1, 2, 3, 4 I declare a race war

Looks like the crazy white armed militants and the crazy black armed militants are finally shooting at each other.

But the right-wing white militia here, the Three Percenters, are not necessarily the white supremacists that you might assume, and may not be pro-Trump. Given the demographic of their membership, there are undoubtedly many racists in the group; but see this article that @Senegoid linked recently, and my subsequent comment. They may care little for black lives per se, but their primary agenda is opposition to Federal government, and many of them are not happy with Trump’s recent excesses.

Bizarre as it seems, it’s not inconceivable that if violent Federal action against protesters gets worse, Three Percenters might line out on the BLM side against the Federal agents.

According to the article in the OP:

Louisville police confirmed three people were injured when a gun discharged as members of the “Not Fucking Around Coalition,” an all-Black militia, gathered in Baxter Park shortly before 1 p.m.

A spokesperson for the police department described the shooting to The Daily Beast as “negligent” and said there were “no charges at this time” and no outstanding suspects.

So no, there was no shooting among the groups. And…

Deputy Chief of Police LaVita Chavous said in press conference that there were “no instances of violence and damage today”

So, the OP might be just a wee bit exaggerating with his title…

Doesn’t seem bizarre to me–it would finally be ideologically consistent. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written so that people could use government land to graze their cattle for free, or fantasize about becoming action heroes in a Hollywood movie scenario with elaborate conspiracies, but rather as a defense against the kind of overreach that is happening in Portland.

However, no homespun militia is going to be able to match the weaponry of the federal government today. The technological advance of weaponry has made the 2nd amendment pretty much obsolete, and it’s been co-opted by the gun manufacturers who exploit the wannabe action-heroes, as well as the more extreme, reactionary ethno-nationalists.

We should remember that the modern era of gun control in California got started because the Black Panthers started to arm themselves.

You shock me, sir.

Actually, only crazy armed people shot other people (accidentally) in their own armed group.

So, back the f*uck off-you’re the one stoking the race war and we know who you are.

Tell me–who am I?

3 percenters? I’m still figuring out 1 percenters. I need to keep up.

I wonder if there’s a market for a real time protest tracking app? It would be useful for travelers.

NFAC- Not Fucking Around Coalition. :metal:

That is utter BS. 2A was written for the purpose of insuring that people using their guns for survival would not have their means of survival summarily confiscated, and as a tool for use in support of human-capital entrepreneurs (militias/posses for capturing runaways). There is nothing to suggest that it had anything to do with taking up arms against the government (one might point to the words of Prez TJ, but he was not in the country at the time of the drafting of the bill of rights).

It’s really neither.

As far as anyone can reasonably ascertain, the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow each state to supplement the armed forces without the need for having a large standing national military. In Alexander Hamilton and John Jay’s view, the militia would serve as a kind of supplemental, flexible force that could be composed of mostly citizens of each state. There’s little to indicate that the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent the overreach of a federal government; in fact, the 2nd Amendment’s arguments face outward, with advocates suggesting that well-regulated state militias could supplement the national military and discourage attacks from outside. Remember that at that time the US was hardly the super power it is now; it lived in the same world as France and England, both of which were arguably more powerful militarily and otherwise.

In fact there were anti-federalist papers in which the authors worried about the prospect of militias being used to concentrate more power in the hands of government. There was a fear even then that federal control of state militias would be potentially problematic. And again, nobody on either side argued that arming every yokel with a musket, canon, and slingshot would secure freedumz for the people - if anything the events of Shays Rebellion, which was a direct catalyst of the Constitutional convention, was the argument against a nation of, by, and for the gun nut.

It wasn’t simply a “supplemental” force; there was a fundamental distrust of “standing armies” during the era of the Revolution and the establishment of the Constitution. It was not a question of having a militia so that it could overthrow the government. Rather, the goal was to have a militia to act as the primary defensive force of the republic (against either a foreign invasion or an insurrection), so that a standing army, separate from the population as a whole, would be unnecessary. From the Federalist Papers (#29):

The Constitution’s language in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 says that Congress shall have the power to “raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” (emphasis added)–not “the army” but “armies”. For much of the history of the republic, the permanent peacetime army was a very small force, a cadre for the larger forces which would be needed to fight wars, with more substantial “armies” raised from among the citizenry only when there was an actual war on.

This attitude about militias and standing armies is also reflected in militia and right to keep and bear arms provisions of state constitutions (which tended to be closely related, sometimes even joined in a single clause or section). From the 1776 Constitution of Virginia:

(Again, emphasis added.)

The wording of the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania was very influential on later state constitutions:

That language “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” was echoed in a number of other state RKBA provisions over the years, into the 19th and 20th centuries. Note that the “defense of themselves and the state” language clearly protects an individual right to be armed for self-defense, as well as a collective right for the people to defend the state (as opposed to a standing army, separate from the people), and therefore protects an individual right to own weapons (and not merely some right to join the militia or the National Guard). Some later constitutions have language making that even more plain; the Constitution of Connecticut (1818)–“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state”–and of Michigan (1835)–“Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”

Good post, and I freely admit to being mistaken on one point: you’re correct that the militias were essentially the army for practical purposes; I was confusing the structure of the military with control of the military, which fell to the CiC under Article II but the states also had considerable control of the militias, obviously. There were armed forces of the U. S. but that wasn’t a standing national military per se - certainly nothing like what it later evolved to in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Still, that point clarified, the militia gives people of a state the collective right to bear arms for purpose of defending a free state, but shouldn’t be construed to suggest that it’s right an unfettered right in the absolute sense. I conceded that some state constitutions might have liberalized gun ownership but I don’t think we see that in the federal constitution.

All of the amendments were to prevent the overreach of the government. That was their very purpose–and that was all that I was referring to. Arguably, what’s happening in Portland is an overreach that the 4th Amendment defends against. What else would any amendment be for? The language itself–infringed–explicitly refers to overreach.

The ink is still there underneath, but District of Columbia v. Heller applied whiteout to the first half of the 2nd amendment.

True, point taken - my wording was inaccurate.

I agree that the 2nd amendment was intended to limit the concentration of power, as were the other amendments in response to the original constitution.

I’ll try this again: there’s no evidence that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow individual citizens unfettered right to possess arms. The phrase “well-regulated militia” suggests that, yes, people could own firearms, but it didn’t preclude governments from regulating them at some point.

Reasonable people can disagree over what is meant by “necessary to defend a free state,” I suppose.

But the NRA and the more strident 2A supporters insist we can’t know what restrictions the founders and signers to the amendment had in mind until we exhume and ask them. Until then, 100 round clips all around!

Why stop there? A cannon and cannonball for every man, woman, child, and fetus- don’t forget the fetus.

Not blaming the OP, but this is yet another example of how sensationalized news for profit promotes polarization and paranoia in the general populace. It’s a sad state of affairs, but I don’t see it getting any better.

Well, you might blame the OP for not reading the article he linked to.