Virginia to ban all forms of self defense

[jobo]

I find Jobo hilarious too. But that doesn't make him wrong.

The Brits didn't fight us all out when we revolted. Not with total brutality like Sherman's march to the sea in the Civil War. And they didn't feel like they had to. Story I got is they felt they could bide their time and settle this later... say around 1812. Trouble is that we got stronger, and world affairs (like Napoleon) kept the Brits busy until it was too late to hazard a war of reunification.

Another thing. Without dissing the founding fathers... they were indeed a pretty amazing bunch, but what if we had never fought the Revolutionary War? Would we have ended up like Canada. Would we BE Canada? Heck, I really like Canada. That doesn't seem so bad to me. And just imagine if Canada included us, it wouldn't even be that cold! Now that sounds even better. But what do I know? ....I'm just pondering aloud.

i know you like alternative history, ive been mussing on what aspects of america would have been improved/ worsened if you had stayed under the guiding hand of the british.

on the plus side
slavery would have ended half a century sooner, saving half a century of untold misery, then clearly there would have been no need for the civil war, millions of lives and untold suffering,

though we were quite big on putting down native uprising we didn't generally follow that up with the genocide of entire nations( that was the Germans and the Belgians) or indeed renege on our word and take back land we had promised to honour. so that's millions of more lives and untold suffering removed from your history.

even allowing that apartheid was never practised in the UK or empire, if it happened at all we can take at least 50 years off rosey parks and the civil right movement, the Vietnam war wouldn't have happen, more lives less suffering, no mccarthyism, our reds were well and truly in the bed with the rest of us, and you wouldn't have been two years late to both world wars, .

of course no presidents and though you would clearly, have missed out on washington lincoln and jfk, that seems a small price to pay to have avoided the mad and bad ones. and you would still have had elvis and harleys

on the minus side

Bad films, and we almost certainly wouldn't have gone to the moon , that's it ? cant think of anything else

what about you?

 

[lklawson]

its long been argued that the right to bear arms, as defined in the constitution has been misapplied to include private citizens, when it clearly relates to the military or other official bodies.

It was argued so and many still, foolishly, still try to argue thus. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Heller vs. D.C. that the 2nd Amendment is, indeed, an individual right.

It's settled law and arguing that is isn't is much like people wanting to overturn Roe V. Wade: an exercise in wasted time and fantasy.

 

[jobo]

It was argued so and many still, foolishly, still try to argue thus. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Heller vs. D.C. that the 2nd Amendment is, indeed, an individual right.

It's settled law and arguing that is isn't is much like people wanting to overturn Roe V. Wade: an exercise in wasted time and fantasy.

they can change their mind, cant they /?

Not having a politically appointed court and therefore no judicial independence , is one of the things i should have included in my list above

 

[lklawson]

the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause.

That's not true at all. There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes.

 

[lklawson]

if your talking about cannabis law, the individual states were given '' permission'' to legalise it by the attorney general, in telling them that the federal govement would make no attempts to enforce the law, except for special circumstances, so not at all a contradiction between state and federal law.

Nope. Just because some AG says, "we're not going to prosecute you" doesn't mean that it's legal. It's still on the Federal Schedule. And there are prosecutions based on MJ. It's illegal for someone in the U.S. to buy a gun if they use MJ. Period. There are prosecutions based on people with "medical marijuana cards" being prosecuted for buying/attempting to buy a gun. What that boils down to is uneven prosecution. It was actually pretty slick of the anti-freedom folks to slip it in that way.

 

[lklawson]

they can change their mind, cant they /?

About as often as the Pope changes ex cathedra.

 

[jobo]

Nope. Just because some AG says, "we're not going to prosecute you" doesn't mean that it's legal. It's still on the Federal Schedule. And there are prosecutions based on MJ. It's illegal for someone in the U.S. to buy a gun if they use MJ. Period. There are prosecutions based on people with "medical marijuana cards" being prosecuted for buying/attempting to buy a gun. What that boils down to is uneven prosecution. It was actually pretty slick of the anti-freedom folks to slip it in that way.

not being prosecuted for doing something is the very definition of legal, take your( and ours) ''illegal war'' was GWB prosecuted ? no so legal then, it seems, at least in the US, i'm not sure he will be seen sightseeing in the Hague anytime soon

the rest appears to be gun law not drugs law

 

[jobo]

About as often as the Pope changes ex cathedra.

so theres hope ?

 

[lklawson]

For example: I've heard some outlandish stuff when it comes to US Civil War history. It's really scary. There's people here who say that slavery never happened and that some black people back then owned white slaves.

It was technically possible and may have possibly happened. We know that there were blacks who owned slaves. While not exceptionally common, it was not unheard of. We also know that Thomas Jefferson had slaves which were his illegitimate children with a slave woman who was, herself mixed (1/2 black). There are letters we've found which indicates the surprise which visitors to Jefferson had that he had "white slaves." Further, Indentured Servitude was pretty common, particularly in the early days of colonization. Indentured Servitude is, basically, "slavery with an expiration date." I suspect there may have been opportunity for Black freemen to purchase White indentured servants, though I haven't looked for it.

Was it possible for a "Black" man to own "White slaves?" Maybe sorta. Did it happen for sure? Who cares? Slavery sucks, regardless of who's owning who.

 

[lklawson]

so theres hope ?

No.

 

[lklawson]

TRUE independence, we have never had TRUE independence, we are controlled by the banks, who control the money supply and if you control the money supply you control the government

Well, now you can use bitcoin.

 

[lklawson]

i know the americans like to make a big thing out of defeating the british, hell its the only war they have ever won without outnumbering the enemy 2 to one.

but the subtext is a bit more interesting,

God saved General George Washington from certain defeat at least 3 times, often by strange weather.

 

[lklawson]

Let's be real, you got your assed kick because your next door neighbor saw the wisdom in helping us out.

What? You mean that one of the 2 Super Powers of the time was aiding an upstart thorn-in-the-side of the other Super Power in order to advance their position against the first? Shocking!

 

[lklawson]

not being prosecuted for doing something is the very definition of legal,

No. It actually isn't.

the rest appears to be gun law not drugs law

No. It's an application of the Drug Laws to an activity which is, ceteris paribus, legal.

 

[jobo]

No. It actually isn't.

No. It's an application of the Drug Laws to an activity which is, ceteris paribus, legal.

If the authorities choose not to prosecute you, then you can be sure it isn't. people do use the phrase ''technically illegal'', which means that practically speaking it isn't, and as being convicted is a practical rather than a technical problem , your safe to run with that

 

[W.Bridges]

Virginia sheriff says he’ll deputize residents if gun laws pass

 

[JowGaWolf]

That's not true at all. There has always been an organized and standing military in the U.S., beginning with the Continental Army, despite the fact that the U.S. Founders often distrusted a strong centralized government and a standing military in its control. The U.S. has always had an Army and a Navy in varying sizes.

My friend majored in history in college and loves history more than I do. She was the one who told me about the issue that existed and the problems that existed but aren't highlighted in the history books in schools. One of it being that the states had their own military force and didn't work as a single unit with other states like today's military. If the state felt like it was better to protect the state then those soldiers wouldn't be sent to other states. Below is an example, which sheds a little light that there were definitely some organizational issues. I highlighted in read the issue.

Source: United States Army | History, Generals, Battles, & Structure
As the Revolution drew to a close, the Continental Congress asked Washington for his recommendations for a peacetime military force. In response, he prepared Sentiments on a Peace Establishment (May 1, 1783), a sweeping assessment of the strategic situation facing the new country. Washington believed that the United States needed only a small regular army to deal with Indian threats and to provide a nucleus for expansion by “a well-organized militia” in time of foreign war. Instead of the independent and diverse militia forces of the individual states, which had proved so unreliable during the Revolution

Different source:
Source:Continental Army
"When Washington assumed command, the Continental Army truly was not even an army. Rather, it was a loosely and poorly coordinated band of militias and citizen-soldiers under control of the individual states. There were no established protocols for exercising coordinated authority, for supplying and feeding the troops, for transportation, or any other of the myriad tasks necessary for a field army."

Think of how our state representatives fight among each other and then think about how they get very little done. Now give each state an army to control and try to have them come together and put their differences aside, without fighting about what's best for the country. It was pretty much like that. Which is why Washington wasn't fond of the Individual Militias controlled by the stated. Half of the states would be saying go to war, the other half will be saying no and as a result won't send men to fight.

Quote from Washington in Red Source: A Common American Soldier
"Washington was never enamored of the militia, once writing that "to place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.""
"Toward the end of summer in 1775, he noticed that farmers serving in the militia vacated the field of battle as harvest time approached. Militia units dissolved when hostilities moved away from their home locales. Discipline was all but nonexistent in many units because most elected their officers and command authority was thus compromised."

 

[Buka]

i know you like alternative history, ive been mussing on what aspects of america would have been improved/ worsened if you had stayed under the guiding hand of the british.

on the plus side
slavery would have ended half a century sooner, saving half a century of untold misery, then clearly there would have been no need for the civil war, millions of lives and untold suffering,

though we were quite big on putting down native uprising we didn't generally follow that up with the genocide of entire nations( that was the Germans and the Belgians) or indeed renege on our word and take back land we had promised to honour. so that's millions of more lives and untold suffering removed from your history.

even allowing that apartheid was never practised in the UK or empire, if it happened at all we can take at least 50 years off rosey parks and the civil right movement, the Vietnam war wouldn't have happen, more lives less suffering, no mccarthyism, our reds were well and truly in the bed with the rest of us, and you wouldn't have been two years late to both world wars, .

of course no presidents and though you would clearly, have missed out on washington lincoln and jfk, that seems a small price to pay to have avoided the mad and bad ones. and you would still have had elvis and harleys

on the minus side

Bad films, and we almost certainly wouldn't have gone to the moon , that's it ? cant think of anything else

what about you?

I would miss the food, Martial Arts, the movie Braveheart and the island of Maui.

Dare I say that would really suck.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Slavery sucks, regardless of who's owning who

True words. Definitely the one thing that no one wakes up an strives to be.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Virginia sheriff says he’ll deputize residents if gun laws pass

I say go for it. I'm always amused when people try to implement silly things. Lets see how many residents he'll be able to deputize lol.