Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you think Clarence Thomas would vote against Loving v. Virginia?
South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
581–590 of 739 posts
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy Private gun ownership != the right to a private gun.
Of course. Private ownership itself is just explanation of the historical context, not proof that the right existed. Having read Heller, the various drafts of the Bill of Rights, and some of the correspondence, I don't think anyone that has done the same can make an honest originalist argument against the private right. In particular, I think the linguistic argument about militias relies on a neologistic definition t…
Yup. For what it’s worth, I think Heller was spot on.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I agree that via the use of force he can do what he likes, at least so long as that force is loyal to him and other forces aren't stronger. It's just harder to create a veneer of the constitutional necessity of such a move when your own highest profile political allies apparently condemn it and pledge to "stop it with the people" instead of queuing up to rubber stamp it and do "this is a small problem with crimin…
This is looking stupider by the minute. You can't half ass a coup d'etat.
The list of countries with half-asses coup d'etat recently is growing very fast.
As a Brazilian, well, Bolsonaro is all over the news right now. Peru has had one recently too (it lasted for 6 hours or so). Going North, the US famously had one just some 4 years ago.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#584Democracy in Korea at a Crossroad On December 3, 2024, at 10:27 PM, President Yoon Seokyeol declared martial law. This declaration is illegal and constitutes a criminal act, directly violating the Constitution and other laws. It is essentially a coup d'état. The current political and social situation does not meet the criteria of "a time when it is necessary to respond to military needs or maintain public order in wa…
How is this a coup? It doesn't seem to fall under Wikipedia or any other definition I can find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#:~:text=A%2... . Do you consider Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada to have been a coup?
The military tried to physically prevent the National Assembly from meeting on a vote to disband the martial law. If they had been successful, the elected National Assembly would have no power. That's about as close to a military takeover as you can get without shots being fired.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.
I have bad news for you about which side of things a lot of the 2nd amendment fans are gonna be on if this comes to the US. The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed". It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized…
I always find it hilarious that people think the second amendment would matter much in a US civil war (or whatever internal conflict you want to imagine).
If the US military is united behind one group then that's that. If the US military is divided, then god help us caught in the middle.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have bad news for you about which side of things a lot of the 2nd amendment fans are gonna be on if this comes to the US. The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed". It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized…
I always find it hilarious that people think the second amendment would matter much in a US civil war (or whatever internal conflict you want to imagine). If the US military is united behind one group then that's that. If the US military is divided, then god help us caught in the middle.
Yeah, a non-divided military + police usually means a very short and decisive civil war, in observable modern cases. The exceptions tend to involve a divided armed forces, or extensive foreign interference on behalf of the rebels (see: Syria).
For some reason, folks like to cite US foreign intervention failures as proof motivated locals with rifles can beat the US military, but that's not really the right thing to look at, as a bunch of things about those situations are materially different from a civil war (plus there is in every case a ton more to the resistance's armament and materiel than some guys taking their old AKs out of the closet, dusting them off, and digging into their prepper-crates of MREs)
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Double check my thesis. Hint: It was not a judgement on the problematic nature of these laws. We can discuss that elsewhere if you want, but that's fairly orthogonal to the discussion. Stronger hint: my thesis was focused on which groups the state legislates against, and how it wasn't "white men".
[flagged]
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms. Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time. Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
> The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed The founders, in 1808, appropriated funding for arms to state militias. [1]. Previously the arming of militias was up to the individual states. Some would have chosen to just have private citizens bring their own arms. Others would have actually set aside a fund to bring those arms. And that's blatantly apparent when…
> you'd not expect a private citizen to have procured one
You should look up letters of marque and reprisal, where private citizens effectively owned entire warships.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#589Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a retired military officer, disobeying illegal orders is expected. An order to commit a war crime is itself a crime, not a lawful order. The sticky part comes in when the venue for determining the legality of the order often then becomes one's own court-martial and resulting appeals. I'm not sure how much case law there is on the subject.
This is further complicated by a history (yes, in the US) of not just failing to prosecute obvious war criminals, and of pardoning many who do somehow manage to get convicted, but wide swaths of the population treating them as heroes . There are recent examples, but look at how we treated those with the most direct culpability for the My Lai massacre, and further, how the guy who took direct action to stop it got tre…
The recent SCOTUS decision in the US will make this endlessly complicated. If the illegal order is deemed an official act, SCOTUS has said POTUS has liability. So does the military carry out an illegal act (which can’t be illegal), or refuse and face charges of insubordination?