Message from @Maw
Discord ID: 799773903509127192
And it'd make more logical sense.
it honestly would since its only served the establishment
As Former LEO I can agree. I understand the movement because bad officers make every officer look bad. But I cannot and will not advocate for or support a movement that uses violence to spread its message. (Using violence and fear to spread a political message is the actual definition of terrorism)
Well, domestic terrorism anyway.
Per https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Terrorism
> The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
```(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and
``` See: (C)
Well... Fair enough... I was generalizing it, since the BLM movement actually affected some global companies/organizations. Including things like Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) which is the governing body for a lot of global motorsports. And the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
The definition of domestic terrorism is much more narrow that terrorism as a whole.
Don't think I've seen them going around blowing up people/buildings in other countries.
Might not want to water down that definition too much.
@Maw Here is why the 2nd Amendment only provides Constitutional level rights to gun ownership/possession as part of the need for a well regulated militia
Its not long
I'll check it out in a bit.
But I'm sure I'm going to vehemently disagree.
As it literally says in the constitution that it's necessary for a free state, not free federal government. (Whatever that would even mean)
(As it's to protect states from the federal)
I am going to vehemently disagree.. The 2nd Amendment provides protections to the tools an Individual needs to defend themselves. The founding fathers sought a way to ensure that the Inherent right of self defense was enshrined in the Constitution as well as whatever tools a person uses to achieve self-preservation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
Only partially correct. The idea was that the militia was the citizenry.
Remember, this choice of word was very different 250 years ago.
It was used informally.
I'd argue that the word militia only meant Men older than 16 at that time. But they were far different times than now. As well... But I would absolutely agree with your statement that its the right of the people to keep and bear arms. and that includes all citizens
```(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.```
Was the same sort of deal for conscription.
Given Court decisions like Warren V. DC I honestly can't believe anyone would think that Gun Control is a good thing
In fact there is a great case to cause a lot of people to get pissed off at the courts...
Remember, the national guard wasn't a thing for a long while.
Was literally citizen militias fighting the British.
Minutemen, etc.
Yup, the US didn't have much of a standing army or navy for a very long time
Um you can tell from my name that I served but I don't know what the founding fathers were thinking when they said Militia. I always thought it was a bunch of non military civilians. The National Guard is typically under the control of the governor and not the feds. Could they not be considered militia? Then also I believe the 2nd 1/2 is seperate from the 1st and rather clear shall not um I should need a permit to pack heat ANYWHERE I go.
It was, it was informally used at the time.
The citizenry was deemed to be the militia.
It's literally the "who" of who fought for the war of independence.
AKA: Civilians.
Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)
@Turd Ferguson, you just advanced to level 4!
And as I linked before, Madison said the same thing.