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

We Rejected a King and Built an Imperial Presidency. They Kept the King and Built Democracies.

Tad Stoermer points out something I have been talking about for a while.  

In the spirit of Mather Byles: I would rather have an official greeter than a tyrant. The loyalists were the real resistance of the Independence period. British North America exists--it's called CANADA.

I'm going to suggest reading the article The Mirror Has Cracked: How the Three Branches Failed America in Fulcrum about how the US Constitution has failed to prevent an "imperial presidency" gone amok.

 

Why only congress should be declaring war, not the president

 I am thoroughly disgusted that the bullshit in Iran wasn't stopped before it happened. After all, a deployment that size is hard to hide.

It also doesn't take too much brainpower to see that this was not well thought out to begin with.

But, this confirms it. 

 

US Independence was based upon the costs of a prior war

People in the US really don't like the costs associated with wars, yet they keep getting into them. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the war for independence was basically paying for a previous war started by George Washington: La Conquête (or the French and Indian War). 

I think I have mentioned that the War for Independence probably could have been nipped in the bud if the British had said: "No, we won't send troops and supplies until you cough up some money."

But, like Trump's Operation Epic Failure, the wars were started and then the bill shows up.

To be paid for by the average person. Here's Maryam again to explain how the fuel cost will hit the US.

 Of course, Trump and a lot of right wingers don't like renewable energy, which is a serious error as far as energy security goes. The US Department of Defence was reported to acknowledge Climate Change and Renewable energy as important aspects of US Defence strategy prior to the agency becoming the Department of War Crimes under the Secretary of War Crimes: Pete Hegseth.

Anyway, it would be nice if we had reasonable people running the US, but its current political system precludes that.

Another nice thing would be if the US became the multiparty democracy with free and fair elections on a secret ballot that it spent the last Century saying it was and pushing it to the rest of the world.

 

Trump's Operation Epic Failure

 Call it what it is. And don't forget to put Trump's name on the front of it since he like having things named after himself. 

And it sort of puts the blame where it belongs.

"Sort of" since only Congress has the power to declare war, which should be clarified to mean any deployment of troops outside of US territory. Especially since this time has been a complete GMFU.

Let's start with something missing from last night's speech: regime change.

 

Maryam is Iranian and a good source of info and commentary on this fiasco. She confirms that Trump's decapitation has only led to more radical leadership.

Let's face it, this adventure was ill-advised and should have been stopped long before it happened. It is not in anyway a victory since it has totally messed up the world order for the worse.

Now, for that Downfall clip to translate last night's speech by the president.

 I hope that the US legislature does something to ensure that the president cannot send troops outside US Territory without authorisation and only in cases where there is an actual, imminent threat to the US.

This is a disaster. 

From Rep. Jason Crow. Bio:

Jason Crow is an American politician, lawyer, and former U.S. Army officer serving since 2019 as the United States representative for Colorado's 6th congressional district.

And from Col. Douglas Macgregor:

Can't forget Joe Kent:

Pretty much everyone I know in the military said this was a bad idea. My opinion is that it's going to make the Dieppe Raid look like a girl scout picnic.

More on Iran War strategy: or lack of it.

 The more I listen to people, the more I think that Trump just charged ahead on this without thinking.

Former British Intelligence head says the Iranians have the upper hand.

The US needs to do something about making sure the Constitution is followed. An idiot like Trump should no be able to violate the constitutional order and put the military in harm's way.

 And violate US law.

Yes, Trump attacking Iran was an illegal war of choice.

 I have to keep saying it: 

You need to watch your back if you want to stand with Israel

Which is beginning to be more and more obvious after Trump dragged the US into an ill-prepared war.

But there's a reason for this: Trump sold out to Israel.

The Iranians were willing to make concession when Israel and the United States attacked it without provocation.

 So much for "no more forever wars", "making America great again", or even "America First".

Trump sold out the US to Israel.

The upside of this will be that Israel will cease to be. 

How to declare war.

The power to declare war belongs to US Congress under the US Constitution. This is clearly stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny. 

I'm going to cite once again 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.

This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).

The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process. 

The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be immediate, actual, and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.

I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.

Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration  to  international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.

The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it. 

It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars. 

 

War Plan for Operation Epic Failure

 If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:

There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.

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
 

What The F*** Is Wrong With USS Gerald R. Ford?

 OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.

 Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control. 

The West isn't getting the truth about Operation Epic Failure

Sure, the BBC had a reputation of being trustworthy, but that is now long dead. I stopped watching post-Brexit and notice a pro-Western bias when I do pay attention to them.

Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.

There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.

And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.

There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.

This is a disaster for the United States.

It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country. 

 I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following video, but it makes a very serious allegation about the war effort if it is true.

 

The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.

There is only one rogue state in the Middle East that destabilises the region and has nuclear weapons: Israel

Iran is a signatory of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring compliance. Iran has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, with recent agreements for inspections being complicated by its restrictions on IAEA access to its facilities.

On the other hand, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. It is not subject of IAEA scrutiny. It is also supposed to actually have nuclear weapons.

What's wrong with this picture? 

 The US has just gone on another unjustified war for Israel: this needs to end.

The Glenn Amendment refers to an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (Section 102). Under the Glenn Amendment, if the President determines that a non-nuclear weapon state [as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] detonates a nuclear explosive device, certain sanctions apply. The sanctions impose broad-ranging restrictions on various types of assistance, loans, and trade. The DOD Appropriations Act of 2000, signed into law on October 25, 1999, provides authority for the President to waive Glenn Amendment sanctions. 

This policy needs to end. 

Israel needs to be held to the same standard as Iran. 

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.

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.