Jump to content
TedderVision

David Parker

Members
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by David Parker


  1. Context, context, context.

     

    The Framers consciously and specifically rejected a standing army. Their idea was that local militias (locally funded if not privately funded) would be called to service in time of emergency. The modern idea  of a formally military militia only really dates to 1903 and the Dick Act. Before, militias were generally county based. John Brown Gordon was a coal mine operator in Northern Alabama in 1860; as a leading citizen he was a frontrunner for the Captaincy of his  county's militia company in the 6th Alabama in 1861. And up North, some militia companies were fielded and funded by factories or local railroads. Even State provided equipment besides maybe obsolete flintlocks was almost unheard of; the average militia member provided all his own equipment and would only be paid for "summer camp" or if called to actual service.

     See, in a true militia officers were elected as they were considered to be a para-civil authority; even as recently as the 20th century some rural sheriff's departments required deputies to purchase their own equipment. Some counties were so miserly that Sheriffs and deputies were paid by arrest and citgation; Tennessee's McMinn County War was fought in part over a corrupt Sheriff's abuse of this policy. The real life Barney Fife owned his own uniform, holster, revolver and one bullet. And might have been paid 50 cents (or some amount) per parking ticket he wrote.

    • Like 1

  2. Couple thoughts.

    Ignoring the fact that "judicial review" is an usurped power, the Dick Act in 1903 unconstitutionally turned the militia into a second-echelon reserve component of the Armed Forces. The "dual role" the National Guard goes on so much about is puerile sophistry. A militia either IS a militia or is NOT a militia.

     

    Mandatory background checks are unconstitutional, too. Fourth Amendment? Firearms are private property and as such gun rights are property rights. Dred Scott, as immoral as the conclusion was and as unconstitutional as "judicial review" is, was based on a reasonably sound interpretation of common law. Property is property, and should be left to the owner's discretion to dispose of as he sees fit, in general.

     

    I have thought for some time that the Second Amendment was superfluous; as no power to regulate any sort of firearm was delegated to the US Government in the Constitution, the US Government possesses no such power.


  3. Presentism.

    "Well regulated militia" doesn't mean "militia subject to government edict." Regulated should be understood in the 18th Century context; when a watchmaker regulates a watch, he's not setting the criteria (or design if you will) of the watch. He's adjusting the mechanism so it functions properly. The "well-regulated militia" is not one that is restricted by bureaucrats; instead, it's one that meets regularly and is well-practiced in the use of arms suited to militia use. Historically, this was through regular "militia meetings" usually held near a county courthouse which were the distant ancestors of the modern-day National Guard and Reserve drill weekends.

     

    It must also be understood that the Framers categorically rejected a large standing Army, instead relying on local militias called to service on demand. For a well-regulated militia to be in fact well regulated, it must possess arms suited to militia use. The "sporting purpose" clause in Federal law is arrogantly unconstitutional as it restricts the arms most closely protected by the Second Amendment: military arms.

     

    To address an objection before it's made, the US "Army" in the Revolution was primarily militia, as were Old Hickory's troops before New Orleans who curbstomped the finest Army on earth at the time. The greatest light infantry in recorded history, Stonewall Jackson's Army of the Valley, were primarily militia as well. More recently, Tennessee's own Alvin York (who captured 134 Germans and probably killed over 25 more) was a member of the National Army which was as close to a militia as the US had in the Great War. The unconstitutional Dick Act of 1903 had transformed the militia into a second-echelon reserve component of the Army. And in much more recent history, the Afghan mujahedeen (sp?) humiliated the Soviet Union. The bottom line is this: Armed, determined men will always prevail in a fight.

     

    The Second Amendment restated what was obvious to many of the Framers: The right to keep and bear arms, not being a Delegated Power to the new General Government, was a Reserved Power to the States and therefore completely immune to Federal infringement through the force of law. Therefore 100% of Federal firearms legislation has been enacted under usurped power and is plausibly illegal.


  4. A few ponderables.

    1) It's not hard to conclude that the enthronement of inflation as US monetary policy through the DE-monetization of gold in 1934 placed the US on a perpetual and unsustainable economic profile.

    2) On the 10th of February 1938, my avatar and literary idol H.L. Mencken put a gray column in his Baltimore Sun Column. It was composed of one million dots, one for every new Federal jobholder. The New Deal 'solved' unemployment the same way Obama's American Recovery Act did: By giving unemployed people Federal jobs, it just pushed recovery to the right.

    3) The Panics of 1819, 1837, 1873, 1893 and 1907 were not significantly lesser in scope than the Panic of 1929. Any economy will naturally expand and contract, and the only place where limitless growth occurs is in the fevered imaginations of statists like John Keynes. The economy would have recovered much quicker from 1929 without the quackery of Lord Hoover and Roosevelt II. Really, the "New Deal" was Lord Hoover's brainchild, and Roosevelt II just took the credit.


  5. Well, I don't really hold with resolutions as such, but I will offer a few comments about the year closing and the upcoming one.

    -It was a year of endings. I'm sure everybody noticed this Parker isn't a Veteran. 2017 was the last complete year I will wear the Nation's cloth; I have reached mandatory retirement. And it was the first complete year we were without "Richard Candler." VUSA vets will remember he was a memorial to a very close RL friend of mine that passed on in 2016.

     

    Sim-wise, this Parker only shares a name with Parker 1.0-5.0. I retired from simming as I got tired of fighting with the Cool Kids and being a Party of One. Thinking I'll see how far I can go playing within the rules instead of just ignoring them when I think they're stupid.

    • Like 2

  6. This Parker will be H. L. Mencken Goes To Washington...... LOT of objectivism, and not particularly a SoCon this time. I'll try this playing against type stuff. Who's who here?

     

    Quote

    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

     

    Mencken on religion. 

     

     

     

×