Message from @Maw
Discord ID: 799774402265743371
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.
The people were considered an unorganized militia.
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.
If you don't mind getting pissed off... I'd say find the court docs for Warren V. DC... it really exemplifies why even today the right to keep and bear arms is such a big deal... let me sum up that case: The Police have no duty to protect an individual citizen, outside very narrow circumstances, only the community as a whole.
@AntiFish03, you just advanced to level 12!
```Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.```