https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Related to abolitionism in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

Class 1, Why Does the Civil War and Reconstruction Have a Hold on American Historical Imagination? by David Blight for [[YaleCourses]]

based on context, this is presumably in Georgia in the mid-to-late 1700s.

Note that Culpeper's Rebellion involved Thomas Culpeper organizing an informal militia to oust Thomas Miller, a petty tyrant with an armed guard.

There is obviously a class division at the root of this dispute.

The decision may have motivated the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Post slavery. Cites due process clause as further defining 2nd Amendment.Caims that the 2nd only restricted the federal government not the state governments.

Equal rights for the sexes will be reached only when totally unqualified women occupy high positions of power. —Phyllis Diller, May 1979, gag file under Women's Liberation

From the Phyllis Diller gag file at https://transcription.si.edu/project/8547<br /> via https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1218385#

Citation

Duane, James, The Right to Remain Silent: A New Answer to an Old Question (February 2, 2012). Criminal Justice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1998119

Decentralized moderation satisfies freedom to speak and freedom not to listen

13th and fourteenth amendment

clarified the relationship between individuals and the national government

Is clarity between the relationship of the Constitution and the Federal Government. That if the ("paperwork") Constitution doesn't specify it the power to be delegated by the Federal Govt, that power belongs to the state and/or the people. This comes in handy when there are concurrent powers(powers shared between the state and federal govt, the tenth amendment with come into play to divide the specifics.Limiting the powers of the Fed Govt.

Censorship by surrogate

Is the government using private corporations to censor the speech of Americans?

Ben Thompson makes the case that although Google is acting within legal bounds, morally their behavior is wrong and incompatible with the spirit of the Fifth, Sixth and possibly Fourth Amendments.

Ohio already has scores of other laws that can be applied where warranted. From negligent homicide to child endangering. Application of existing law is up to prosecutors.

Statists who seek to rule others based on their emotions think "one more law" would ensure that they never have bad feelings ever again - if their opinion is forced upon enough people.

This ignores the reality that the situations they're fretting about are already covered by existing law. The objective reality that "laws don't actually prevent bad things from happening" is lost on these fools.

Requiring firearms to be locked such that they cannot be effectively used in an emergency has been found to violate the Second Amendment, so she's either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html

Recall that George Mason was an anti-federalist.

Prior to the Bill of Rights, only four of the thirteen state Constitutions had a provision for a right to bear arms.

Oh the ironies of this as he was talking about a small proportion of the population at the time, a large swath of which (namely enslaved persons with no power) had no arms to protect themselves against him.

His definition of "freemen" was painfully limiting for someone speaking about freedom in such lofty terms.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/

Professor Carl Bogus: Carl T. Bogus, “Was Slavery a Factor in the Second Amendment?” The New York Times, May 24, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

Transcript: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1002107670 Audio: <audio src="">

<audio controls> <source src="https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/fa/2021/06/20210602_fa_01.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> <br />

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio. Here is a link to the audio instead.

</audio>

https://www.carltbogus.com/guns

Some fascinating research articles here on gun control and the Second Amendment.

WTF!

Elie Mystal writes in Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution:

There was an original purpose to the Second Amendment, but it wasn't to keep people safe. It was to preserve white supremacy and slavery. (p36)

He indicates that there are quotes from Patrick Henry and George Mason, governor of Virginia. They needed the ability to raise an armed militia to put down slave revolts and didn't want to rely on the federal government to do it.

• [ ] Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution by Elie Mystal #wanttoread

link to 1967 Mulford Act signed by Ronald Reagan see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

It's strange how the same people who imagine a disarmed populace as a good thing are playing catch-up to arm Ukranian civilians against a military. I've lost count of the children massacred by militaries that are the only groups of people magically trustworthy enough to be armed apparently.

If you left a murderer alone with a room full of kids and a knife for 77 minutes, you'd have the same result - and if you're a student of recent history, you'd know that's exactly the kind of attack that has happened time and again in gun-free victim zones around the world.

To address this issue properly, citizens must understand the #JustPowers Clause of The Declaration of Independence, the foundation that the US Constitution is laid upon; and a universal document that recognizes the rights of ALL humans.

Put simply, it states that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else may justly grant powers to others that we do not have.

If you or I stole our neighbors' firearms, even if we claimed it was for "safety" or "the common good", we'd face criminal charges. We all know this, and the evidence is in our conduct.

Instead, why not focus just powers such has holding adults responsible for the safety of others accountable for negligence?

Private Social Space

The First Amendment ("free speech") guides what speech the government can control. The social networks are private companies, so the control is over who gets to say what in that private, social space. Is there an analog about who gets to say what in a bar...is it the bar owner? (The bar being an example of another public, social space.)

An example of how a library in Vermont stood up to a warrantless request from the FBI to seize and search public library computers. This could have impacted the library's budget when the issue was brought to a town meeting, but a library patron was a passionate advocate for the 4th amendment.

It should be noted that these people have said the same time every time reform of firearms laws have been proposed.

They have been tremendously wrong every single time.

So why listen to others when they have only been wrong every time?

I'd totally missed this in the news this week.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/opinion/equal-rights-amendment-ratification.html

My Xbox 360 display picture is a Libertarian Party one created by the Xbox team for a past election cycle. They had them for GOP and Dem as well.

There are also a few groups centered around politics for coordinating gameplay together premised on a common interest - so it seems that to that extent he doesn't know his own system?

I don't know that Xbox as a social platform would be favorable for "creating a political party" whatever that means. Government's control what political parties are created - they only allow the ones they approve of to exist anyway.

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014, SC 2015, c 3, https://canlii.ca/t/52m35, s. 110, amends IRPA s. 63(2) and (3) to read:

Right to appeal — visa and removal order

(2) A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision to make a removal order against them made under subsection 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing.

Right to appeal removal order

(3) A permanent resident or a protected person may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision to make a removal order against them made under subsection 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing.

Previously they had read:

Right to appeal — visa and removal order

(2) A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to make a removal order against them.

Right to appeal — removal order

(3) A permanent resident or a protected person may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to make a removal order against them.

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014, SC 2015, c 3, https://canlii.ca/t/52m35, s. 109(E) amends the English version of IRPA s. 37(1)(b) to read:

(b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or laundering of money or other proceeds of crime.

Previously it had read:

(b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or money laundering.

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014, SC 2015, c 3, https://canlii.ca/t/52m35, s. 108(E) amends the English version of IRPA s. 16(3) to read:

Evidence relating to identity (3) An officer may require or obtain from a permanent resident or a foreign national who is arrested, detained, subject to an examination or subject to a removal order, any evidence — photographic, fingerprint or otherwise — that may be used to establish their identity or compliance with this Act.

Previously it had read:

Evidence relating to identity (3) An officer may require or obtain from a permanent resident or a foreign national who is arrested, detained or subject to a removal order, any evidence — photographic, fingerprint or otherwise — that may be used to establish their identity or compliance with this Act.

Compare social media with the newspaper business from this perspective.

People joined social media not knowing the end effects, but now don't have a choice of platform after-the-fact. Social platforms accelerate the disinformation using algorithms.

Because there is choice amongst newspapers, people can easily move and if they'd subscribed to a racist fringe newspaper, they could easily end their subscription and go somewhere else. This is patently not the case for any social media. There's a high hidden personal cost for connectivity that isn't taken into account. The government needs to regulate this and not the speech portion.

Social media should be considered a common carrier and considered as such. It was an easier and more logical process in the telephone, electricity and other areas to force this as the cost of implementation for them was magnitudes of order higher. The data formats and storage for social should be standardized (potentially even in three or more formats) and that should be the common carrier imposed. Would this properly skirt the First Amendment issues?

Town of Barre

Charter Amendment requires 10%

VT Constitution

Charter amendment by Council OR by petition of five percent of the voters of the municipality

I dont believe some of this, blacks never had a voice during . That time if they were to speak up during that time they would often get punished. Blacks had no say in there freedom, slavery wasn't abolished to help slaves, Abraham Lincoln didn't do it out of the kindness out of his heart.

"The ideas of the First Amendment are not designed to deal with what it took to make the materials [of pornography.]" [5:56-5:59]

uh, yes it does for the person who the hate speech is directed against.

Hopefully this suggestion will be accepted in the spirit it is offered (gently!) and if acted upon, would not lengthen the intro too much, but rather help clarify the "anticipatory set" of the reading. Although the first sentence is quite accurate, as someone who has been doing extensive reading on the 2nd Amendment lately, I had to re - read this to be sure I understood the assertion. Bouncing back & forth from references to 1) gun control advocates 2) individual rights to gun ownership and back to 3) reference to a well regulated militia is likely to confuse H.S. readers who may have little interest or grasp of the ideas.

Suggest: First of all - since it is so brief, it might be useful to actually provide the complete wording of Amendment Two. (Perhaps above the green "About this text" box.)

Secondly - a note suggesting that gun control advocates tend to focus upon the "militia" clause while gun owner rights advocates often prefer to focus on the second clause re: right to own.

Thirdly - a (brief) suggestion that the two sides do not even agree upon what constitutes a "militia" and that the context and historical evidence for each side's arguments are lengthy and complex.

The second sentence beginning " In the excerpt below, is critical to help set the context of the reading, however, there seems to be room to minimize the verbiage without losing meaning.

Knowing that the founders were mindful of Hobbes, is it also possible that this (pessimistic) passage might have been among the considerations behind the second amendment? An additional document with an interesting passage relating to armed citizenry arguments (for those interested in that question) might be found in the English Bill of Rights (1689) " . . . subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense . . ." Does this passage have anything to do with the 2nd amendment appearing immediately after the establishment and free exercise clauses of Amendment one? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp[](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp)

This language is ripe for studying.

This is what actual 1st Amendment violations look like

This is a bit heartbreaking. Their facebook page is heavily monitored as well. I know folks that have been blocked from commenting there at Yes on 1. Thank goodness for hypothes.is.

I am seeking opinions as to the nature of this amendment. Is this good for homeowners or good for only big business? Is this Yes on 1? Or is this the REAL amendment?

This FB page and amendment has said to be a sneaky back door legislation that will actually ensure power to the big dogs and make it harder for us to get solar. Please correct me if wrong.

We should repeal this Amendment.

McDuffie ANS adopted during COW