An American

So that's why Trump's attacking boats in Venezuela.

The First Amendment is very antifa.

The idea that judges must go along with the Executive about everything or be labeled radical is unAmerican.

In the United States we have three co-equal branches of government. None reports to the other.

Trump is doing his best to take our Second Amendment right to a National Guard away from us as he is continually trying to move them from one state to another to work to implement the tyranny they exist to prevent.

So let's do that now. Review the 2nd Amendment as simply as possible, no pretzels required, just a few straightforward references.

?

I am just one person, and I did vote in the last election. I have voted, volunteered to work as an election worker (I was a supervisor last time), and I have worked on multiple campaigns.

The most antifa thing people can do is participate in elections.

Plenary authority, the dictator phrase that caused Stephen Miller to stop talking Miller suggests Trump wields absolute power over decisions to send in the National Guard, before suddenly stopping speaking in an awkward interview moment

This is what an assault on the Second Amendment looks like. A "praise my leader" dude saying that his personal leader should have "plenary authority" over the National Guard.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/a...

I should have made this an independent thread...

But sometimes I rant.

of course they did, they fought in a revolution, but that doesn't mean that's what the Second Amendment is about.

Saying "Look now, such and such was pro gun ownership so the 2nd A is about guns" is as meaningful as one of them being pro-pies meaning it's about dessert.

Anyway, one last point before I sign off, because a lot of people love to point out that the Framers, like Thomas Jefferson, believed that people (free men) should be able and willing to own guns...

Trump is a spoiled, bratty kid, and a bully.

So it's extremely hard to treat him otherwise.

the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power."

"I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that

And this interpretation is backed by a great deal of writings, speeches and debates by the Framers. There were Federalist papers written about it, and George Mason summed up the ask that the 2nd A answers when he said:

The Second Amendment is saying: Having a militia trained by the States according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, being necessary for a State to execute the law, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections is the right of the people, and it shall not be legally infringed upon.

The last bit is just an emphasis, it actually applies to most everything in the Bill of Rights which as a whole was about limiting Federal (mostly Congressional) power, it's saying that the right discussed previously can't be taken away or limited by Congress.

Now the part that leads people astray. The right to keep and bear arms isn't as myopic as being about personal gun ownership, nothing in the Constitution is about horse or car or toaster ownership, it's about organizing a people's militia, the same militia the rest of the sentence is about.

It also explains why the militia is necessary for the States, its purpose.

To suppress insurrections, repel Invasions, and execute the law (such as laws about Natural Disaster recovery.)

So it's not about gun regulations, it's about militia regulations, and structure.

The first important reference is Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, which is what the Second Amendment... Amends.

It explains how the militia is to be well regulated.

Training by the States according to the discipline prescribed by Congress and Officers appointed by the State.

So let's do that now. Review the 2nd Amendment as simply as possible, no pretzels required, just a few straightforward references.

And that's it for your article, it stops without trying to explain the meaning of the Second Amendment, it's just trying to figure out how the illogic of the Heller decision will play out in real life.

Anyone who has ever attempted to explain the perspective that the Second Amendment is about personal gun ownership or carrying has to immediately come up with limitations "oh it means SOMETIMES but not in these cases..."

History and logic doesn't support Heller, and so trying to make sense of Heller becomes extremely convoluted.

Much of your article is the authors reaching for various doctrines and ideas to try and make sense of the pretzel mess that's created when you try and make the Second Amendment into something it's not.

The First Amendment is a good one, but the Second Amendment is most similar to the right to a jury when accused of a crime.

There's so little guidance from the Framers about this new direction that it sends people grasping at straws and trying to interpret it by pretending it's similar to different amendments than it really is.

The newness of this direction is emphasized by the fact that it raises questions. If the Second Amendment had always been about personal self defense or personal gun ownership then why would saying it was about those things raise any questions?