If people won't amend the constitution, it should be followed to the letter!

 In this case the war powers act,  As I have already pointed out, under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I have an interest in comparative constitutional law, and France's interpretation of the separation of church and state: Laïcité, which got me looking at the  constitution of the Fourth French Republic (1946), Article 7, which deals with declaring war:

War may not be declared without a vote by the National Assembly and the preliminary opinion of the Council of the Republic.

I've already pointed out that the executive, or the commander in chief of the military, should not be charged with this ability, which was something which concerned the founders. They expressed a dislike for a standing military.

Unfortunately, their fear has come to pass and the US has a large, standing military. And it is being used to pursue "forever wars".

Recent events have highlighted that the founders were right and some sort of legislation with teeth should be put in place to prevent military adventures. 

The Virginia "Gun Rights" crowd go where angels fear to tread.

The Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Attorney is showing his ignorance of Virginia history and law in a way that is quite pleasurable for those of us who want to preserve the Constitution. Especially since, as I like to point out, the Virginia Constitution's analogue to the Second Amendment makes it pretty clear that the right is tied to enabling a militia, as opposed to a standing army.

Article I. Bill of Rights Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Wow, that couldn't be any clearer.

Could it?

And you can see it for yourself at:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article1/section13/

I know it's been changed to add the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but the original version written by Thomas Jefferson gives us a great idea of what the founder's intent happened to be:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 §13 which was written by Thomas Jefferson. 

The issue for the founders wasn't personal uses, but the preservation of the militia system. That's a military establishment like what Switzerland HAD where the professional, full-time, force is mainly for training and administration. The fighting force are the part-timers that is formed by pretty much every able bodied male.

 Pulling in Virginia's declaration of rights is a godsend because it can get the issue back to the actual debates at the drafting of the Constitution. This is because pretty much all the texts used to justify gun rights are misquotations or taken out of context.

The real issue was that the Federal government had an army. The militias were state run organisations. And the militias weren't just anybody with a gun since any real discussion of this period needs to address Shays' Rebellion and the reaction to it. 

The founders were concerned that since Congress had the power over the budget, they would favour the professional army, and possibly create a large standing army. As opposed to funding the militia. You will see the founders actually citing article 1, section 8, clause 16 in the debates in reference to this issue.

Hence the term "infringed". 

Also, as the Virginia Constitution points out, the military, whether army or militia, needs to be under civilian control.

And as the US Constitution points out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: the militia is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." 

But the bottom line is that rights come with responsibilities: and the right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility of serving in the active militia. 

And following the law.

 See also:
    US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16

Tactical toys for the Walt set.

 I guess one advantage to being a sigma male is that you don't really care about what other people think about you. On the other hand, I have to admit this reel from Instagram by @erikcrackschina, a Chinese businessman, definitely got my attention. It's titled 

The Tactical Illusion: Mass-Producing Male Survival Anxiety 

The most profitable brands don't sell products; they sell solutions to emotional anxiety. Breaking down the industrial reality behind the $200 "military-grade" EDC tactical knife. Discover how massive CNC machines and kitchen-scissor factories mass-produce "alpha male" survival anxiety for just $5.

How DTC founders use the heavy hardware matrix of Yangjiang, Guangdong, to arbitrage Western male "survival anxiety" and turn stamped steel into massive profits. You are buying the feeling, but they are selling the steel.

I was stationed in Hong Kong and was able to visit the PRC (and do a little tourism). So, I can confirm this even though I saw the industry in its nascent stages during the 1980s and 1990.

Even more cutting is this comment to the video:

as a man who has spent 30 years in the gun and tactical industry id like to say your assessment is so dead on its scary. And being im in firearms were one of the only industries not completely dominated by China because of import restrictions. But the firearms accessories market is quickly becoming dominated by Chinese manufacturing as well. Brands like Holosun and Vortex are dominating the optics market. American gun companies should be thankful for those restrictions on firearms import. Ive seen and shot the Norinco AR15 and its actually a damn fine rifle. 

I have to admit amusement because I occasionally cross paths with the US gun community. Toss in that I worked in military procurement (mostly electronic gear), but that didn't stop me from getting addicted to true military surplus.

And not rusty rifles that have sat around in some warehouse since lord knows when.

Anyway, I do have admit that US gun culture is driven by paranoia. Even if sometimes that paranoia can be justified, as happened during the "peaceful protests". Although, some people did go way out of control. But that is a whole other set of posts.

The reality of all this is that paranoia is big money.

"It makes you feel like a navy seal even if you’re not one or want to open an Amazon package in the suburbs." 

And its LARRP that they are doing not LRRP. 

 

Police Brutality???

 

OK, I am doing an experiment on cultural attitudes toward policing. I'm hoping that a US audience will see this and give their opinion.

This was posted by the French @gendarmerie_nationale_officiel with the caption:
The trend gone wrong #humour #gendarmerie #gendarme

 

I've mentioned that I have seen British police beat the crap out of people who resisted arrest.

I am also aware of the cultural differences in policing.

I am curious as to how this would be received by a US audience.

Just curious about the common law position on "gun rights"

 So, I did another AI search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "What is the British common law position on gun rights". Here are the results.

AI Overview

In British common law, there is no enshrined right to bear arms; rather, gun ownership is considered a strictly regulated privilege. The state controls access to firearms to protect public safety, requiring individuals to obtain licenses and demonstrate "good reason" for possession, such as sport, hunting, or occupational use. 

Key details:
No Right to Bear Arms: Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, the UK has no legal right to bear arms.
Licensing and Control: The Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent acts strictly regulate, and often prohibit, the possession of firearms.
Requirements: A valid license is required from the local police, which involves a vetting process to ensure the applicant is fit and has a "good reason" for ownership.
Restrictions: Handguns have been generally illegal since 1997.
Self-Defense: Firearms are not considered a legal means of self-defense. 
The law focuses on public safety, making gun ownership highly conditional. 

what is the british common law position on gun rights

In British common law, gun ownership is currently viewed as a privilege, not a right. While a historic right to bear arms was once recognized, it has been effectively superseded by a series of parliamentary statutes, particularly since 1920. 

Historical Common Law Context
Historically, the common law position was rooted in both an obligation and a right for citizens to be armed: 
Mandatory Armament: Dating back to the 12th century (e.g., the Assize of Arms 1181), free Englishmen were required by law to maintain weapons suitable to their rank for the defense of the realm and local order.
English Bill of Rights (1689): This document codified the right of subjects who were Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This was largely a response to attempts by King James II to disarm his opponents.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: In the 18th century, jurist William Blackstone described the right to have arms as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" and a "public allowance" to prevent the suppression of other liberties. 

Shift from Right to Privilege
The transition from a common law right to the modern regulated system occurred through several key legislative milestones: 
Firearms Act 1920: This marked the definitive end of the "right" to bear arms by introducing a mandatory licensing system where applicants had to prove a "good reason" to own a firearm.
Removal of Self-Defense: While self-defense was initially considered a valid reason for ownership, the Home Office ceased recognizing it as such in 1937 (Great Britain only).
Modern Prohibitions: Following mass shootings in Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996), Parliament banned most semi-automatic rifles and nearly all handguns. 

Current Legal Status
Today, the "common law" has been almost entirely displaced by the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent amendments: 
Licensing: All firearms must be licensed by the local police, who must be satisfied the applicant is not a danger to public safety and has a "good reason" (e.g., sport, hunting, or work).
Northern Ireland Exception: Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK where "personal protection" may still be accepted as a legitimate reason for a firearm certificate under specific, verifiable risks. 
Would you like to explore the specific licensing requirements or the list of prohibited weapons under current UK law?

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

My addition is this quote from Blackstone on the subject:

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

And this is a link to a Parliamentary paper: 

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
 

War Made Easy - How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

This is Richard Karl Breuer's teaser for the excellent documentary "War Made Easy"by the Media Education Foundation. It features a quote from Oregon Senator Wayne Morse from 1964 that:

The foreign policy belongs to the American people, not the President, who is the administrator of the will of the people. Therefore, the President shouldn't be allowed to wage war without the consent of the people.

 This is why the constitution needs to be amended to make it clear that the president is there to make sure that government runs according to the law made by the people. Or at least the people who are supposed to be representing the people: the legislature.

And only the legislature can declare war.

This current disaster was entered into without any cause or objective. 

It is a prime example of when the War Powers Resolution should be invoked.

This person gets it: why couldn't the US Legislature?

The office of the US President needs to have its powers limited.

The US is in an illegal war for many different reasons. I'm not going to go into those reasons other than that only Congress can declare war.

But what is to stop a maniac who has power over the military to start a war? There are worse scenarios here as well.

The problem is that Trump has gotten the US into a war and it is hard to stop now that it's started.

The office of the executive should basically be the administration of the laws passed by the legislature. 

 

 

The Constitution needs to be Amended: The Commander in Chief should not be the President.

 

If the founders should have learned anything from the English Civil War and Standing Armies issue, it should have been that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces should not be the King, President, or whatever you wish to call the executive. It should be separate and under the control of the legislature. It should not be able to act unilaterally unless then is an actual attack on the territory.

Under the constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, that power has been usurped innumerable times by the president. And the result is usually disastrous, as is the current case.

Toss in that the Executive should not use the military without authorisation from the people's representatives.

Article II, Section 2  which states:

    "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" 

 Should be amended to:

"The Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, and of the  National Guards of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States, shall be nominated by the senior military staff with the appointment ratified by congress. This position is responsible to and reports solely to the Legislature, unless there is a declared national emergency."

The routine administration of the military should be delegated to a Defence Council, a body officially charged with the direction and command of the Armed Forces.

While the administration of the military should be military, the ultimate control would rest with the legislature.  

The power to declare war is vested in the legislature under the US Constitution: they should be the ones to have power over the military. 

 

 

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”

 The US Consrtitution is broken. To be honest having a written constitution is meaningless if no one understands what it means, or follows it.

I've pointed out that the US Constitution doesn't mention self-defence, but it does mention the common defence and shows great concern for the military establishment.

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

    "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

The US engaged in acts of war without congressional approval during the Vietnam war, which led to the introduction of the War Powers Resolution which is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. 

The failure of getting congressional approval means this is an illegal war. 

The War Powers Resoultion provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".  

The attack on Iran shows that the commander in chief should not be the president of the United States.

One of the reasons I put this under Second Amendment was that part of the constitution was supposed to guarantee that institution would form the defence of the nation. As I have said before, the idea was to have a military where training and  administration would be handled by full time, professional soldiers, while the bulk of the forces would be part timers.

This system was what Switzerland had and is perfect for a peaceful and neutral nation since it discourages actions like those taken by Trump. As Jesse Ventura pointed out, make the people who make the decisions go to war. But under a militia, everyone is subject to military duty during a conflict, which should discourage belligerent actions.

And the founders were discussing the military when they discussed the Second Amendment, which is something which can be confirmed if you look up "founding fathers on standing armies". I keep mentioning the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 since provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The founders would be appalled with the current state of the Union. 

 

(title comes from James Madison at the Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention 14 June 1788, Elliot 3:380--95, 400--402:

Mr. Madison. Mr. Chairman, I most cordially agree, with the honorable member last up, that a standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen. It is a great recommendation for this system, that it provides against this evil more than any other system known to us, and, particularly, more than the old system of confederation. The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary. The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary. Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. Does the organization of the government warrant a belief that this power will be abused? Can we believe that a government of a federal nature, consisting of many coëqual sovereignties, and particularly having one branch chosen from the people, would drag the militia unnecessarily to an immense distance? This, sir, would be unworthy the most arbitrary despot. They have no temptation whatever to abuse this power; such abuse could only answer the purpose of exciting the universal indignation of the people, and drawing on themselves the general hatred and detestation of their country.

WIll Iran be Trump's downfall?

 Thus is the security brief from the BBC: Iran: What should the US fear?

Will Trump's ego lead to a strategic error? Why hasn't the Congress used the War Powers Act to stop this insanity? 

 This shows that the United States needs to seriously reorganise and reassess because it has forgotten some of the lessons of its history.

The United States of America: 1790-2026

An arrogant, self-obsessed, incompetent, land speculator was the first president of the United States. And another one will be its final president. This is because the lessons of la Conquête were not learned and the mistakes kept coming. This video shows that strategy is far more important in war than firepower. 

Watch these videos for an eye opener.  I think they are AI, but they may be from Chinese sources. That's a shocker if true.

 The US is not prepared to fight a war for many reasons, one of which was its support for Israel.

Trump's arrogance and inability to deal with reality are harming the US.

No Trump derangement syndrome here, just the observation of people outside the US.

That's part of the problem with a country that holds a "World's Series" in which it plays with itself. 

Yes, bad pun intended.

Seriously, I don't get my news from US sources. And foreign newspapers often have an English edition, which I am providing the headline from Le Monde in English so that people in the US can see how Trump is trashing the country on the world stage.

Even in the 51st (51st-54th states?), the United Kingdom, which is fairly US friendly, he's taking a lot of heat. And Canada is on the outs with its neighbour to the south.

People in the US should realise that a lot is wrong with their country and it needs a serious overhaul of its system. This is especially true for its system of elections which is supposed to keep a clown like Trump from becoming president.

 

The Tory response to the State of the Union Address.

272 years ago, in 1754, another real estate speculator with an overblown sense of ego started a world war at Jumonville Glen. The bill for that war was presented to the people of the 13 Colonies and they revolted. Despite their not being able to properly unify to fight that war under the Albany Plan of Union. 26 years later, in 1776, they thought they were able to rule themselves, and started yet another war which bankrupted the nation and threw it into havoc.

They hastily cobbled together a Constitution in the hope that they could unify, but less than 100 years later, the US had another civil war. And now it looks as if the US may end up in another civil war under the leadership of another real estate billionaire and reality television star with an overblown ego.  

The system is broken and only works for a few.

Trump's belief in the US being a world power may cause its downfall.

 What exactly is the state of readiness of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf?

The United States needs to address its internal problems rather than be the world's bully. One has to learn its real history, not the myth. Wars cost money and are disruptive.

Just curious about the issue of standing armies

 So, I did a search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "standing armies in british political thought". Here are the results.

Standing armies have been a contentious issue in British political thought, particularly due to fears of military despotism and the need for civilian oversight. The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could be maintained without Parliament's consent, reflecting a long-standing opposition to permanent military forces in peacetime.

Going further produced the following

Overview of Standing Armies in British Political Thought
The concept of standing armies has been a significant topic in British political thought, particularly concerning their role in governance and civil liberties. Historically, there has been a strong resistance to maintaining a permanent military force during peacetime.

Historical Context
Pre-17th Century
Before the mid-17th century, England relied on local militias, noble levies, and mercenaries for defense.
The absence of a standing army was a common practice, reflecting a preference for citizen-based military forces.

The English Civil War
The creation of the New Model Army by Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War marked a shift towards a professional military.
This army demonstrated effectiveness but also raised concerns about centralized military power.

Key Developments
The Restoration and the Bill of Rights
After the Restoration in 1660, fears of military despotism influenced political thought.
The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could exist without Parliament's consent, reinforcing civilian oversight.

Eighteenth Century Perspectives
Opposition to standing armies persisted, with figures like James Ralph arguing that they were unconstitutional and advocating for reliance on militias.
Adam Smith later noted that standing armies were indicative of a modernizing society, necessary for effective warfare. 

Conclusion
The debate over standing armies in British political thought reflects a tension between the need for military preparedness and the desire to protect civil liberties. This historical context continues to influence contemporary discussions about military power and governance.

Explore More
What are the Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics
Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics often centered on the fear of centralized military power leading to tyranny and the erosion of civil liberties. Critics, such as John Trenchard, argued that standing armies were inconsistent with free government and posed a threat to constitutional order, advocating instead for reliance on militias for national defense.

How did the 1689 Bill of Rights influence Military oversight in Britain

The 1689 Bill of Rights established that a standing army could not be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament, ensuring civilian oversight of military forces. This principle limited the monarch's power to control the military and reinforced the role of Parliament in military matters, shaping the modern British Army's reliance on parliamentary approval for its existence.

What are the Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties

Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties include concerns about government intrusion and the potential for military power to threaten individual freedoms. The historical distrust of standing armies has shaped contemporary views on the need for civilian oversight and the protection of personal privacy from military influence.

 My observation on this:

It's a nice summary, which is something AI can do pretty well. Although, it is sort of garbage in, garbage out depending on the material out there. I tried getting summaries on self-defence in common law and gun rights in common law, but those two topics are polluted with pro-gun propaganda, which can pretty much be discounted as inaccurate for a myriad of reasons. The basic one is that a good portion of the material is taken out of context. I don't have the time to cite check it all, but I have given examples in other posts. 

Probably the best example of how gun rights has misconstrued and misunderstands the primary sources is shown in the quote I gave from Heller in my last post.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

Do I need to say any more to show how aberrant the concept of gun rights happens to be?

This is a really good article that shows the issue was standing armies if you will actually sit down and read the primary source material. Trust me, it doesn't take too long for it to become obvious unless you are incapable of understanding English:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2018/05/standing-armies-the-anti-federalists-and-federalists-constitutional-debate/

 

Scalia's fallacious reasoning

I could write a very long book to show that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is nonsense, but that's superfluous since Scalia does it himself with this piece of gibberish which shows he has no idea of what he is talking about. In fact, I would say a statement this ignorant shows he was unqualified for the position he held: 

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

Unfortunately for Scalia, this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And like all the previous US supreme court decisions on the Second Amendment, it contradicts the Heller and subsequent decisions. Those two paragraphs show that the Heller decision is bumpf in an elegant manner. 

The issue of standing armies was a very hot topic in the 17th and 18th centuries, where as personal arms were not.

Fortunately, Donald Trump is proving another point I have been making about Heller, and that is that its invalidating of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), demonstrates that "judicial review" is unconstitutional and can pretty much be ignored.

I made a quip about Scalia writing a decision which permits the persecution of catholics. He didn't do that since he never lived long enough to write that decision. 

The Real History of the Second Amendment: Debunking the Individual Right Hoax

 OK, I pretty much agree with him, but he neglects the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. 

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia). The Federal government had an army, and the states had their militias.

This precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 That's pretty much the Second Amendment's significance is a nutshell. But this video gives a better idea of how the topic plays out in proper Anglo-American/Common law jurisprudence. 

Stop Israeli destruction of Christian Holy sites!

 I've been posting about this for a while. Israel persecutes Christians, yet the Christian Zionist community doesn't stand by their fellow Christians. 

I mean if shooting Christians who are praying or seeking shelter in a church in Gaza doesn't get you going, you need to reassess what you say you believe in.

That said it's time Christians challenge Israel’s colonial actions and takeover of Sebastia’s archaeological site; which is home to a 4th-century church built over the traditional place where John the Baptist was beheaded.

 

Anyway, look up my posts on how Israel persecutes Christians.

But I think most atheists are better Christians than a lot of people who claim to be Christian.

A message from the Mayor of Bethlehem about Christians in Palestine

 There's a reason those 1,000 "Christian Influencers" didn't visit Bethlehem. That trip was such propaganda that it's not worth thinking about.

What's worth thinking about is how they can let other Christians be persecuted.

 

Don't forget Palestinian Christians

 And this comes from the Instagram page forgotten_christians:

Palestinian Christians living under Israeli occupation face daily hardships: movement restrictions, checkpoints and permit systems that limit access to work, schools, hospitals, and holy sites, alongside land confiscation and settlement expansion that squeeze livelihoods and community life. 

In Christian villages like Taybeh, residents have faced repeated Israeli settler attacks and intimidation targeting homes, farmland, and church property, creating fear and insecurity with little accountability.

For some reason, Christian Zionists neglect Palestinian Christians and their persecution by the State of Israel. Unless it blows up in their faces the way it did for Mike Huckabee, but even he turns a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and the destruction of churches.

 

The real problem here is that the Palestinian Christians are the "wrong sort of Christians" to get support from Evangelicals who support lsrael. we need to bring back the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379.

 

The real history of the Second Amendment.

Let's start this with this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I've gone on ad nauseum about how the current interpretation is an ultra vires act that has no historical basis. After all the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia).

And you can show me where the US Constitution explicitly mentions "self-defence", or any other non-military use of arms if you think I am wrong.

There is far more evidence that my interpretation is the correct one:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown. --Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, 20 Aug. 1789, Annals 1:749--52, 766--67  

See also:

• Schwoerer, Lois G. “No Standing Armies!” The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England, ISBN: 978-0801815638