Sep 5, 2023 " (((Top US law enforcement officials))) say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country.
#24 | Posted by easy_meat

That was under Biden

Under Trump, top US law enforcement officials are the biggest domestic terrorism threat.

The only way to interpret the 2nd amendment differently is if you have an anti gun agenda.
#11 | Posted by kwrx25

How is it an anti gun agenda to say a crazy person shouldn't have the right to bear arms?

In yourind, an anti murder agenda and an anti gun agenda are the same thing.

This is why I avoid white neighborhoods.
#35 | Posted by easy_meat

Whites who aren't Democrats aren't at risk from White right-wing domestic terrorism, so you'll be fine.

Why not provide the summary?

In 2021, among males, Black or African American (Black) males had the highest age-adjusted rate of firearm-related homicide (52.9 deaths per 100,000 standard population), and Asian males had the lowest rate (1.5). Among females, Black females had the highest rate (7.5), and Asian females had the lowest rate (0.5). Males had higher rates than females across all race and Hispanic origin groups.

100x the chance to be killed with a gun for a Black man compared to an Asian woman.

2x the chance to be killed with a gun is you're an Asian man compared to an Asian woman.

Firearm related homicide is not defined as Domestic Terrorism.

For example, ethnic cleansing by Dylan Roof or that Wal*Mart ethnic cleansing in El Paso.

Not terrorism.

Instead, the Acts simply defined a "group of individuals" and mandated that the group arm themselves with guns, ammunition and knives.

So, who defines the "group of individuals" in 2025?

That is the irrefutable evidence of the Founders intent regarding a "well regulated militia."
#47 | Posted by et_al

Sounds like you're saying there was not a "well-regulated militia" until one was created by an Act of Congress.

So just a bunch of people with guns etc is not a militia. A militia as a legal entity is what Congress defines to be a militia, which in your example required men ages 18 to 45 to be conscripted into said militia.

Tell me what I'm not seeing.

"I'll stick with what the Founders actually did when drafting legislation."

The Founders ensured the North couldn't do a rug pull on Slave states by federally banning guns, and further bolstered the political power of the South by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes.

Nearly every Founding Father owned slaves, and fourteen of our first sixteen Presidents owned slaves.

Slavery was the premier reason for American economic success.

One of the keys to that success is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms, to perpetuate keeping humans as slaves, and to facilitate hunting down the escapees, which is what the early militias did.

#53 Revisionist history that I think was first posited by a journalist, I think Thomas Hartman.

How so?
That fourteen of sixteen first Presidents were slave owners is clearly not at odds with history.
Nor is slavery's economic value to the early Republic.
Nor is the use of militia to round up runaways; part of a legacy of oppression by force that winds its way forward in history to the police forces of today.

You seem to be the one revising things. You seem to be suggesting the Founding Fathers conceptualization and imagination of the use of firearms was somehow wholly independent of their own economic plight, and own status as slavers, and how firearms might play a rule in security their blessings of liberty.

But I don't think you're actually such a snake in the grass that you'd try to do that, so let's talk about it.

Tell me briefly, what history do you claim is being "revised" here.

I have read your screed. It is a screed just like the one you pooh-pooh allegedly from Hartmann, which I have also read.

The Second Amendment has a context. That's not a revision of history. That's literally just history.

If we take the Second Amendment to provide for a man's ability to make his home his castle, it naturally follows that protecting your property includes protecting your ownership of your slaves.

By that same token, Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, as is often mythologized, includes under its penumbra of protection a defense against seizure of one's property, e.g. slaves.

And this too, in both mythology and fact, is born out in our history, when our heroes of The Alamo died protecting Texas from Santa Ana, who promised to free the slaves.

So, I'm not "revising" anything here. Revising this is when you simply omit these facts from what you teach kids in school, and then when they never ask about as adults, and they learn about it for the first time, they claim you're revising history. No, you're ignorant of history.

"The Founders saw a need to regulate them and that's what they did."

Well, in the Act I cited, they defined who's in the militia through conscription to said militia.

So what regulation are you referring to here? How can any of the Militia Acts regulate a militia, when a militia is simultaneously any able bodied man of fighting age who can bear arms? Do they only regulate some militia? But not, say the Michigan Militia which started us on this path of right-wing takeover during the Clinton era? Or is perhaps the Michigan Militia a private volunteer militia somehow under Federal regulation more than the sum of its individual parts by calling itself a militia, and I'm so ignorant of the law that I just don't know that. Or somewhere in the middle.

What exactly did the Founders regulate vis a vis Militia that exists in the world today. Are you referring to how they gave the President the ability to command the militia in times of emergency, and how the militia of back then eventually grew into the state National Guards of today? Is that the regulation of the militias you're referring to, or is there other salient parts of it with respect to this discussion about the Second Amendment?

"it's a 35 page law review article."

It's not a bad read. It has some real gems like this:

In addition to Blackstone, the views of other seventeenth- and eighteenth century English political theorists clearly influenced the political views of the colonists who ultimately would revolt and establish a new nation. American political thought was strongly linked to "republican" thought in England."' The essence of republican thought was that a citizenry could rule itself without the paternal guiding hand of a monarch.

It's funny because,
That's the opposite of how today's Republicans view Trump.

"Harrington also believed that the actual independence attained would be a function of the citizen's ability to bear arms and use them to defend his rights"

Which dovetails nicely into why the Founding Fathers thought it wise to guarantee a slave owner could always defend his rights to own slaves.

Your link doesn't disagree with anything I'm saying, Et_Al. At times it contextualizes it nicely.

I'll ask again, where is the revision in the history that I recounted?

"Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Antifederal-ists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.""

That supports what I'm telling you, how arms were used to preserve the liberty of owning slaves.

Do you think that preserving the liberty of owning slaves was virtually the only reason arms were used, or was it one of several big reasons, or just a few reasons with preserving the liberty of owning slaves being the biggest?
#77 | Posted by Idependant97

I'll take "preserving the liberty," with the institution of slavery and all the fruits it bore as the #1 thing they needed to safeguard.

Because, as any American should know, slavery was the primary reason for American economic success!

How Slavery Became the Economic Engine of the South
Slavery was so profitable, it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation.
...
By the start of the war, the South was producing 75 percent of the world's cotton and creating more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. Enslaved workers represented Southern planters' most significant investment"and the bulk of their wealth.

#71 FO POS troll.
#74 | Posted by et_al

Get bent.
There's no trolling in my #71.

"Rights" usually referred to the people, and "power" referred to things the government did.

^
That's substantially correct, I believe.

The Fourth Amendment gives you the right to an attorney. When written, all that meant was, if you could afford a lawyer, you were allowed to have one.

This was a response to what the British did then and what ICE is doing now: Initiating legal proceedings against defendants who do not even have any means of having a lawyer present.

It very pointedly did NOT mean that if you cannot afford a lawyer, the State will pay a Public Defender to try your case. Just like today we don't interpret the Second Amendment to mean the government actually gives you a gun.