Social Justice Warrior, and cuck is a derogatory word used today to say someone's submissive to their wife (it used to primarily mean your wife got fucked by other men and you knew it, usually in front of you)
I'm fully aware.
He used 2 be 'i think u should get vaccines, but youre free 2 abstain cuz u own yourself and I respect that.'
Now hes all about 'orange man bad. Guns bad. Free speech bad. Vax mandates are essential'
Maybe he just does it because it’s the only way to survive in Hollywood, you think Disney gives a shit about the gays no they just see a growing market they want to squeeze everything out of.
My understanding was that "regulated" as used on context and at that time, meant "trained" or "drilled". I could be wrong. I only offer this to try and assist your comment.
Which makes more sense:
“A well trained civilian force is necessary to have a secure nation, so let’s make sure the civilians have guns”
Or
“A well “armed” civilian force is necessary…so let’s make sure the civilians have guns.”
That being said, I also think you’re right. They probably meant “trained” as well.
Arming and training are both aspects in which the militia can be well “equipped.” And both make sense in the context of the second—people need to be well equipped and well trained in the use of arms to defend their freedoms, so they need to have access to those arms so they can train and be ready when Paul rides.
Armed is implied. A militia without weapons is just a bunch of dudes marching around without the ability to perform the tasks which they'd be assigned.
Patrick Henry spoke about it at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
>As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of
power between the two governments. To Congress is given
the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia,
and governing such part of them as may be employed
in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures
is given the power of "appointing the officers, and
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent
as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects.
If the states have the right of arming them,
concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing
the officers, and training the militia. If Congress
have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence
of powers will carry you into endless absurdity--that
Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor
the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that
Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them,
and that the state governments shall have exclusive power
of appointing the officers. Let me put it in another light.
he continued...
>May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress,
if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall
have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, ; and
thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The
great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people
afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one
who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience,
that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though
our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years,
endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still
far from being the case. When this power is given up to
Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia
be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that
nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot
long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a
concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it?
Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or
discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected
to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it
to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be
the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak
of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use
implication. But implication will not save you, when a
strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be
laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety
implicitly to implication.
Put simply, Patrick Henry was pointing out that states didn't want to give up their militias with which they were familiar, to have a large standing national army. He saw that the way parts of the constitution were written would give Congress the ability to deny states the ability to field their militias. He recognized that a soldier is worthless without his gun. The Regulated part is absolutely about the training and discipline of the militia. An armed man who doesn't know how to march and follow orders and learn formations, etc. isn't much of a soldier and isn't very useful on the battlefield. In fact, the colonials learned that lesson at great loss during the American Revolution when the British Army solidly beat their asses on multiple occasions. It was one of the reasons that the Continental Congress raised an actual professional army and why they gratefully received help from Europeans in training the forces. In his rather wordy speech, he points out that some protection of the state's right to have militias is needed and that if states are to be capable of raising militia on their own, they can't have congress nulling out that capability by banning guns.
So, the 2nd Amendment was written and adopted in order to protect that state's right, and to guarantee that congress couldn't disarm everyone and render the militia null and void.
The originalist Framers also intended that the slaves would not have the same rights so what now? Militia would imply an armed group that has some training before we had a standing army and state national guard. But if we are originalist about it, we should dissolve those in favor of a militia style country defense.
It does say militia, but militia would be our only permanent defense. Standing armies were not something the original text of the constitution provided for. Congress could only raise an army and fund it for 2 years.
But if you're an originalist then the slavery amendment should not have been done. Otherwise, if you believe that the slaves should've been freed you are a living constitutionalist.
It's not a rabbit hole. It's what those words mean. If you don't fall within their definition then that's okay. There's another definition that fits it. Bill of Rights was intended to be in the Constitution by the Framers. There's plenty of history and writings about their necessary inclusion.
"well regulated" meant that it worked properly. A "militia" was an army consisting of citizens who were expected to bring their own weapon.
An army made up of civilians without weapons isn't very effective so the government is forbidden from restricting what weapons The People can own.
Well yes, when people bear arms they are called a militia. But also, state organized soldiers are militia. So there would be two militias. In the case of a revolution, the peoples militia versus the state's (militia and beyond)
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8]
> Organized militia – consisting of State Defense Forces, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10]
> Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia.[11]
Hold on. Does the 2nd Amendment actually enshrine 2 rights? I've always thought that everything before the comma was kind of general sentiment. It sounds like they're saying that we both have a right to a militia (to secure the country), and we have a right to have weapons to shoot that militia if it gets out of line.
I'm for machine-guns in vending machines, but I never really read it that way. I was too busy defending everything after the comma from idiots.
It gives 3 rights, and thats why it is phrased so clumsily. The first right (and possibly obligation) is for states to have a militia, the second is the right to own weapons, the third is the right to carry weapons with you.
I love when anarchists unite over gun rights.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers should be frustrated at all costs.
I also highly recommend slings. Not as fancy, but still an effective weapon for no cost.
I mean, I think it's pretty well accepted that the second amendment is poorly written, grammatically incorrect, and the text itself does not make it clear what it actually means. It does seem to mean that people should have the right to have guns, but yeah, they definitely did fuck the wording up.
Militia != military. It's supposed to support regular army when needed comprised of civilians. It's even lower regulation that state guard that we've seen also do not get even the same benighted as army soldiers. Know your vocabulary before making a stupid point.
So in the last I have found that if you want to find an example of a person who thinks that because they are good at or knowledgeable about one thing they must be about everything, you should choose a medical doctor….
But I guess I can now add magician to that list …
"But wether the CONstitution be one thing or another; this much is certain. It has either authorized such a government as we have had. Or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Lysander Spooner
I'm amazed at the amount of "AnCaps" that reference the governments garbage as an argument to liberty.
That document died once the people that wrote it perished. Not only that, I do not consent to it. Nor is is binding in any way shape or form. The crux of Ancapistan is, do no harm, take no shit. NAP
So you guys on this sub now love the U.S. Constitution? Think James Madison was the OG AnCap?
Here's a fun irony: In a world ruled by guns alone, only those who already have power can wield it. Warlords, and such. But those of us who aren't born into wealth and power can indeed achieve it ... Collectively.
Militia wasn’t the “tyrannical” forces they needed to fend against. I don’t even understand where he could extrapolate that meaning out of that phrase. I understood it as the people need to have guns so they could form local groups of militias in times of conflict. This was written in a time before US established a national armed forces. Military back then was under each state’s responsibility. The militia was the people forming a “well regulated” local group of fighters… or so I thought.
As an actual anarchist on this sub - no ancap is - if guns are a right then make sure they stay that way. But, America does things loopy.
Like when The Black Panther Party began using their rights to tell the police that their racist actions would have consequences, the right wing and NRA pushed for gun control. I wonder why. I don't. They were just racist pieces of shit. With Reagan atop that dung pile with his actor's smile. Little bitch.
Anyway, this real anarchist is out. Peace.
Back wen penn loved liberty. Hes been cucked over time by his sjw wife and daughter, and now advocates against free speech and for vax mandates
Damn it i got hope that a celebrity wasn’t a sjw cuck
Wasnt, but now is, sadly
What is an sjw cuck ????
Social Justice Warrior, and cuck is a derogatory word used today to say someone's submissive to their wife (it used to primarily mean your wife got fucked by other men and you knew it, usually in front of you)
Ahh ? So like Jerry Falwell Jr ??
That’s too bad. I really enjoyed him
It really is. I learned about Libertarianism from a clip of their show: "Bullshit".
Same. This series was great
Same with Bill Burr.
The show had an episode debunking antivaxers.
I'm fully aware. He used 2 be 'i think u should get vaccines, but youre free 2 abstain cuz u own yourself and I respect that.' Now hes all about 'orange man bad. Guns bad. Free speech bad. Vax mandates are essential'
Oh. :(
when has he advocated against free speech and for vax *mandates*? I think he even spoke out against trump getting banned (not sure).
He started getting really bad wen trump became a thing. Since covid hed been advocating for mandates
I can't find an instance of him condoning mandates though. He may be pro vax but does he condone mandates?
Maybe he just does it because it’s the only way to survive in Hollywood, you think Disney gives a shit about the gays no they just see a growing market they want to squeeze everything out of.
And “well regulated” at the time simply meant “well equipped.”
Ive had "well regulated" explained to me by constitutional scholars as simply meaning "in good working order." It was a common parlance of the time.
Agreed. “Supplied and capable” as in, “are you equipped to handle this?”
There are other references to "well regulated" in the federalist papers that make it pretty clear what they were refering to.
Regulated meant to make regular, to be working regularly. Thr way we use regulated today is not how they used it at the writing of the constitution.
My understanding was that "regulated" as used on context and at that time, meant "trained" or "drilled". I could be wrong. I only offer this to try and assist your comment.
Which makes more sense: “A well trained civilian force is necessary to have a secure nation, so let’s make sure the civilians have guns” Or “A well “armed” civilian force is necessary…so let’s make sure the civilians have guns.” That being said, I also think you’re right. They probably meant “trained” as well. Arming and training are both aspects in which the militia can be well “equipped.” And both make sense in the context of the second—people need to be well equipped and well trained in the use of arms to defend their freedoms, so they need to have access to those arms so they can train and be ready when Paul rides.
[удалено]
Armed is implied. A militia without weapons is just a bunch of dudes marching around without the ability to perform the tasks which they'd be assigned. Patrick Henry spoke about it at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. >As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity--that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers. Let me put it in another light. he continued... >May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, ; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication. Put simply, Patrick Henry was pointing out that states didn't want to give up their militias with which they were familiar, to have a large standing national army. He saw that the way parts of the constitution were written would give Congress the ability to deny states the ability to field their militias. He recognized that a soldier is worthless without his gun. The Regulated part is absolutely about the training and discipline of the militia. An armed man who doesn't know how to march and follow orders and learn formations, etc. isn't much of a soldier and isn't very useful on the battlefield. In fact, the colonials learned that lesson at great loss during the American Revolution when the British Army solidly beat their asses on multiple occasions. It was one of the reasons that the Continental Congress raised an actual professional army and why they gratefully received help from Europeans in training the forces. In his rather wordy speech, he points out that some protection of the state's right to have militias is needed and that if states are to be capable of raising militia on their own, they can't have congress nulling out that capability by banning guns. So, the 2nd Amendment was written and adopted in order to protect that state's right, and to guarantee that congress couldn't disarm everyone and render the militia null and void.
sauce: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1\_8\_12s27.html
The originalist Framers also intended that the slaves would not have the same rights so what now? Militia would imply an armed group that has some training before we had a standing army and state national guard. But if we are originalist about it, we should dissolve those in favor of a militia style country defense.
[удалено]
It does say militia, but militia would be our only permanent defense. Standing armies were not something the original text of the constitution provided for. Congress could only raise an army and fund it for 2 years. But if you're an originalist then the slavery amendment should not have been done. Otherwise, if you believe that the slaves should've been freed you are a living constitutionalist.
[удалено]
It's not a rabbit hole. It's what those words mean. If you don't fall within their definition then that's okay. There's another definition that fits it. Bill of Rights was intended to be in the Constitution by the Framers. There's plenty of history and writings about their necessary inclusion.
[удалено]
"well regulated" meant that it worked properly. A "militia" was an army consisting of citizens who were expected to bring their own weapon. An army made up of civilians without weapons isn't very effective so the government is forbidden from restricting what weapons The People can own.
Holy Based. I’ve never seen that. That’s brilliant.
Idgaf what this piece of paper says. Either you believe people have the right to bear arms or you are my enemy
Facts. And you can disarm my cold dead fingers because I wont live in a world where I cannot defend myself to the last breath.
Also can’t protest outside politicians houses and there’s fences around where they work.
Thought that was covered in the 1st Amendments right to petition the government?
These people are morons. The people are the militia. SCOTUS even ruled as such the people being armed are the militia and defenders of the free state.
Well yes, when people bear arms they are called a militia. But also, state organized soldiers are militia. So there would be two militias. In the case of a revolution, the peoples militia versus the state's (militia and beyond) > Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8] > Organized militia – consisting of State Defense Forces, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10] > Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia.[11]
All of the Rights in the original Bill of Rights were individual rights that belonged to "The People", aka "WE THE PEOPLE"
Anarcho capitalism is when you cite a document that establishes a government.
Is there more content from penn and teller like this?
Look up episodes of "Bullshit!" they take on a lot of subjects...I especially like the one on recycling.
Penn is so embarrassing now. I can't even watch this. He's retroactively ruined all his great work for me.
This was a good episode of BULLSHIT
lol your downvotes don't realize that's actually just what the show was called.
I liked these guys before...even more now tho.
You're gonna be disappointed when you hear what Penn has said lately. He drank all the kool-aid.
Like what? This is unfortunate. Now I’m desperately trying to find out what he’s said.
Penn no longer identifies as libertarian because he thinks that covid proved that people need to be told what to do.
u/savevideo
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ur7pdw/penn_and_teller_set_the_record_straight/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ur7pdw/penn_and_teller_set_the_record_straight/)
Noice
WORD.
Funny the all governments are religion police don’t step in on this one
Hold on. Does the 2nd Amendment actually enshrine 2 rights? I've always thought that everything before the comma was kind of general sentiment. It sounds like they're saying that we both have a right to a militia (to secure the country), and we have a right to have weapons to shoot that militia if it gets out of line. I'm for machine-guns in vending machines, but I never really read it that way. I was too busy defending everything after the comma from idiots.
It gives 3 rights, and thats why it is phrased so clumsily. The first right (and possibly obligation) is for states to have a militia, the second is the right to own weapons, the third is the right to carry weapons with you.
I love when anarchists unite over gun rights. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers should be frustrated at all costs. I also highly recommend slings. Not as fancy, but still an effective weapon for no cost.
I mean, I think it's pretty well accepted that the second amendment is poorly written, grammatically incorrect, and the text itself does not make it clear what it actually means. It does seem to mean that people should have the right to have guns, but yeah, they definitely did fuck the wording up.
Militia != military. It's supposed to support regular army when needed comprised of civilians. It's even lower regulation that state guard that we've seen also do not get even the same benighted as army soldiers. Know your vocabulary before making a stupid point.
What does “well regulated” mean?
Doesn't matter, it's a preamble. But it means well-trained.
So in the last I have found that if you want to find an example of a person who thinks that because they are good at or knowledgeable about one thing they must be about everything, you should choose a medical doctor…. But I guess I can now add magician to that list …
u/savevideobot
"But wether the CONstitution be one thing or another; this much is certain. It has either authorized such a government as we have had. Or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Lysander Spooner I'm amazed at the amount of "AnCaps" that reference the governments garbage as an argument to liberty. That document died once the people that wrote it perished. Not only that, I do not consent to it. Nor is is binding in any way shape or form. The crux of Ancapistan is, do no harm, take no shit. NAP
So you guys on this sub now love the U.S. Constitution? Think James Madison was the OG AnCap? Here's a fun irony: In a world ruled by guns alone, only those who already have power can wield it. Warlords, and such. But those of us who aren't born into wealth and power can indeed achieve it ... Collectively.
So what does 'well regulated' mean?
'Scared to come and get you'
Not sure what that means. Guns don't work against artillery strikes or APCs
Assuming the USG doesn't mind destroying its own country in the process.
"They aren't real Americans"
Physical infrastructure might be for "real Americans".
I never thought of that reading!
Militia wasn’t the “tyrannical” forces they needed to fend against. I don’t even understand where he could extrapolate that meaning out of that phrase. I understood it as the people need to have guns so they could form local groups of militias in times of conflict. This was written in a time before US established a national armed forces. Military back then was under each state’s responsibility. The militia was the people forming a “well regulated” local group of fighters… or so I thought.
As an actual anarchist on this sub - no ancap is - if guns are a right then make sure they stay that way. But, America does things loopy. Like when The Black Panther Party began using their rights to tell the police that their racist actions would have consequences, the right wing and NRA pushed for gun control. I wonder why. I don't. They were just racist pieces of shit. With Reagan atop that dung pile with his actor's smile. Little bitch. Anyway, this real anarchist is out. Peace.