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

History Never Repeats?

 It's funny that a draft dodger during the Vietnam War has me thinking about that war. People would be surprised how similar Vietnam was to what is happening now. 

There's a lot to say about this: one is that I think the people who protested Vietnam have turned into total hypocrites: e.g., John "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry. Well, you voted for the war in Iraq, John: so, now you know the answer.

Anyway, part of this Vietnam revisited on my part is listening to the music of the time, which is where this song comes in:

 It was written 61 years ago and went to number one. 

And it's relevant to the current situation.

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. 

 

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.

 

FALSE: "Green New Deal is America's OFF switch"

 

I remember seeing these billboards when I would drive to see my mother and wanting to scream at Sen Camara Bartolotta and Scott Perry for being total morons.

And right now I want to thank them for aiding the Iranians in crippling the United States.

Because of morons like these who cannot understand that energy independence is a necessity to national security and defence they has caused them to aid and abet the enemy in crippling the United States.

 No, you morons, "Green Energy" is not an off switch it's a necessity and it's something you should have been supporting for a long time now.

Fortunately, their treasonous ignorance is mitigated by the fact that they are complete and total dumbfucks.

They should have shut the fuck up and listened to more informed people.

It's not a "tree hugger thing".

It's a matter of national security.

But it's your party that has created this mess.

And it's time we took away your position of power. 

Test post

 I'm back!

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. 

 

Do you really think HIllary or Kamala would have been any better?

 There are a few reasons that I voted Green in 2016 with the major one being there is no way I would vote for Hillary Clinton: even if ranked choice voting as involved. There would have to be a lot of slots for other options before I would vote for her. 

And I have three dogs who I would write in before I would vote for her.

No sexism. Unless the reason you wanted me to vote for her was that she was a woman. Both Kamala and Hillary are pretty bad choices.

I've gotten into them before, but this one needs to be hammered into your head if you think Hillary should have been an option:

 Misogynistic, anti-semites for Jill Stein.

Yeah, right!

Can't forget 'Orrible 'Arris:

 

Gold is not a safe investment--it's a commodity

 There are a lot of myths about gold, which just aren't true.

 One is that you can't lose money on it, which isn't true. As Isaid, it's a commodity with all the associated risks and benefits of a commodity investment.

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 is not "Putin's Pet"

 I've got to admit that I'm surprised I would agree with Fiona Hill, but

 Trump wants to be Putin's pet, but he's not.

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.

Jonathan Pie on Tearing Down Statues

 Damn, I wish this were up when all the statues were being torn down. I think my reaction was to sell the Civil War ones to the French since they look like the ones for the Franco-Prussian War.

"Sell your losers to our losers."

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.

If the United States is truly a Christian nation founded on Christian Values

Then it needs to get a moral conscience. And I don't mean the hypocritical one it practises now.

It's been said that the early Christians practised socialism and christianity was a force in the European socialist movements.

 You may want to consider making the First Amendment guarantee of separation of Church and State similar to that of French Laïcité if the concept of Socialism being tied to Christian values bothers you.

 

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.

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.