bhyde

Bush DTS

Recommended Posts

This thread is groundbreaking, both the left and right agree that GHWB is dead!  Great to find common ground.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George ordered us into Somalia. About three weeks in he came for a visit. Went all the way into Biadoa too. At Bardera he was met by a small delegation of kids, who had been picked as the least starved of the area and dressed in the best clothes they could scrounge up, and somehow came up with a few flowers to line the path for him. When he found out they had done all that he cried like a baby. 

 He cried after he saw what most of the kids looked like and asked who those kids who had greeted him had been. He was told the truth, the kids themselves had selected the healthiest among them to go and greet him, while the sicker looking ones stayed behind...so as not to depress him with their appearance. 

 He was a good man. Today of course we all know what a terrible, stupid thing it was to go in there and feed people...of course. 

 

 PPP-PHOTOS-1992-book2-folio-K.jpg

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

Today of course we all know what a terrible, stupid thing it was to go in there and feed people...of course. 

Terribly stupid, yes.

Feeding the world isn't in the Commander in Chief's job description. It's not what soldiers are trained to do. It is the kind of mission that can only happen if you have more defensive capability than you need and are finding other things to do with it. A better idea would be to go along with The Donald's plan to have NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense, starting with the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

George ordered us into Somalia. About three weeks in he came for a visit. Went all the way into Biadoa too. At Bardera he was met by a small delegation of kids, who had been picked as the least starved of the area and dressed in the best clothes they could scrounge up, and somehow came up with a few flowers to line the path for him. When he found out they had done all that he cried like a baby. 

 He cried after he saw what most of the kids looked like and asked who those kids who had greeted him had been. He was told the truth, the kids themselves had selected the healthiest among them to go and greet him, while the sicker looking ones stayed behind...so as not to depress him with their appearance. 

 He was a good man. Today of course we all know what a terrible, stupid thing it was to go in there and feed people...of course. 

 

 PPP-PHOTOS-1992-book2-folio-K.jpg

  

Propaganda always makes me feel warm and fuzzy too! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Terribly stupid, yes.

Feeding the world isn't in the Commander in Chief's job description. It's not what soldiers are trained to do. It is the kind of mission that can only happen if you have more defensive capability than you need and are finding other things to do with it. A better idea would be to go along with The Donald's plan to have NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense, starting with the USA.

  I'm quite sure that you would not stand idly by and watch thousands of kids starve to death on an ideological principle, so consider this bait not taken.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  I'm quite sure that you would not stand idly by and watch thousands of kids starve to death on an ideological principle, so consider this bait not taken.  

I'm not. Libertarian is a catch-all-pseudoideology of "fuck you".

It's nice to see dogballs "government spending is bad" defending arbitrary spending levels though. That's the kind of backflips we expect from libertarians. This is, of course, actually relevant because several of the NATO leaders suggest they don't need more direct military spending - they need logistic spending to make the military more mobile (germany used the example of railways)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Propaganda always makes me feel warm and fuzzy too! :D

Well then, it being the Xmas season let me help you out, fuckface. Regretfully, wish I could transmit to you what this all smelled like. 

Image result for Starving people of Somalia, 1992

 

somalia-starving.jpgaugust-1992-baidoa-somalia-a-starving-chtahun-2025-40-juta-anak-afrika-terancam-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

Well then, it being the Xmas season let me help you out, fuckface. Regretfully, wish I could transmit to you what this all smelled like. 

Image result for Starving people of Somalia, 1992

 

somalia-starving.jpgaugust-1992-baidoa-somalia-a-starving-chtahun-2025-40-juta-anak-afrika-terancam-

Thanks for your service Mark. That was a righteous effort. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Thanks for your service Mark. That was a righteous effort. 

Thanks, but on hindsight I probably over-reacted. Mickey don't know. Hardly anybody knows what happened up country there. I was enraged that someone could think that was propaganda because as far as I know nobody knows about that incident. Never saw it in the press. What photos there are appear to have been taken by military personnel . 

 The press nearly all stayed in the relative comfort of Mogadishu. But the farther you got up country the worse it got, and Bardeera as the heart of darkness. Never been able to laugh about anything I saw up there. Lots and lots of press on the coast, none up country. George insisted on seeing it all...and he didn't drag along an entourage to create "propaganda".    

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark K said:
15 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Terribly stupid, yes.

Feeding the world isn't in the Commander in Chief's job description. It's not what soldiers are trained to do. It is the kind of mission that can only happen if you have more defensive capability than you need and are finding other things to do with it. A better idea would be to go along with The Donald's plan to have NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense, starting with the USA.

  I'm quite sure that you would not stand idly by and watch thousands of kids starve to death on an ideological principle, so consider this bait not taken.  

What's going on over there these days?

"Move to Somalia" seems to be some sort of rhetorical talking point around here because of the failed state and haven for terrorists.

So kids are starving today and we're watching instead of nation building.

I'd object if we started nation building again because we tend to leave behind basket cases like Somalia and LIbya after our well-intentioned efforts end.

We're bad at it. We were then and are now and policing the world is a neocon project that's going to have to show more than anecdotal success to make me think it's a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark K said:

Well then, it being the Xmas season let me help you out, fuckface. Regretfully, wish I could transmit to you what this all smelled like. 

 

1

Mery Xmas to you too.

iraq_warVistims_children.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

What's going on over there these days?

"Move to Somalia" seems to be some sort of rhetorical talking point around here because of the failed state and haven for terrorists.

So kids are starving today and we're watching instead of nation building.

I'd object if we started nation building again because we tend to leave behind basket cases like Somalia and LIbya after our well-intentioned efforts end.

We're bad at it. We were then and are now and policing the world is a neocon project that's going to have to show more than anecdotal success to make me think it's a good idea.

"If we didn't fix it forever than it was wrong."?? That's neocon thought.  This is all about George, and this was one of the things he did that nobody had mentioned.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

What's going on over there these days?

"Move to Somalia" seems to be some sort of rhetorical talking point around here because of the failed state and haven for terrorists.

So kids are starving today and we're watching instead of nation building.

I'd object if we started nation building again because we tend to leave behind basket cases like Somalia and LIbya after our well-intentioned efforts end.

We're bad at it. We were then and are now and policing the world is a neocon project that's going to have to show more than anecdotal success to make me think it's a good idea.

"If we didn't fix it forever than it was wrong."?? That's neocon thought.

I thought neocon thought was, "We won't fix it at all, we'll just meddle someplace else next because we have the extra "defense" capacity to do so."

It's a known danger of standing armies and has been for a long time.

7 minutes ago, Mark K said:

This is all about George, and this was one of the things he did that nobody had mentioned.  

I appreciate your humanity and his in that situation. I just don't think we should have the extra "defense" capacity to make such situations possible in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I thought neocon thought was, "We won't fix it at all, we'll just meddle someplace else next because we have the extra "defense" capacity to do so."

It's a known danger of standing armies and has been for a long time.

I appreciate your humanity and his in that situation. I just don't think we should have the extra "defense" capacity to make such situations possible in the first place.

Saving starving kids is dangerous? To whom? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Saving starving kids is dangerous? To whom? 

Is it "defense" or policing?

It's dangerous to taxpayers, obviously, hence my comment about spending 2% of GDP on defense so that meddling around the world isn't a "defensive" option for well-meaning politicians who wind up leaving behind a complete disaster.

It also creates a dangerous illusion that we can "save" these people through judicious bombing and shooting when we tend to create more problems than we solve that way. Solving some doesn't negate the creation of others.

If those kids were really "saved" from their situation, "move to Somalia" wouldn't be a talking point. It is because we didn't save anyone from anything in the long run. We meddled because we could. We can because we spend too much and are arrogant as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 6:50 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Is it "defense" or policing?

It's dangerous to taxpayers, obviously, hence my comment about spending 2% of GDP on defense so that meddling around the world isn't a "defensive" option for well-meaning politicians who wind up leaving behind a complete disaster.

It also creates a dangerous illusion that we can "save" these people through judicious bombing and shooting when we tend to create more problems than we solve that way. Solving some doesn't negate the creation of others.

If those kids were really "saved" from their situation, "move to Somalia" wouldn't be a talking point. It is because we didn't save anyone from anything in the long run. We meddled because we could. We can because we spend too much and are arrogant as hell.

 How is it dangerous to taxpayers? 

 You should learn something about the subject before making assertions about it. Bardera became what it had always been within a few years, mostly. The market town of the breadbasket of Somalia, best place in the shithole, for peasants anyway. What they had going for them was the river. With water they can grow crops all year. 

  That land is why Aideed had the notion he could ethnically clean the place.   

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark K said:

 How is it dangerous to taxpayers? 

Just a sarcastic way of emphasizing that Donald is right about NATO members spending 2% of GDP on defense.

What do you think of that plan?

I think it would relieve about half of the defense load on my tax bill and would cripple the ability of neocon Presidents to meddle at will around the world.

3 hours ago, Mark K said:

You should learn something about the subject before making assertions about it. Bardera became what it had always been within a few years, mostly. The market town of the breadbasket of Somalia, best place in the shithole, for peasants anyway. What they had going for them was the river. With water they can grow crops all year. 

  That land is why Aideed had the notion he could ethnically clean the place.   

 

Well, if we did such a good job (policing it, defending ourselves), by all means move to Somalia.

Before you go, can you tell me which of the above applies? Were we policing the world or defending ourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Just a sarcastic way of emphasizing that Donald is right about NATO members spending 2% of GDP on defense.

What do you think of that plan?

I think it would relieve about half of the defense load on my tax bill and would cripple the ability of neocon Presidents to meddle at will around the world.

How naive you are dogballs.

All that ploy is, is increasing the sale figure for the arms manufacturers.

It would do nothing to reduce US meddling.  They are meddling by insisting they give 2% of their GDP to Rome America.

You shill cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

How naive you are dogballs.

All that ploy is, is increasing the sale figure for the arms manufacturers.

It would do nothing to reduce US meddling.  They are meddling by insisting they give 2% of their GDP to Rome America.

You shill cunt.

I know that no one in the Duopoly agrees with me.

That's why I keep bringing up cutting our defense spending to 2% of GDP.

Many seem to like applying the idea to other countries, where it would mean increasing spending.

Only libertarians seem to want to apply it to the US because we're the ones who talk about actually cutting spending. And we don't just mean "reducing the projected growth rate a little bit, so we can adjust it back up later."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 1:27 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I know that no one in the Duopoly agrees with me.

That's why I keep bringing up cutting our defense spending to 2% of GDP.

Many seem to like applying the idea to other countries, where it would mean increasing spending.

Only libertarians seem to want to apply it to the US because we're the ones who talk about actually cutting spending. And we don't just mean "reducing the projected growth rate a little bit, so we can adjust it back up later."

Why should GDP be a factor in planning defense spending? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

Why should GDP be a factor in planning defense spending? 

Because "what can you afford" is a question when considering an expenditure.

Or should be anyway.

"What can you spend and send the bill to grandkids" seems to be the real question.

That's how you answer a question.

Try it:

Were we policing the world or defending ourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, since Mark doesn't answer questions, I'll try.

We were policing the world, something we're extraordinarily bad at doing and should stop.

We were not defending our nation or any vital national interest.

Except that neocon interest in policing the world and remaking it in our image.

It's a stupid interest, even if it does produce some feel good moments that help keep it going from time to time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 2:15 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Because "what can you afford" is a question when considering an expenditure.

Or should be anyway.

"What can you spend and send the bill to grandkids" seems to be the real question.

That's how you answer a question.

Try it:

Were we policing the world or defending ourselves?

Defense spending, like everything else, should be set by needs. Specifically threats and goals, if any. No sense in bringing a thermonuclear weapon to a tiddly-winks match, for instance. GDP is all but irrelevant. GDP is only a half-assed assessment of economy and doesn't say dick about how much taxes are collected to pay for defense,  btw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

OK, since Mark doesn't answer questions, I'll try.

We were policing the world, something we're extraordinarily bad at doing and should stop.

We were not defending our nation or any vital national interest.

Except that neocon interest in policing the world and remaking it in our image.

It's a stupid interest, even if it does produce some feel good moments that help keep it going from time to time.

Calling it "stupid" doesn't explain anything, that's a rather poor answer. Attributing to malice, or stupidity, things that are much better explained rationally, is not good.

Keeping the US military puffed up is very profitable for some. How do these few manage to have such a strong influence on US gov't policy?

The of US military presence around the world is indirectly profitable for many many more..... from tourism to commodities etc etc. The more-efficient allocation of resources due to free-er markets is a good thing for pretty much all, but it's difficult to justify military intervention around the world. How many countries are our friends because we have a lot of troops stationed nearby? OTOH it's worked the other way, the US Navy was a HUGE presence in the Phillippines for decades and the US became less and less popular there, until we left, and they don't miss us at all.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mark K said:
On 12/13/2018 at 5:15 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Because "what can you afford" is a question when considering an expenditure.

Or should be anyway.

"What can you spend and send the bill to grandkids" seems to be the real question.

That's how you answer a question.

Try it:

Were we policing the world or defending ourselves?

Defense spending, like everything else, should be set by needs. Specifically threats and goals, if any. No sense in bringing a thermonuclear weapon to a tiddly-winks match, for instance. GDP is all but irrelevant. GDP is only a half-assed assessment of economy and doesn't say dick about how much taxes are collected to pay for defense,  btw. 

To the bolded part, I'd agree and say that cutting our defense budget to 2% of GDP would just be a good start, after which we could see how much more cutting could be done.

Because we spend so much more than any combination of possible adversaries, I'm pretty sure we can cut more. It's just good to have a rough number to start and GDP is a rough number.

How much further would be determined by goals and needs, as you said. Which brings up a question about that Somalia thing: were we fulfilling a need? If so, what was it? Or was it a goal, like... um... policing the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Calling it "stupid" doesn't explain anything, that's a rather poor answer. Attributing to malice, or stupidity, things that are much better explained rationally, is not good.

Keeping the US military puffed up is very profitable for some. How do these few manage to have such a strong influence on US gov't policy?

The of US military presence around the world is indirectly profitable for many many more..... from tourism to commodities etc etc. The more-efficient allocation of resources due to free-er markets is a good thing for pretty much all, but it's difficult to justify military intervention around the world. How many countries are our friends because we have a lot of troops stationed nearby? OTOH it's worked the other way, the US Navy was a HUGE presence in the Phillippines for decades and the US became less and less popular there, until we left, and they don't miss us at all.

-DSK

OK, thanks for filling in an example. It's stupid because we paid a lot of money to make Filipino's hate us, to no defensive benefit.

And you could swap out "Filipino's" for any number of other people.

As for the bolded part, I'm not sure who the "some" are, how profitable, in what business, what influence, or what policies you might be talking about. How about a link or two and something specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

To the bolded part, I'd agree and say that cutting our defense budget to 2% of GDP would just be a good start, after which we could see how much more cutting could be done.

Because we spend so much more than any combination of possible adversaries, I'm pretty sure we can cut more. It's just good to have a rough number to start and GDP is a rough number.

How much further would be determined by goals and needs, as you said. Which brings up a question about that Somalia thing: were we fulfilling a need? If so, what was it? Or was it a goal, like... um... policing the world?

Starving kids qualify as a need for most people. 

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

OK, thanks for filling in an example. It's stupid because we paid a lot of money to make Filipino's hate us, to no defensive benefit.

And you could swap out "Filipino's" for any number of other people.

As for the bolded part, I'm not sure who the "some" are, how profitable, in what business, what influence, or what policies you might be talking about. How about a link or two and something specific?

Umm, no

There was a tremendous strategic benefit to having the Navy bases and facilities in the P.I. Forward deployed fleet and all that.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark K said:

Starving kids qualify as a need for most people. 

  

Were they going to invade us? Damage American interests? Do anything that requires, you know, DEFENSE?

No and no, so you're advocating the neocon vision that we aggressively police the world.

Lots of starving kids around the world right now. Who do we need to invade as a result?

8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, no

There was a tremendous strategic benefit to having the Navy bases and facilities in the P.I. Forward deployed fleet and all that.

-DSK

And if we had a tremendous strategic foe that justified such a thing, it would have made sense. But we nuked the foe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Were they going to invade us? Damage American interests? Do anything that requires, you know, DEFENSE?

No and no, so you're advocating the neocon vision that we aggressively police the world.

Lots of starving kids around the world right now. Who do we need to invade as a result?

And if we had a tremendous strategic foe that justified such a thing, it would have made sense. But we nuked the foe.

??

Who'd we nuke in that area, in the 1970s/80s?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

??

Who'd we nuke in that area, in the 1970s/80s?

-DSK

By that time, we'd been wasting money maintaining a forward base to "defend" against pretty much no one for decades.

The Japanese Imperial Navy was the last Pacific threat. Since then, our military spending has so dwarfed all potential competitors that the "necessity" of a forward base that pisses off locals has been questionable at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

By that time, we'd been wasting money maintaining a forward base to "defend" against pretty much no one for decades.

The Japanese Imperial Navy was the last Pacific threat. Since then, our military spending has so dwarfed all potential competitors that the "necessity" of a forward base that pisses off locals has been questionable at best.

And wasting money long before the Japanese were ever a threat. Starting from the Spanish–American War in 1898, when the Philippines was still part of the Spanish East Indies when Spain ceded its longstanding colony of the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Paris. After which followed the Philippine-American War and nearly 50-year occupation that concluded when the United States formally recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines on July 4, 1946. Happy 4th of July! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1898–1946)#Japanese_occupation_and_World_War_II_(1941–45)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Were they going to invade us? Damage American interests? Do anything that requires, you know, DEFENSE?

No and no, so you're advocating the neocon vision that we aggressively police the world.

Lots of starving kids around the world right now. Who do we need to invade as a result?

And if we had a tremendous strategic foe that justified such a thing, it would have made sense. But we nuked the foe.

Nobody is actually this stupid, but some pretend to be so.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Nobody is actually this stupid, but some pretend to be so.   

You may want to rethink that statement.

Trump was elected as your POTUS.

'Nuff said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

You may want to rethink that statement.

Trump was elected as your POTUS.

'Nuff said?

I suspect a lot of that vote was from the USA equivalent of the Nigel Farage/Brexit mess, chasing the "damn immigrants" theme. Which was amplified by the MSM, chasing hits. Fox just put them over the top. They know they been fucked over, they aren't able to figure out by whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark K said:
On 12/17/2018 at 1:57 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Were they going to invade us? Damage American interests? Do anything that requires, you know, DEFENSE?

No and no, so you're advocating the neocon vision that we aggressively police the world.

Lots of starving kids around the world right now. Who do we need to invade as a result?

And if we had a tremendous strategic foe that justified such a thing, it would have made sense. But we nuked the foe.

Nobody is actually this stupid, but some pretend to be so. 

OK, spell it out. What was the defensive need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

OK, spell it out. What was the defensive need?

Are you really dumb enough to have imagined that since we call it the Dept of Defense it is forbidden for it to be used in any other way?

Next you will be wondering which state our State Dept. represents, I suppose.  Or perhaps be puzzled why the Constitution gives the power to Congress to declare war and not defense. You've set the bar for pedantry remarkably high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It helps to think of the Department of Defense as a well regulated militia. What is the defensive need of a well regulated militia, particularly, indoors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

It helps to think of the Department of Defense as a well regulated militia. What is the defensive need of a well regulated militia, particularly, indoors?

To shoot antelopes, sir!

Uh, interlopers, sir!

And some elk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark K said:

Are you really dumb enough to have imagined that since we call it the Dept of Defense it is forbidden for it to be used in any other way?

Next you will be wondering which state our State Dept. represents, I suppose.  Or perhaps be puzzled why the Constitution gives the power to Congress to declare war and not defense. You've set the bar for pedantry remarkably high. 

We used to call it the War Dept.

So what was the warfare need?

The reason you keep dodging those questions is the same reason they're my favorite kind: the answer is obvious.

We had no defensive need to be there and were aggressively policing the world. Badly, as usual.

I don't think we should have a military force that is used to protect the people of the world from their own government, or lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

The reason you keep dodging those questions is the same reason they're my favorite kind: the answer is obvious.

I have one such question. Why can;t you support the Libertarian version of history, the bit called The Standard Model of the Second Amendment?
The answer is obvious.

Quote

 The Second Amendment in Historiographical Crisis: Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward

 The Rise and Fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s Thesis on the Anglo-American Right see p 1795

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, of course.

We deal in facts, so we know why you won't answer the history question. Most Libertarians are not well regulated, since they use mere money to fight regulation.

Here is where your foundation fails. You are making this shit up.

Quote

THE RISE AND FALL OF JOYCE LEE MALCOLM  Patrick Charles

Suffice it to say, the historical conclusions that Malcolm claims to be substantiated are nothing more than a number of independent historical theories, with little if any connection between them.391 Such problematic theories include:

  • 1. England maintained a virtually unregulated armed society in both private and public, which advanced public safety and deterred crime.392
  • 2. The Convention of 1689 debates and the drafting history of Article VII convey the Declaration of Rights sought to protect an Supreme Court and the Uses of History: District of Columbia v. Heller, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1377, 1378 (2009)[hereinafter Malcolm, The Supreme Court].
  • individual right to armed self-defense against public and private threats to one’s person.393
  • 3. Article VII was prompted by individual disarmament through both the 1662 Militia Act and 1671 Game Act.394
  • 4. William Blackstone described Article VII as a right to armed individual self-defense, divorced from the militia, against both private and public violence.395
  • 5. American colonists understood the English right and Blackstone as advancing a right to be armed, but not necessarily that they be trained to arms.396

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now