What percentage of US-ians have ever read or studied 10 USC 311, and its classes of militia?

Does that cover females not enlisted, or persons over age 45, due to post-1791 ConLaw amendments?

I'm not in a position to view the video. Is it pivotal?

How about the issues of age 17 inclusion, versus lawyer fiction/reality games for 18/21 majority, and RTKBA or firearms laws compliance or abridgment of that?

Is this Rittenhouse related?

The video outlines how the "Proud Boys" started as a joke between a comedian father and his kid during youth theater and sexist roles biases. Online media monsters deplatformed the comedian as if white supremacist (that AFAIK he's not; indirect libel towards him possibly), making it less easy for him to remind people of the joke he started when the idea of PB's took on a viral life of its own.

Travis may identify w/ the demonetization of that effort to educate about overlooked facts and hsitory.

I was thinking about writing up a summary of the messy facts of which I'm aware re: Kyle's case, but also wondering if it's worth the effort, as at best that reflects political biases of rigged judicial and political systems, and serious conflicts of potential legal interpretation, plus prosecutorial discretion in charging as to viewing stand alone elements of a sequence of events, versus lumped total review, that can change which elements are defensive, offensive, or primary and secondary crimes. There are also elements as to what knowledge which parties acted on in the moment, versus after the fact review changing that.

It's largely futile to attempt conclusions as if possible without major alternate options being valid, also due to issues like under 18 acting as security for a business, lethal force being valid against arson but whether arson was attempted firebombing cars being messy, as well as curtilage rather than interior defense of a business, and defense by other than an owner/employee/manager (that varies arbitrarily among states in statute or jurisprudence or whatever lawyers pull out of their asses in individual cases), such that most likely courts will not and cannot reach decisions fully within any clear law, even ignoring as well structural and procedural biases.

I do not see the PB joke and its offshoots as defining that, but they're all part of the same BLM gone wild offshoots mess.

FWIW, I have been certified with credentials to teach (and have taught) firearms safety courses recognized for CCW law of most states requiring same, as well as self defense that actually involves more law and ethics, than arms use. The old War Games movie summary that "the only way to win, is not to play", tends to be important there, and actual use of force a fallback option when others aren't viable.

There have been nutcases and idiots I've refused to train or certify, unlike some cash hungry instructors, despite a strong pro-RTKBA attitude, tempered by awareness of the PITA chronic 24/7 responsibilities related to living around "power tools" (but my homes are generally light industrial small business operations with potentially lethal chemicals, machinery, and electronics).

I've also worked legislative process alone or alongside state groups and sometimes an ILA field kiddie (registered lobbyist), and challenged a former kindergarten teacher who for a while headed the ILA over her childish and patronizing attitudes about 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine and a need for litigated specific precedent linked to 2Am., due to broken SCOTUS games. Under subsequent management that didn't have its heads stuck up its asses as badly, they later backed litigation to do just that. Assholes. (And, the NY AG's biased prosecution of NRA for malfeasance and scams by arrogant officers appear valid other than corrupt motivation to me, but that same state under its lawyer games obstructed litigation by a group of its own Board members 20 years ago trying to shut down LaPierre/Metaksa et al abuses, which litigation I helped support behind the scenes working w Leroy Pyle.)

==
The whole idea of firearms regulation by government is antithetical to RTKBA, given US history of revolution to take out "all enemies, foreign and domestic", and UK practices to try to impede that. It's a paradox though, as there are clearly people not "able" in mental health or intellect terms, and who else stands to manage their issues? OTOH, most MPC (lawyer's trade group Model Penal Code adopted in state variants) post-WW-II "escalation of force" excuses are mainly corrupt politician cover, and fraud re: RTKBA. So, it's inherently at odds with the whole of the law to pretend most firearms laws or regulations are even potentially valid, whether that serve functional purposes or not.

Also of note in doing such review are Bivens (v Six Unnamed Federal Narcotics Agents), that lowered bans on suits for damages against officials acting beyond valid official powers, as well as rights to shoot some cops under complex, convoluted lawyer political games, and the 1895 Injun cops res case with nepotistic idiot cops being shot by another cop on the same force, during what was more like an attempted kidnapping that a valid arrest (forget the cite on that without checking). Those ConLaw standards are also at odds with legislation in many states, pretending it's never legal to shoot felon cops, while the whole idea of RTKBA against Domestic enemies largely applies in cases where courts fail and cannot be a last resort as law seminaries indoctrinate, or the Bill of Rights would be invalid. A big mess, in practice.

(Those outside the USA may have a hard time grasping the ideological theory of revolution by citizen militia as a legally protected right, while US-ians usually don't get it that mandates protecting rather than demonizing (at least select forms of) terrorism and terrorists, while after adding drug laws and related black market violence, and corrupt politicians and judges trying to pretend they and cops acting as their mercenaries (versus just what other cops call bad apples), that larger body of law as if common "standards" is badly broken at best, tainting any and every effort to reach "valid" conclusions in subordinate cases.)

That leads to messy semantics as to sorting out who or why some are advocating criminal violence, or against it (but starting with those in the positions of the most power, police/military and those funding or setting policy for them).

==
One last core note, "well regulated militia" means "able to shoot straight" or work together in small units, and has nothing to do with the modern meaning of CFR or state counterpart regulatory code adjuncts to statutes. The latter were unthinkable in Colonial times, whereas "well regulated" carries similar meaning to old bank clocks with the "Regulator" branding front and lower center, as "precise and accurate". Look up 10 USC 311 (a) and (b), and their historic precursors, or comparison with Swiss law that mandates military arms and ammo stocks in most homes, in usual legal sources.

What would the US televised debates be like, were FEC rules on who has to be invited (made moot by SCOTUS so long as they're procedurally flouted on certain timelines), actually honored (and so 3-5 person debates most cycles, always including a Libertarian, and sometimes a Green or other?

Can Bush lite be likened to Blair and their Downing Street memo conspiracy, or Boris to Trump as to their insane styles? Would Russia compare to Israel as to criminal hit squads just murdering select challengers? Or China?

If your position relies on him being 17 and 20 miles from a state where that’s legal, we do not share the same principles here.

I’m fine if he gets hit with a ticket for that.

But what he did was self defense.

I’m 100% sure if a 14 year old girl defended herself from her rapist, you’d call it self defense even if she got a ticket for illegally having a gun.

And if I’m wrong about that, then hey at least you’re consistent! But damn, check those principles

Loki, the 2nd amendment is addressed to the government as a limitation, not the people as a minimum requirement.

I'm NOT fine with giving tickets for violations of rules, when rules are contrary to civil rights law, and have penalties way higher than a $1.50 or $2.00 poll tax. Nor use of cash bail or motor vehicle laws as profit centers for predator dirtbags with badges and guns, or black robes conspiring with same. In fact, under ConLaw, they all deserve to be shot, and those who don't shoot each other among factions with a duty to do so (civil or military government actors mainly), deserve to be shot.

But, that's about as functional for society as fucking for virginity.

Consider freedom of association across state lines, and 14th Am. Incorporation of 2nd, as well as equal protections....

It's clear that RTKBA is intended to require 17 year olds to be proficient shooters, and is abridged by laws to the contrary, when the former Militia Act required military firearms in US homes, with a minimum of 300 rounds of ball and powder, while its remnants in 10 USC 311(b) define every citizen not disabled to be an unorganized militia member from ages 17-45, unless enlisted at the time per 311(a). That requires 10-12 year olds to start firearm training in order to develop by age 17, and arguably makes parents who fail that responsibility into child abusers, often in conflict with other rights. It also raises issues of how public schools are used as indoctrination cult camps to conspire in rights abridgment process.

==
Yes, enumerated civil rights restrict Federal government only until 1868 14th Am ratification or the several civil rights acts of the 1870's, 42 USC 1983 making that Amendment the most litigated part of US ConLaw to this day (and against generally state or corporate actors). But, Congress therein tried to exclude Feds from enforcement, until expanding precedent in my lifetime, while corrupt "Justice" officials conspired with Florida bigots to restrict prevailing party fees and costs recovery, in a Pyrrhic victory by TA Wynner, a Florida naturist and political activist performance artist, over legally protected nude human formation peace symbols on public beaches.

There are also a few issues of Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny for corporate interests (Hobby Lobby or Citizens United judicial frauds aside), rational basis (which is antithetical to any government leader spouting nutcase bullshit not rooted in facts possible to analyze therein), and Duties and Powers designations (widely violated with impunity), or John Lott's book on dumbing down the courts by cooperative political implants in lieu of honest justices among judicial appointments.

The nature of that to be very complex and messy, is in part why anyone who claims 100% certainty over such issues tends to have mental health or delusional religious cosmology issues, and inherently cannot discuss in good faith, in the context of factual details and secular law. That's likely its own separate mess of genetics and developmental experiences, just like sexuality and political leanings (often to engage or avoid chaos, as traumatic or necessary reality).

You write novels

I’m just more confused after reading that actually

As to Kyle Rittenhouse, and noting many details reflect contradictory and paradoxical laws and related politics or judicial process:

He was a police Explorer cop wannabe, and likely thought he understood stuff most 25+ humans with full neurological development do not.

At age 17 he was designated as an armed militia member under long standing US law, and at the same time excluded by the lawyer fiction "bright line" of majority from being employable in hazardous jobs, or from linked "adult" rights and capacities.

Under state laws that are demonstrably illegal but generally upheld by courts, his appearance with a rifle (not a pistol, revolver, or gun) at protests/riots was inherently criminal under that state's laws.

As a minor, he was incapable of being hired by the car dealership at which he was standing guard, and shot and killed someone who apparently was trying to firebomb outdoor lot cars.

Had he been a legal adult, and the firebombing being stopped by lethal force been against a home or the business building proper, and depending on state interpretation he been a lawful agent of said business, stopping arson by force is lawful defensive homicide under normal MPC variants and interpretation. But, his actions were not that, and fell in that episode into a far messier legal position.

I’m just asking if it’s self defense

Why do you need to attack his character before making your point

He wanted to be a cop, is that really a sin?

Answer my question about the 14 year old girl

Kyle then fled down the street, as a crowd viewed what he did in the car lot as if 2nd degree murder or negligent homicide.

Police let him pass, possibly not connecting him yet to that killing.

Two protesters, one with a skateboard, another who turned out to have a pistol, treated Kyle from what they'd seen as a fleeing felon who was an armed threat and needed to be arrested and disarmed.

Kyle either tripped or was knocked down, and shot both of them, killing one, and severely injuring the other.

Whether that was self defense, or a 2nd degree murder plus an attempted murder, hinges on whether Kyle was legitimately being pursued as a fleeing felon and resisting arrest or disarming, or whether his first killing was justifiable, as well as whether he's viewed as illegally carrying a rifle into a restricted state (which he was, unless its laws could be held invalid as they are in theory but not practice), and all that follows inherently secondary crimes to the original firearm violations.

If the car lot incident hadn't taken place, it'd be easier to view the street shootings after as self defense; but then, it's likely the two additional shooting victims would not have pursued him, either. Regardless, the state law use of the rifle by a minor issues could still apply.

I see stronger basis to hold the car lot shooting as criminal, and link the follow up as secondary to that, and not be self defense as Kyle disqualified himself from that affirmative defense claim, but overall, that's a mess without nice clear answers.

That's a lot of words, but given how little understanding of the underlying history or law is common knowledge, I tried to lay out as a foundation for any interpretation. Hopefully I adhered to the Einstein philosophy to keep it as simple as possible, but NO simpler. There are millions of words for further research in any of several fields related to the above.

I will not express a blanket opinion on the 14 year old example outside a specific case with known facts, as false rape accusations are common; age of consent laws widely violate civil rights, and in many states law defines away consent even if present; location may matter under state statutes or jurisprudence of questionable validity as to firearms or other force (and so global national or international discussions are flawed from the start); and legal system limits can't deal well with human developmental differences. What if a 13 year old girl tried giving a drunk or sleeping 14 year old boy a blow job?

My remarks about attitudes of cop-wannabes are based on actual experiences with some, as well as part time and younger cops who often should have been washed out before graduating Academy or POST certification, and stories from lawyer and police contract Psychologist friends. It's nearly impossible to be a highly competent cop due to larger contradictions in law plus human behaviors. Persons who'd act as Kyle did remind me of people who should be washed out by psych screening, or later, actual cops friends or I have all too infrequently gotten fired.

As to Kyle, couple of other key facts I missed before....

Of the two guys who tried to stop and disarm him down the street, the skateboarder was known to other protesters as a pacifist, and was clearly trying to stop someone identified as an armed killer, and had no intent to try to assault, injure, or kill Kyle, beyond seeing he was stopped and disarmed. Reports of less detail suggest the same of the other guy with the pistol. As such, any use of force by Kyle against them would have been criminal and not defensive, but crowds and riots are dangerous in and of themselves, and scramble such refined details easier to sort from afar.

That's also in part why Peter Pace resigned under the Bush Chimp, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who didn't care to conspire in war crimes, or why senior military officers were troubled when tricked into accompanying Trump for a TV stunt that used chemical weapons illegally to run off peaceful protesters from one of only two parks in DC that DoI/NPS CFR allow gatherings without prior permits (and they're a real mind warp clusterfuck, if anyone else has read them while trying to plan DC events as I have). Those are no-win situations for officials, to find oneself in a position where you have legal obligation to disobey illegal orders, or arrest a criminal mob boss in context where that requires killing. Power and justice systems are too often very messy.

==

Expanding on that 13 year old giving the 14 yo boy a BJ when he wasn't fully conscious, what if she got him on the verge of cumming, and objected after the fact because he rammed his dick fully down her throat, leaving her asphyxiated temporarily and so quivering more strongly around his dick and so he grabbed her head and pulled it on more strongly, leaving her later claiming that amounted to rape despite starting from her actions and leading to conditions where she was unable to communicate that and he wouldn't respond until after shooting his load anyway? (and ignoring age of consent laws they both violate in many places)

What if she sucked him until he got hard enough to fuck, and then jumped on him being even hornier herself, but as he became more conscious realized he was compelled to orgasm but shoved his dick up her ass to limit pregnancy risks, and she didn't care for that? (Or what if they were 18 and 19, to remove statutory frauds issues, but retain sleep or implied mutual consent to relaxed personal boundaries aspects of drinking together and then hopping into bed?)

With the age 13/14 conditions, how many places would prosecute the girl for raping the boy?

Your mind goes to sick places just from a simple question that you still didn’t answer

If a 14 year old shot her attempted rapist, was it self defense? Yes or no?

Keep in mind she’s 14 and can’t legally carry a gun.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311892190680014849

TRUMP HAS COVID

94.6% survival rate 🤷🏻‍♂️

> TRUMP HAS COVID
@Blue Sailor

> 94.6% survival rate 🤷🏻‍♂️
@Ozymandias


In that case, let's get hypothetical for our own entertainment.

Scenario One: Trump sadly does not survive. What happens next?

> 94.6% survival rate 🤷🏻‍♂️
@Ozymandias

In his age group?


(Presumably he tested positive without symptoms? In which case, odds are good for him.)

This just so shocking. Truly nobody could have seen this coming - I mean, he was so careful at those huge indoor rallies with his thousands of supporters, many of whom reject masks and think the coronavirus is a liberal hoax

Conspiracy theory: Biden gave it to him during the debates in order to knock him out of the election