Why are you here when you could be giving her the Dutch Oven?

---- off, nerd.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"Anyone who thinks Trump will ever face any form of justice in this world is a deluded fool."

Don't be such a sourpuss.
Justice could still take the form of a Big Mac Attack.

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.

Because I know it truly is upsetting to some of you that you'll never "get him" and to me that's the most enjoyable thing of all of it.
#19 | Posted by Bluewaffles

You have no interest in politics, other than as a means by which to make your enemies suffer.
You are not a mentally healthy person. I wonder if you are aware of that fact.

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.

#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'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.

You lied to join the Navy. Smart move!

Ever apologize to the Navy, for deliberately misrepresenting yourself and wasting taxpayer resources, or are apologies for dummies?

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.

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?

"But people dying, as awful as it is, doesn't make something a coup."

The riot played a role in the coup attempt.

The riot agut down Congress and delayed the peaceful transition of power.

You aren't going to deny the actions on Jan 6 were an attempt to subvert the peaceful transition of power... Or are you?

So yeah, they're both awful.

But Zionists started it.

And Zionists are not going to stop expanding until all of what their holy book claims was given to the Jews is back under Zionist control.

And we've been seeing this happening since before Israel was even founded.

Thanks for the list, Yav.

This is the manifestation of Toxic Masculinity.
Where it's gay to be a cheerleader.
And being gay is not okay.

That's all that's going on here.
Alpha Males trying to assert themselves.
Call it the Joe Rogan effect.

Boys who never matured emotionally beyond the eighth grade.
Boys who grew up to be men who give their wife a Dutch Oven in bed and brag about it on the DR.

#10 The Hamas Preamble is just Zionism for the Palestinians.

It also came a century after Zionists set out to ethnically cleanse Palestine.

Finally, Hamas was receiving financial support from Israel when they wrote that Preamble, so maybe ask why Israel supports terrorism.

"What we saw was a bunch of angry people storming around, grabbing souvenirs, and getting themselves arrested."

You're ignoring what the Senate Republicans did.
And, you're ignoring the Eastman Memo.

Might not have been Bob Dole. Can't quite remember. There have been a lot of Republican make cheerleaders in politics though.

President George W. Bush was a cheerleader in college. So was Bob Dole.

This is just New Age Republican homophobia run amok.

IDF database: at least 83% of Gaza dead were civilians
Nonsense blood libel against the Jews.

IDF is doing Blood Libel on the Jews?

Oh, I get it. You're referring to the Hannibal Directive.

According to lefties, the ONLY history we should show is America's darkest times.
#7 | Posted by BellRinger

America has dark times?
Got any examples?

Not much of a coup.
#260 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Only because Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done.

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.

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.