, BEGINNING with the Constitution. AND he has promised to CANCEL the Constitution.
CLUE: what happens to YOUR rights as secured in the Constitution if TRUMP CANCELS them? THEY NO LONGER EXIST.
Stop the lying. More important:
Stop the stupid, which is the equivalent of you cutting your own throat for a degenerate thief who couldn't care LESS about you.
1
-
@thelapander Stormy Daniels filed lawsuit, in California, against Trump.
In the court papers from Trump he expressly stated that the $130,000 dollars were REIMBURSMENT (not "legal fees").
The prosecution submitted that DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE in the New York criminal trial.
So tell us, Trump-worshipping sucker:
In the New York trial, Trump sez it wuz "legal fees," not "reimbursement".
In the California case, he said it wuz REIMBURSEMENT.
In view of the fact that BOTH can't be true, then WHICH of the Trump assertions ISN'T the LIE?
And see the video of Trump's lawyer Giuliani saying that the $130,000 came from Trump's personal account -- was not "campaign" money -- and was REIMBURSEMENT funneled through "a law firm".
The straight facts, as SUBSTANTIATED by the DOCUMENTS in the New York case:
The money -- it was actually the total of $420,000 -- came from Trump's personal account, as the checks prove, as 12 REIMBURSEMENTS to Michael Cohen.
But we know you know none of that, because you are desperate to AVOID ALL FACTS in order to preserve the "purity" of your being HOODWINKING by TRUMP.
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
-
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
-
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm 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's 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 purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed 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, via its propaganda front 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 the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets 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" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second 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 execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the 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 outlier Heller and its progeny.
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
-
1