HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WarGamer » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Name: J
Gender: Male
Hometown: SoCal
Home country: USA
Current location: Socal
Member since: Mon Feb 1, 2021, 08:27 PM
Number of posts: 7,443

Journal Archives

An idea to start protecting students and teachers tomorrow...

Some won't like the idea of hardening schools but firearms ain't going anywhere for a long time...

You can get a nice big steel storm shelter that'll fit around 25 kids...

AR-15 resistant.

$10k a classroom. Bought by a District in bulk, probably half that. Not really that giant. Not sure if useful upstairs.

They can be moved into the room in sections and then welded together over a weekend.

So... in my new District... CA-26, formerly CA-25...

There's a poll out showing generic Dem v GOP at DEM +1.

This is a district Brownley won by 20 in '20.

And this is after Katie Hill did... Katie stuff and we got a GOP'er REP IN 25.

22 is gonna' be rough... all Patriots on deck, ya know?

Any future for gun regulation is ominous... the Courts have turned.

After decades of work, a half wit double digit IQ tool of the Federalist Society and the NRA "finished off" the High Courts by 2021.

California and their 21 year old age restriction on Assault Rifle sales?


Now let me repeat... a 3 Judge panel of the 9th Circuit says so... including 2 Trump nominees.

California's under-21 gun sales ban is unconstitutional, court says


And California's restriction on Assault Rifles?


Unconstitutional. According to a District Court Judge...

The 9th Circuit put a stay on that decision BUT it's being appealed to SCOTUS.

We're farther gone than most realize...

The reality of the 2A, "well regulated" and the "individual right to bear arms"...

I see a LOT of confusion on these things.

Scholarship has been focused on them for decades and I thought I'd like to clear up some of the nonsense.

1) What was the 2A and why was it included in the Bill of Rights and Constitution?

So it's 1789. The Constitution has been written and ratified by many States.

It's decided that a Bill of Rights be added that guarantees protections, aka taking power away from the Federal Gov't.

It's important to remember the world in 1789.

The fledgling USA was acutely aware and afraid of the ability for a tyrannical Federal Gov't to terrorize it's people.

The Bill of Rights is full of features to keep the Fed Gov't from doing just that.

The 2A was written. Here's the big line:

"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."

Now what does that mean and what was the context?

The document is obviously unclear so we head on over to Federalist #46 and hear from James Madison.

Madison clearly said (I paraphrase) If the Federal Gov't were to become tyrannical and turn on the American people, it would be the duty and obligation of the State militias to defeat them in combat if needed.

Full text below:

On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

2) So what's a militia?

Think of the militia as our modern State National Guard. In 1789 it wasn't as formal and organized as it is today. The militia was just about every fighting age male, working on a farm or industry.

3) Well regulated?

The phrase had a meaning in 1789. It's used in contemporaneous documents and most certainly means "well trained, equipped and performing at a set standard."

4) Did the Constitution establish the "Individual Right" to keep and bear arms?

It did not. That was not adopted into law until 2008.

Key takeaways.

Note: I hadn't read any of these documents recently so this is just from memory and a t may need to be crossed or an i, dotted.

** The Constitution was written and the country founded with the intent to make the States serve as a check on the Federal Gov't and an adversary if necessary.

** This is ensured by the 2A, a requirement for States to have a well equipped and trained militia to serve in a "Break glass in case of emergency" to indeed battle the Federal Gov't if needed.

** There is no individual right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution? That is simply because the founders couldn't imagine a population without guns as in the 18th Century was a necessary and vital tool in each and every house.

Having said that, there is nothing standing in the way of States an/or the Federal Gov't enacting laws and regulation of guns.

It may take a Constitutional Amendment or a new SCOTUS though...

Recent Mass Shootings and the time they lasted.

Borderline Bar and Grill. 20 minutes before killer committed suicide. Police had not stormed the building.

Pulse Night Club. 3 hrs 15 minutes. Police shot and killed the shooter.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Shooter inside the school for 7 minutes, apprehended by police 3+ hours later. Police entered the school exactly 30 minutes after the shooting was reported.

Virginia Tech shooting. 12 minutes, SWAT entered and killed the shooter

Sandy Hook shooting. 9 minutes, shooter committed suicide and then police entered the building.

Santa Fe High School. 30 minutes, police injured shooter.

Las Vegas shooting. 15 minutes shooting, 1 hour to breach the hotel room

San Ysidro McDonalds. 1 hr 15 minutes until police shot and killed the shooter

Here's ONE thing that could reduce gun violence and start tomorrow.

Data shows that the VAST majority of gun crime is committed by people with a long RAP sheet.

If you have a history of violence and it's combined with firearms offenses... longer prison sentences.

It's NOT punishment... it's keeping the community safe.

(Oh and re: school shooters... I got nothing.)


Firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than non-firearms offenders. Over two-thirds (68.1%) of firearms offenders were rearrested for a new crime during the eight-year follow-up period compared to less than half of non-firearms offenders (46.3%).

A greater percentage of firearms offenders were rearrested for serious crimes than non-firearms offenders. Of the firearms offenders who recidivated, assault was the most serious new charge for 29.0 percent, followed by drug trafficking (13.5%) and public order crimes (12.6%). Of the non-firearms offenders who recidivated, assault was the most common new charge for 21.9 percent, followed by public order crimes (19.4%) and drug trafficking (11.1%).

More at link.

and a local story from Baltimore


According to Baltimore police, of the 105 suspects arrested for homicide last year, 88 of them had a prior arrest--with more than half of those individuals arrested for violent crimes and gun crimes.

What's the root cause of all this? You can't fight gun violence without knowing this...

Let's start with a given.


Having said that... where is the anger, aggression, violence and resentment coming from that pulls the trigger??

These are not mentally healthy young (mostly) men??

WHERE is this coming from?

So what the hell is Replacement Theory?

Here's a good write-up.


I'll give you the Readers Digest Version.

1) It's not new

2) The roots may be 1970's Europe

3) The Replacement theory basically says:

Those in control of Federal Gov't are allowing, encouraging or facilitating immigration of non-white individuals to reduce the political power of white people.

Over the last 40 years, it's been adopted by Racists and Anti-Immigrant bigots and your run of the mill RW'ers.

It's not a rare belief, despite the scary name, it's probably believed by 75% of GOP'ers.

In fact, Trump ran on it in 2016.

Don't look at your 401K... DOW down 1100+ AGAIN.

Bad day unless you shorted SPY at EOD yesterday...

I had a few puts but sold too early this morning and missed a 25X return.

On the bright side, Fuckerberg, Musk and Bezos are losing billions today.

Jerome Powell yesterday after FOMC meeting...

"I can't guarantee a soft landing"... possibly "softish".

With 80+% in, OZ down by around 2000 votes...

Crazy Kathy really screwed him!!

EDIT: Bucks County and other OZ counties still have considerable votes to count
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »