[Scamp]

Are foreigner's, who are not allowed gun rights, envious because we are free men who are allowed to own guns?

[Rich]

Well, the law eventually made it illegal for posses to murder people without evidence, but that was after BIPOC people forced the courts to recognise their basic humanity.

Really you do believe in the most absurd fantasies. Racial minorities` got rights due to the kindness of racial Europeans. The agency of racial minorities in this process was most definitely secondary. The example of South Africa shows that racial Europeans easily held it within their powers to continue to withhold rights from non Racially-European people if they wanted to. Even when Apartheid came to an end, it was largely due to the agency of racially European people, European people outside South Africa, conjoined with Liberal opinion in South Africa, particularly the South African Anglo business community.

These pathetic fantasies about social history now even extend to women. We are told that women fought to get the vote. They didn't. The reason that Swiss women got the vote so much later than some other countries wasn't because they were weaker fighters than women on other countries. It was just simply that Swiss men didn't decide to give it to them. Similarly the reason that Saudi women still have so few rights, despite the immense oil wealth, isn't because somehow Saudi women are inferior fighters, it is due to the sickness of the Islamic ideology.

History just isn't fair. The overwhelming majority of people in history were very much its objects, rather than its subjects. This narcissistic Marxist and Cultural Marxist rewriting of history is actually an insult to our ancestors, who just lacked the privileges and opportunities that pretty much all modern citizens of western nations enjoy regardless of their race or skin colour. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate those rare glorious individuals like Nat Turner and Jean-Jacques Dessalines who had and grasped the opportunity to fight back.

[annatar1914]

@late ;

1) If you're going to lie, try harder. The American military has a proud tradition of staying out of power struggles.

It's a real common pussy move of yours to personalize and make attacks when you're clearly in the wrong. The Federal Military has always been political, otherwise there would have been no civil war to begin with, for one thing....

2) My point, exactly. Again, if you want to lie, put a little effort into it...

Again, with the stupid jackass comments. You were the one who conflated the Continental Army of Washington with the Militias, remember?

3) That's not a dodge.

Get real, it's definitely a dodge if you won't answer a simple question. So I'll ask again; do you support the right of the people to carry out a revolution to overthrow a tyrannical government, yes or no?

The right to organize in a Militia and bear arms personally is for the purpose of revolution, or threatening revolution, against out of touch, criminal, and tyrannical elites.

That is why you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, if you were honest about your position.

4) I love delusions of competence. Keep those jokes coming.

And what ''delusion of competence'' am I displaying? You're like a fleeing squid; when threatened, you obscure everything in your own darkness.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'd say "well-regulated" is more like "upholding the prevailing laws at the time" and "having mechanisms of oversight and being able to ensure violations of the law will lead to the corresponding penalty". The difference is that I'm making a clear distinction between the despicable law of the time and those who were in charge of enforcing them - the key issue, in my view, has to do with the laws themselves.

You can define whatever you want however you want.

It is still a fact that were an oppressive arm of state tyranny against ethnic minorities.

But it is true - and I'm guessing you can't deny this - that models based on community policing will tend to focus on "upholding community standards". It's precisely why things like posses should be a last resort measure if career officers prove insufficient to do their job, before turning the law enforcement response into something closer to a military deployment. This also means that if you want it to be equitable then the community itself has to change, ultimately, since if it doesn't the democratic process itself will tend to lead to unequitable law enforcement, if not unequitable laws themselves.

Yes, you justified police brutality and racism by claiming that lynching posses are the only possible example of community policing and so we need the racist and brutal police as a lesser evil.

The British tried to land in Baltimore, the battle for it in 1814 is the event the Star Spangled Banner makes reference too. The ones defending the city were probably largely militiamen, at least those doing so on land.

Maybe. Since this tangent is irrelevant to my claim, I am ignoring it from now on.

[wat0n]

You can define whatever you want however you want.

It is still a fact that were an oppressive arm of state tyranny against ethnic minorities.

And then the issue was with the state tyranny itself, not the posses.

Yes, you justified police brutality and racism by claiming that lynching posses are the only possible example of community policing and so we need the racist and brutal police as a lesser evil.

No, I did not say that. But I find it interesting, because you justified ethnic cleansing before ITT. Perhaps you should try not to project your own manias onto others

Maybe. Since this tangent is irrelevant to my claim, I am ignoring it from now on.

How is it irrelevant? It's an example of a militia engaging in collective defense.

[Pants-of-dog]

And then the issue was with the state tyranny itself, not the posses.

No. The whole point behind regulation of the posses is to avoid state tyranny.

No, I did not say that.

Okay. Then I misunderstood.

How does this relate to the second amendment?

How is it irrelevant? It's an example of a militia engaging in collective defense.

Because that is not my argument.

[wat0n]

No. The whole point behind regulation of the posses is to avoid state tyranny.

Only part of it. It's also to actually aid with law enforcement, hence the sheriff's authority to summon it (or why there is often a penalty for not participating). Just as the militia is meant to aid for defense (but is otherwise very similar in spirit).

Okay. Then I misunderstood.

How does this relate to the second amendment?

Just an additional point, insofar posses are a form of community policing.

Because that is not my argument.

That kind of situation was one of the historical reasons for the Second Amendment.

[late]

@late ;



1) The Federal Military has always been political, otherwise there would have been no civil war to begin with, for one thing....



2) You were the one who conflated the Continental Army of Washington with the Militias

3) The right to organize in a Militia and bear arms personally is for the purpose of revolution, or threatening revolution, against out of touch, criminal, and tyrannical elites.

4) That is why you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, if you were honest about your position.

1) First, the American military has never been involved in a coup. You keep trying to move the goalposts... The South attacked us at the beginning of the Civil War. Defending yourself is not political. You're still lying.

2) We went over this, Washington had Steuben turn his fighting force into an army. Militias are no match for a determined army.

3) As I pointed out already, the militias were intended to serve a number of purposes. The primary one was to slow down an invader long enough to raise an army. If you had actually studied the history, the way the Founding Fathers reversed themselves, after we had a government to protect, is startling. That doesn't negate what they said earlier, but it puts it in an entirely different context.

" early Americans agreed that they had a right to arms, but in discussing that right, gave different understandings of its purposes and value. Many saw it as enabling a fundamental natural right of self-defense,: some saw it as enabling a militia system,43 and some saw it as ensuring an armed citizenry that-whether enrolled in militia units or not-would serve as a counterbalance to government abuses.44 The relative balance of these views follows a timeline. Prior to the Revolution, natural rights and self-defense overwhelmingly dominated the conversation.45 From 1775 to the framing of the Constitution, when conflict and state-building were the issues of the day, natural rights, militia, and armed people were all in play.46 By the framing of the Bill of Rights and in the following decades, natural right and self-defense returned to dominance."
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=wmborj


4) You may have noticed, I am not shy. If I wanted to talk about ending the 2nd, I would. That there is no chance of that happening would not deter me. This will eventually be resolved in court.

[Pants-of-dog]

Only part of it. It's also to actually aid with law enforcement, hence the sheriff's authority to summon it (or why there is often a penalty for not participating). Just as the militia is meant to aid for defense (but is otherwise very similar in spirit).

Well, you are not disagreeing that the posses and sheriff fail when it comes to avoiding oppression.

Other reasons like this are not pertinent.

Just an additional point, insofar posses are a form of community policing.

And? This does not seem to relate to the topic in any way.

This entire post seems to be off topic.

[wat0n]

Well, you are not disagreeing that the posses and sheriff fail when it comes to avoiding oppression.

Other reasons like this are not pertinent.

Why aren't they pertinent? Because you said so?

And? This does not seem to relate to the topic in any way.

This entire post seems to be off topic.

They are a model of community policing you somehow don't like. Go figure.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n


Again, if you could tie any of this to stuff I actually said, that would help.

You seem to agree with my point that the second amendment has been used as a tool of oppression by the federal and smaller US governments throughout history.

Nor do you seem to disagree that this directly contradicts the stated purpose of preventing government tyranny.

You how seem to be bringing up other , unrelated , points.

[wat0n]

@wat0n


Again, if you could tie any of this to stuff I actually said, that would help.

You seem to agree with my point that the second amendment has been used as a tool of oppression by the federal and smaller US governments throughout history.

Nor do you seem to disagree that this directly contradicts the stated purpose of preventing government tyranny.

You how seem to be bringing up other , unrelated , points.

I'm questioning your claims that it's important at all or that it was actually where oppression came from. It was not and it did not.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm questioning your claims that it's important at all

Whether or not state oppression of ethnic minorities is important depends on your subjective opinions of racial equality and the value of human life.

So, I can see why some people would think it was unimportant.

or that it was actually where oppression came from. It was not and it did not.

Are you now arguing that posses, and other groups armed as a n effect of the 2nd amendment, did not lynch BIPOC people based on little or no evidence or for reasons that had nothing to do with crime?

[wat0n]

Whether or not state oppression of ethnic minorities is important depends on your subjective opinions of racial equality and the value of human life.

So, I can see why some people would think it was unimportant.

Indeed, just as others think ethnic cleansing and scalping of children are unimportant. But that's not what I meant by "important", what I mean is that it's not important as an explanation of the status of nonwhites at the time.

Are you now arguing that posses, and other groups armed as a n effect of the 2nd amendment, did not lynch BIPOC people based on little or no evidence or for reasons that had nothing to do with crime?

No, what I'm claiming is that those things happened because they were not illegal at the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Indeed, just as others think ethnic cleansing and scalping of children are unimportant. But that's not what I meant by "important", what I mean is that it's not important as an explanation of the status of nonwhites at the time.

Is there any other way that the second amendment significantly affected the lives of BIPOC people during that era?

No, what I'm claiming is that those things happened because they were not illegal at the time.

And?

[wat0n]

Is there any other way that the second amendment significantly affected the lives of BIPOC people during that era?

I don't know. Did the War of 1812 affect them?

You tell me.

And?

Then, they were not acting in an official capacity and in any event they were within their "regulation".

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't know. Did the War of 1812 affect them?

You tell me.

No, I am not interested in supporting an argument for you that you are hot even going to write out.

Then, they were not acting in an official capacity and in any event they were within their "regulation".

No. If posses and lynchings are legal, they are acting in a official capacity. And no, that does not mean that they are being regulated.

[wat0n]

No, I am not interested in supporting an argument for you that you are hot even going to write out.

The collective defense also includes defending the downtrodden and oppressed of society, along with property (including if society considers human beings can be property).

No. If posses and lynchings are legal, they are acting in a official capacity. And no, that does not mean that they are being regulated.

They are being "well-regulated" relative of the law of the land. Then the issue is to actually dismantle the body of laws that allowed these things to happen, which was eventually done.

Also, posses are always acting in an official capacity, even when they break the law. Which is why they face the penalties officials face when they break the law.

[Pants-of-dog]

The collective defense also includes defending the downtrodden and oppressed of society, along with property (including if society considers human beings can be property).

What is your argument, exactly?

They are being "well-regulated" relative of the law of the land. Then the issue is to actually dismantle the body of laws that allowed these things to happen, which was eventually done.

Also, posses are always acting in an official capacity, even when they break the law. Which is why they face the penalties officials face when they break the law.

None of this contradicts my point and has already been addressed.

[wat0n]

What is your argument, exactly?

It should be quite clear, don't you think? You're barking at the wrong tree here. Furthermore, it's also clear from both the contemporary records and the US military history of the early 19th century that the 2nd Amendment did have real-world military relevance going well beyond simply race relations between Americans and even between Americans and Indigenous living outside the US (as it was defined at the time). And it's also known that it even had real-world military relevance after, since the armed populace of the US was one factor that deterred Mexico from joining Germany in waging war against the US during WWI.