How the founders understood the Second Amendment

 Is totally different from it's current interpretation, but this is something I have gone into ad nauseum.

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--written by Thomas Jefferson.

Pretty much all the quotations taken out of context by people who want to trash the Constitution in the name of "original intent" point to this being the concern. Far more primary source material backs me up.

For example, if one actually reads the speech where patrick Henry says "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

On the other hand, this is the actual speech:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution (3 Elliot’s Debates 384-7)
Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.
May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by aconcurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.
The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

Note that Henry says:
To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

This is an exact quotation ofThe United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 16, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/.  The current interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn't do very much to stop violation of the Second Amendment by Congress's interpretation of it in the above cited article.

In fact, the founders would find current the US Military to be far more of a violation of their intent in the Second Amendment as exemplified by the Henry and Jefferson.

Furthermore, there is no Constitutional authority for Judicial Review.

That comes from the case of Marbury v Madison, 5 US, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). Marbury v Madison, which also deals with clauses in the Constitution:

It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

  So, the US Supreme Court has decided that the first part of the Second Amendment is "mere surplusage" despite the word that a "Militia" is "necessary to the Security of the Free State".

Then I say why not ignore the rest of Marbury v Madison since some of the complaints of the revolting colonists concerned the abolition of legislatively enacted laws by an unelected official:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

The Justices would do well te remember that they are not acting under authority of the US Constitution, or US History, when they abolish gun laws using a misnterpretation of the Second Amendment.

There are a few conservatives I like--Tucker Carlson is one,

And this is one reason I do:

 

In fact, we share this opinion.

Bad Hasbara on Bad Hasbara

 It's nice to be able to laugh at a genocide, especially since that's pretty much what the world has been doing for over a year now. This is the show Bad Hasbara laughing at the Bad Hasbara bot.

Would you trust Siri with your life?

The Civil War We Forgot: the Pennamite War

For Doggone, who likes to talk about this. I did see a historic plaque to this on my travels. It was outside Coldspring, NY.

 

If no person is illegal...

Does this mean that you believe that slaves should legal?

After all, slaves are people.

But the issue isn't the person, but their status. Whether it is a slave or an unlawfully present person.

Yes, the person isn't "illegal", but their presence in the country is not legal. 

The right to enter one’s country, to stay in a country which one has legally entered, and to leave any country including one’s own, have been perceived as basic since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. When individuals claim human rights relating to freedom of movement, they are referring to the same facts and situations that states are concerned with when they assert jurisdiction over their own nationals and over resident aliens. The international law of jurisdiction is the means by which states allocate competence, between themselves, for the prescription and application of authority over events inside and outside their national boundaries.

The only people who have a right to come and go freely into a country are the citizens of that country. It's discretionary otherwise.

And people who haven't complied with the law are not lawfully present in the country.

I don't think it's the best idea to allow people who are not willing to comply with immigration laws to become citizens.

Let's stop playing games with Immigration and get serious about it.

Artificial Intelligence--I told you so....

This story is so wild, that I had to fsct check it to make sure it was for real. While I agree with the politics espoused by the "sentient" AI, it demonstrates that machines are not to be trusted.

Israel likes to point out that it has a lot of "experts" in High Tech.  Case in point, comes from this article in the Jerusalem Post:

I am back in Israel in search of the country’s secret, not-so-secret weapon: world-class software engineers...

Israel is the perfect place for an essential development center in this AI revolutionary moment. It is the perfect place for Modelcode, which is building AI for AI, the DNA source code for software that transforms every field on earth. Israeli engineers and Machine Learning gurus and Artificial Intelligencers are fresh off the battlefield, experienced in inventing and assembling novel applications, and rightly confident in their abilities to solve impossible problems. This is not the AI of theory and whiteboards. This is the AI of nailing real-world solutions, of shipping products, of saying when you see an intractable obstacle, "Ein Baya." No one does this better than Americans – and Israelis.

The Israelis puff their competence as a military force and as a technological haven. On the other hand, this shows that technology really is something that needs a human check. On the other hand, the Nazis used gas chambers for their genocide, the Israelis have developed Lavender to assist in theirs. The Zionists can use machines as well as their WWII allies.

OK, if Zionism came about in the 19th Century, why did the Holocaust happen? a couple of hints Haavara and Kastner, but that stuff is now coming to light.

Now, the Zionist cause has its technology turning against it. Didn't they learn the lesson of the Golem?

Anyway, I definitely would not trust AI on a question of my survival.

US roads are falling apart.

OK, while people may complain about subsidies for public transportation, they seem to forget that not taxing private cars for the privilege of driving is also a subsidy. Then there are also the toll roads.

Unfortunately, we will not have an educated discussion of this topic.

YOUR DEVICE AND EMAIL HAS BEEN COMPROMISED

 I have to laugh at these email since I haven't used Microsoft products for some time now.

First off, it would be much more convincing if they said what OS and version of it I was using, but since they don't...

They don't have accress to my computer.

I switched to Linux in 2010 and like the duopoly parties of US politics haven't looked back.

Linux is pretty much virus and malware free. Toss in that I use two factor ID and long, strong random computer generated passwords now.

You don't have access to any of my devices and I report your messages to the authorities.

Have a nice day.

Trump wants to annex Canada. Que le spectacle commence !

 Trump has got to be one of the most ignorant people to lead the United States: and that's a pretty bad statement.

While on paper the US has a military advantage, Trump shows a link to George Washington. Washington thought he was a miltary genius, but he was another arrogant property investor who just happened to have started a world war.

One which the British decided to make the colonists foot the bill for, which led to the War for Independence. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the real war which should have been lost in the 18th Century was not the one for Independence, but the "French and Indian War". The reality was that French didn't really care about their North American territories (the Caribbean and South American ones being more significant).

However, had the French put a bit more effort into supporting their Native Allies and pushed harder in other parts of the world, things would be vastly different.

On the other hand, the Québec Act was something that also stirred up the American Colonists. 

M. Trump will acquire a population of rather militant francophones who have the advantage of speaking a form of French which most people don't learn in school!

Tabernac! Osti!

While I can understand Québecois when it's written, there are some accents which are totally incomprehensible to me. And trust me, it's a standard joke in the Francophone world that Québecois is very different from what the French Ministry of Education and Foreign Ministry would like people to speak like.

Unfortunately, the Québecois haven't picked up on septante, huitante, and nonante, but that's another matter. I'm going to give a plug for someone who has been helping me cope with Québecois (and finally understand what Martin is saying in Jésus de Montreal, "street slang"). https://maprofdefrancais.ca/

Actually, I sort of can understand it with a transcript: « Sacrament, voici l’agneau sans taches, osti. Y est coloué (cloué) par nos impurs désirs tabarnak! Ç’a pas de câlisse de ciboire de bon sens, ça , viarge bout de crisse! » « Certain, osti » « J’ai-tu mon câlisse de voyage, moé?! » « moi aussi tabernacle » tabernacle »

 

The fun bit is that the Acadiens (Cajuns) have a bit of a headstart on the francophonisation. They have the accent.

 It's gonna be La revanche des berceaux with a vengence when we francophones get more militant!

TIGUIDOU !!!!!

Stop the rise of Oligarchy if you want a truly free society.

 Nothing like George Monbiot to sum up some of the thoughts I have been having. True this video is a bit long, but he makes a lot of good points.

And Cécilia Jourdan on how France has so many more political parties than the one US Party that is in power.

Yes, just one US political party which tries to hide the fact that there is no real difference between the two parties, as the man says.

Please comment if you know, or can provide the exact quote, by the African politician who said something alone these lines in response to Western Politicians pushing "democracy" on their one party systems: "Does having having two parties make you twice as democratic as we are? Three, thre times?"