4 ms·

I think the crux is well regulated and you nailed that well. If there are random people showing up with guns is that well regulated even if they have similar ai

I think the crux is well regulated and you nailed that well. If there are random people showing up with guns is that well regulated even if they have similar aims and might work together? One of the clear things from this incident is that the shooter was alone. Basically a cardinal sin from a military standpoint. Add to that AFAIK it’s not necessarily legal for random people to show up and stake a claim to defend property. Even if sanctioned implicitly by the police. In general though I think it’s far more likely and borne out by history that if militias are allowed to form they do so in protection of the state far earlier than they do in opposition. The really interesting thing to me is that the anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support. Primarily though state supporting militias will arise earlier and stronger because it’s significantly easier to organise in support of extant power structures than it is to organise against them. Part of the current problem IMO is that the police no longer see themselves as neutral. White men dressed a certain way with guns are given a free pass as “one of us” in the heat of the moment.

basch 6y ago
>the shooter was alone. I havent watched much of it, but the one I did see starts with him being chased. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion I can draw from that. >anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support It is, almost an enemy of my enemy situation.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  If he wasn’t alone where were his militia buddies whilst all this happened? Watching from a safe distance? And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    His militia buddies were back at the original car dealership they were protecting. The shooter left there to provide medical assistance, which required crossing a police line - the police didn't allow him to return to his group after that. This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809 https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      Your link does not give evidence for what you assert.
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        Yeah, I'll try and track down the "to provide medical assistance" bit. Though that thread does show the rest: > Rittenhouse eventually leaves the dealership (https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1 https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1) and is barred by the police from returning, as seen @Ruptly footage, six minutes before the shooting: https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147 https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147.
salawat 6y ago
>well regulated You need to make sure you use the term in the way it was when it was written, and properly translate it to modern parlance. All well regulated meant back then was "working as intended" or "fit for the task at hand". Not "activity specifically organized and constrained by formal procedures established by a governing body or authority". Back then, you could use the phrase to apply to a person, their work, a machine, a system, etc... There is absolutely no stipulation that the bearing of arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is dependent on the condition of being part of an established militia. The entire militia clause exists as an explanation or justifying reason for the subsequent clause's command. The concept of someone being "underage" to enjoy a Constitutionally guaranteed right without an explicit carve out in in the Constitution (I.e prescriptive age limits for holding office, delegation to States for implementation details of the choosing of Electors for Presidential voting) is a further farce, made only more extreme by the clear and unambiguous phrasing of the second amendment, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I mean, if you haven't dismissed me as impossible to reconcile with your worldview, it's quite a bit less complicated than it appears. It is only complicated if you're looking for a way to try to twist the clear and unambiguously constructed writing to mean something substantially different than it does.
- basch 6y ago
  I don't disagree with what you have to say. I'm sure at the time, 17 was more than old enough. Besides a traditionalist and literalist, there are other ways to interpret what the constitution means now. As a living document, it's interpretation has changed over time, and can continue to change.

basch 6y ago

>the shooter was alone. I havent watched much of it, but the one I did see starts with him being chased. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion I can draw from that. >anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support It is, almost an enemy of my enemy situation.

meheleventyone 6y ago
If he wasn’t alone where were his militia buddies whilst all this happened? Watching from a safe distance? And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  His militia buddies were back at the original car dealership they were protecting. The shooter left there to provide medical assistance, which required crossing a police line - the police didn't allow him to return to his group after that. This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809 https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    Your link does not give evidence for what you assert.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Yeah, I'll try and track down the "to provide medical assistance" bit. Though that thread does show the rest: > Rittenhouse eventually leaves the dealership (https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1 https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1) and is barred by the police from returning, as seen @Ruptly footage, six minutes before the shooting: https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147 https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147.

salawat 6y ago

>well regulated You need to make sure you use the term in the way it was when it was written, and properly translate it to modern parlance. All well regulated meant back then was "working as intended" or "fit for the task at hand". Not "activity specifically organized and constrained by formal procedures established by a governing body or authority". Back then, you could use the phrase to apply to a person, their work, a machine, a system, etc... There is absolutely no stipulation that the bearing of arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is dependent on the condition of being part of an established militia. The entire militia clause exists as an explanation or justifying reason for the subsequent clause's command. The concept of someone being "underage" to enjoy a Constitutionally guaranteed right without an explicit carve out in in the Constitution (I.e prescriptive age limits for holding office, delegation to States for implementation details of the choosing of Electors for Presidential voting) is a further farce, made only more extreme by the clear and unambiguous phrasing of the second amendment, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I mean, if you haven't dismissed me as impossible to reconcile with your worldview, it's quite a bit less complicated than it appears. It is only complicated if you're looking for a way to try to twist the clear and unambiguously constructed writing to mean something substantially different than it does.

basch 6y ago
I don't disagree with what you have to say. I'm sure at the time, 17 was more than old enough. Besides a traditionalist and literalist, there are other ways to interpret what the constitution means now. As a living document, it's interpretation has changed over time, and can continue to change.