Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
A well regulated digestive system, being necessary to the health of a human, the right of the people to keep and bear antacids, shall not be infringed.
(How do you like them apples? I didn't copy it off the web, I'm solely to blame.)
There's nothing civil about this war.
The Amendment is a Rorschach test. The justice has an underlying belief which is positive or negative to the RKBA and then looks for precedent and language and arguments to support the underlying belief. The legal profession will claim otherwise, they pretend to be logical and neutral interpreters of the documents in question. They are originalists when it suits them, interpreters when it suits them. The former is usually evoked to support a conservative position, the latter a more liberal position.
I think this viewpoint from some scholars of the court from political science, psychological and sociological analyses cuts through the jargon and endless blather. The Court is acting as a mini-legislature as the Congress refuses or can't deal with issues.
The breakfast one needs one more comma. Legal amateurs lose their shit over the extra comma—don’t sell the gag short.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
Well, to be fair, sometimes a comma, or lack thereof, is very important to legal professionals, and can be very costly when not properly used.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/healt...rnd/index.html
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
This is pretty darn OT, but: can anyone explain to me how the militia can be both simultaneously a constitutional bulwark against the tyranny of our own government AND fall under the command of the President (article 2, section 2; refreshed while reading up on SCOTUS appointing language)?
Just curious how to reconcile the two ideas. I’m no legal scholar—any thoughts?
Thread drift in 3,2,1...
The mere existence of a militia is the bulwark.
The chain of command ties each member to the President. In the case of a coup, someone in the chain of command goes full Al Haig, taking command of those below them in the chain along with their gear, munitions, and access to facilities and other assets. All are guilty of treason. In a successful coup, President Haig takes over and grants amnesty to those who broke their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. In a failed coup, President Haig and other key participants are executed in public, although today they'd probably get book deals.
The militia doesn't just act during a coup nor does it have to show up as organized units. It can be individuals who act as their circumstances dictate, such as when tyranny takes the form of government inaction. Then the militia might be rooftop Koreans, St. Louis lawyers, and guys like Kyle Rittenhouse.
Clearly, I am not a lawyer.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's