World Economic Forum organizing to do something about the Metaverse.

[Mollymews]

On 5/31/2022 at 6:30 AM, Luna Bliss said:

the Constitution was actually referring to the right to bear arms in a militia

is a bit more nuanced

the rule was (back in the day) that when the State Governor called out the militia in defense of the State then it meant every citizen who had a gun would answer the call and bring their own gun

the militia is an irregular body of armed citizens. But on presenting themselves would accept the governor's authority to direct them on the battlefield in defense of the State

the militia is not like the National Guard which is a regular body of soldiers

the issue is that there isn't a militia to call out if the citizens are not armed. They are just unarmed (non-militia) volunteers for the regular body - National Guard

yet the US Constitution provides for a militia (an irregular armed citizen body) in the 2nd Amendment. Militia in the originalist text and in today's language both still mean the same thing

i realise that it can sound a bit nuts to ordinary people today that a US person can have the weapons they do. Just in case the State Governor calls them out to bring their weapons to defend the State against its enemies

for all the weapons to go away tho, then have to a) repeal the 2nd Amendment

or b) there is a constitutional argument to be made that a State could determine that a militia is no longer required for the defense of the State.  And that while the 2nd Amendment provides for a militia, it would not be unconstitutional for the State to not have one. No militia no guns

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Mollymews said:

is a bit more nuanced

Interesting, Molly. You have quite the legal mind.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, ChinRey said:

21 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Perhaps Capitalism was distorted somehow in ways it was not intended to be.

That's true for all those old ideologies. "Capitalism" and "socialism" are particularly troublesome here since historically each has had at least two distincticely different - often downright conflicting - definitions.

Yeah it's hard to sort out, as meanings change over the years. All I know is that you mention 'socialism' here and people think they'll be coming home from a forced job and lining up at the government market to receive a potato or a cup of rice for dinner on their way home.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Mollymews said:

is a bit more nuanced

And another take on the 2nd amendment, or clarifying the origin, pointing out how it is "steeped in anti-blackness":

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

"Gun owners embrace the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, claiming it guarantees that civilians can own and use guns. Contemporary interpretations of the amendment diverge, however. A key issue is whether “the people” means individuals or the collective. In the second instance, the right to bear arms would derive from a state’s interest in being able to raise a militia".

"Emory University Professor Carol Anderson, PhD, offers a historian’s interpretation of the amendment’s origin, calling it “a bribe”: When the Constitution was drafted, Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry of Virginia warned that Southerners couldn’t count on federal help if enslaved people revolted. James Madison needed Virginia’s vote to ratify the Constitution, so he promised to draft a Bill of Rights once Congress met. For this reason, Anderson argues, the Second Amendment is “steeped in anti-blackness.”"

https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2021/brief-history-guns-us

Edited June 1, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Mollymews]

12 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

And another take on the 2nd amendment, or clarifying the origin, pointing out how it is "steeped in anti-blackness":

this may have been a motivation for some to vote for the 2nd Amendment back in the day  - a militia to suppress slave rebellions.  But is not an argument today for a militia. USA is no longer a slave society

so what is today's militia for ?  Which I think is the pertinent question

a State could answer that it needs citizens who can respond to a call by the State Governor as special police deputies/constables or as National Guard reservists in defence of the State, then it can be seen as an organized militia and be well-regulated.  These citizens can be armed, everybody else cannot be in terms of military scale weapons

an issue is that some people take the 2nd Amendment to mean they can be armed to protect themselves. Which is constitutionally not true. But until a State organises their militia to defend the State then every citizen is militia in defence of the State

ps add.  Just add that I think the current popular arguments in the USA are wrongly focused on the weapons. When the argument should be focused on the militia if any progress is to be made

Edited June 2, 2022 by Mollymews
typs

[Mollymews]

13 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Interesting, Molly. You have quite the legal mind.

am not a lawyer or any legal expert

my only practical experience is as a member of our hapu, participating in the Waitangi Tribunal process, and negotiating with the Government of the day representing the Crown's interests. And negotiating with other hapu representatives, a process which our iwi leaders do their best to manage

and any agreements reached thru these processes have to be able to survive a Court challenge. So it all gets technically legal pretty quickly

because of this, I have over the last nearly 15 years now, spent quite a bit of time looking into how other countries are dealing with historical grievance matters, and I try to learn from them as best I can  

Edited June 2, 2022 by Mollymews
typs

[Luna Bliss]

12 hours ago, Mollymews said:

On 6/1/2022 at 9:18 AM, Luna Bliss said:

Interesting, Molly. You have quite the legal mind.

am not a lawyer or any legal expert

my only practical experience is as a member of our hapu, participating in the Waitangi Tribunal process, and negotiating with the Government of the day representing the Crown's interests.

Ahhh...I had wondered if you were an attorney or a legal aid but did not want to ask in case you wanted that information to remain private.

[Love Zhaoying]

14 hours ago, Mollymews said:

am not a lawyer or any legal expert

I've been arrested, and I beat the rap! Does that count?

[Mollymews]

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I've been arrested, and I beat the rap! Does that count?

if you were accused unjustly of some act against the law and you fought the law and you won then it counts. It also counts in the unjust case, when you fight the law and lose

 

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

if you were accused unjustly of some act against the law and you fought the law and you won then it counts. It also counts in the unjust case, when you fight the law and lose

But if I was totally, utterly guilty and still won..that's ok too, right?

I mean, because Justice is Blind..3 of a kind beat a Royal flush..he who hath the gold maketh the rules..

[Mollymews]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

But if I was totally, utterly guilty and still won..that's ok too, right?

it depends on what we are guilty of

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

it depends on what we are guilty of

Hoo-boy! Guilty of being dumb. If I ever write a life story..

[Doris Johnsky]

The World Economic Forum? They can kiss my big red arse.