Roger – Wikipedia

Posted on by

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger is a masculine given name, and a surname. The given name is derived from the Old French personal names Roger and Rogier. These names are of Germanic origin, derived from the elements hrd, ri ("fame", "renown", "honour") and gr, gr ("spear", "lance") (Hrigraz). The name was introduced into England by the Normans.[2] In Normandy, the Frankish name had been reinforced by the Old Norse cognate Hrgeirr.[3] The name introduced into England replaced the Old English cognate Hrogar. Roger became a very common given name during the Middle Ages. A variant form of the given name Roger that is closer to the name's origin is Rodger.[4]

From c.1650 up to c.1870, Roger was slang for the word "penis".[5][6][7] In Under Milk Wood, Dylan Thomas writes "jolly, rodgered" suggesting both the sexual double entendre and the pirate term "Jolly Roger".[8]

In 19th-century England, Roger was slang for another term, the cloud of toxic green gas that swept through the chlorine bleach factories periodically.[9]

From circa 1940 in US and UK wartime communication, "Roger" came to represent "R" when spelling out a word. "R" is the first letter in "received", used to acknowledge understanding a message. This spread to civilian usage as "ROGER" replaced "received" in spoken usage in air traffic radio parlance by 1950.[citation needed]

Current British slang includes the word as a verb to mean sexual intercourse, i.e., "took her home and Rogered her."

The following forenames are related to the English given name Roger:

See also All pages with titles beginning with Roger de, All pages with titles beginning with Roger of and All pages with titles beginning with Roger van for people with these names

Go here to read the rest:

Roger - Wikipedia

Where "Roger That" Really Comes From – What Does It Mean?

Posted on by

The term "Roger that" is a widespread term for confirmation, either between truckers on their CB radios, kids playing back and forth with walkie-talkies, or even face to face. But it's easy to adopt the phrase and understand what it means without ever really knowing where it came from. So here's a (very) brief history for your edification.

You love military history. So do we. Let's nerd out over it together.

"Roger" comes from the phonetic alphabet used by military and aviation personnel during WWII, when the use of two-way radios became a main form of communication and operators need crystal clear ways to spell things out with no room for misinterpretation. You may be familiar with the current NATO version of the phonetic alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.), where the the word for "R" is Romeo, but before that standard was adopted in 1957, the words were a bit different, and the word for "R" was "Roger."

But the use of "Roger" as a confirmation has roots that go back even further, according to a blog post by Jakub Marian. In the Morse code days, when sending long messages could be arduous, a useful shorthand was to respond with single, meaningful letters.

Top Pick

Now 23% Off

A battery-powered radio is great to have on hand in the event of a power outage or other emergency, but an even better option is an emergency weather radio. This oneuses a solar panel, hand crank, USB cable, and AA batteriesto keep its battery charged, along with a bright LED flashlight that can also be used as an SOS beacon. It features a2000mAh power bank, providing up to 12 hours of light or 4-6 hours of radio time. It can also power up a small tablet or phone.

Budget Buy

Sonys ICFP26 portable AM/FM radio may not changed much over the years, but its as solid a choice as ever if all youre looking for something is small, dependable and affordable. The classic design is pared down to just the essentials, with the only extras being a headphone jack and a carrying strap.

A basic two-way radio is another type or radio worth considering whether you regularly spend time outside the reach of other means of communication or not. Something like Motorolas Talkabout MR350 will let you communicate at distances up to 35 miles and also double as an emergency weather radio, with the ability to pick up NOAA weather channels and receive emergency alerts.Designed for the outdoors, theyre also rugged enough to be tossed around a fair bit, and pack a built-in flashlight so you arent left in the dark.

Best Charging Options

Now 40% Off

When the power runs out, you need to make sure your devices are able to maintain a charge, which is why we love this RunningSail radio. It can be charged (and charge your phone!)with a USB cable, by solar charging, or by the hand crank. With all of these options, you know you'llalways be powered up.

Best Reception

Now 37% Off

A radio is great, but good reception is key. This Kaito emergency radio has atelescopic antenna that extends up to 14.5" for high sensitivity reception.Built-in speakers deliver loud and crisp sound, so you're never having to guess what's being said.

Responding to a message with the letter "R," for example, simply let the sender know their message had been received. When two-way radio came along, the shorthand continued, but with the word "Roger" instead of "R" itself.

This content is imported from poll. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Even though Roger has since been replaced with Romeo (and was "Robert" before it was ever Roger), the widespread use of the two-ray radio during the WWII wildly popularized the saying we still use so casually today. Roger that?

View original post here:

Where "Roger That" Really Comes From - What Does It Mean?

What is Bitcoin? | How Do Bitcoin and Crypto Work? | Get Started with …

Posted on by

Bitcoin's origin, early growth, and evolution

Bitcoin is based on the ideas laid out in a 2008 whitepaper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

The paper detailed methods for "allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." The technologies deployed solved the 'double spend' problem, enabling scarcity in the digital environment for the first time.

The listed author of the paper is Satoshi Nakamoto, a presumed pseudonym for a person or group whose true identity remains a mystery. Nakamoto released the first open-source Bitcoin software client on January 9th, 2009, and anyone who installed the client could begin using Bitcoin.

Initial growth of the Bitcoin network was driven primarily by its utility as a novel method for transacting value in the digital world. Early proponents were, by and large, 'cypherpunks' - individuals who advocated the use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political change. However, speculation as to the future value of Bitcoin soon became a significant driver of adoption.

The price of bitcoin and the number of Bitcoin users rose in waves over the following decade. As regulators in major economies provided clarity on the legality of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, a large number of Bitcoin exchanges established banking connections, making it easy to convert local currency to and from bitcoin. Other businesses established robust custodial services, making it easier for institutional investors to gain exposure to the asset as a growing number of high-profile investors signaled their interest.

At its most basic level, Bitcoin is useful for transacting value outside of the traditional financial system. People use Bitcoin to, for example, make international payments that are settled faster, more securely, and at lower transactional fees than through legacy settlement methods such as the SWIFT or ACH networks.

In the early years, when network adoption was sparse, Bitcoin could be used to settle even small-value transactions, and do so competitively with payment networks like Visa and Mastercard (which, in fact, settle transactions long after point of sale). However, as Bitcoin became more widely used, scaling issues made it less competitive as a medium of exchange for small-value items. In short, it became prohibitively expensive to settle small-value transactions due to limited throughput on the ledger and the lack of availability of second-layer solutions. This supported the narrative that Bitcoin's primary value is less as a payment network and more as an alternative to gold, or 'digital gold.' Here, the argument is that Bitcoin derives value from a combination of the technological breakthroughs it integrates, its capped supply with 'built-into-the-code' monetary policy, and its powerful network effects. In this regard, the investment thesis is that Bitcoin could replace gold and potentially become a form of 'pristine collateral' for the global economy.

Another popular narrative is that Bitcoin supports economic freedom. It is said to do this by providing, on an opt-in basis, an alternative form of money that integrates strong protection against (1) monetary confiscation, (2) censorship, and (3) devaluation through uncapped inflation. Note that this narrative is not mutually exclusive from the 'digital gold' narrative.

Read more: How does governance work in Bitcoin?

Read more: What is Bitcoin mining?

Bitcoin is not a static protocol. It can and has integrated changes throughout its lifetime, and it will continue to evolve. While there are a number of formalized procedures for upgrading Bitcoin (see "How does Bitcoin governance work?"), governance of the protocol is ultimately based on deliberation, persuasion, and volition. In other words, people decide what Bitcoin is.

In several instances, there have been significant disagreements amongst the community as to the direction that Bitcoin should take. When such disagreements cannot be resolved through deliberation and persuasion, a portion of users may - of their own volition - choose to acknowledge a different version of Bitcoin.

The alternative version of Bitcoin with the greatest number of adherents has come to be known as Bitcoin Cash (BCH). It arose out of a proposal aiming to solve scaling problems that had resulted in rising transaction costs and increasing transaction confirmation times. This version of Bitcoin began on August 1st, 2017.

Read more: What is Bitcoin Cash?

Go here to see the original:

What is Bitcoin? | How Do Bitcoin and Crypto Work? | Get Started with ...

Cyborg | fictional character | Britannica

Posted on by

cyborg, term blending the words cybernetic and organism, originally proposed in 1960 to describe a human being whose physiological functions are aided or enhanced by artificial means such as biochemical or electronic modifications to the body. Cyborgism is a common theme in science fiction and, as technological advances bring such enhancements closer to real-world feasibility, an increasingly important area of inquiry for futurologists.

When high-tech modifications of the body appear in science fiction and fantasy entertainment, it is often to endow a character with superhuman abilities. In Martin Caidins novel Cyborg (1972), for example, the astronaut Steve Austin is rebuilt with nuclear-powered prostheses following a devastating crash. Caidins book led to a popular television series, The Six Million Dollar Man (19731978).

Science fiction also considers the darker side of the cyborg, treating it as a metaphor for the dehumanizing and threatening effects of technology. Movies such as RoboCop (1987) and the first Star Wars trilogy (1977, 1980, 1983) have central characters that are so much machine that their humanity appears to have been crowded out. In RoboCop, a severely injured police officer is rebuilt to serve as a robot-like law enforcement tool. The cyborg struggles to regain its memories and reclaim its humanity from its corporate handlers. In the Star Wars trilogy, the galactic emperors chief enforcer, Darth Vader, is a cyborg striving to enslave the galaxys inhabitants under the emperors rule.

Continue reading here:

Cyborg | fictional character | Britannica

Cyborg – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Being with both organic and biomechatronic body parts

A cyborg ()a portmanteau of cybernetic and organismis a being with both organic and biomechatronic body parts. The term was coined in 1960 by Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline.[1]

"Cyborg" is not the same thing as bionics, biorobotics, or androids; it applies to an organism that has restored function or especially, enhanced abilities due to the integration of some artificial component or technology that relies on some sort of feedback, for example: prostheses, artificial organs, implants or, in some cases, wearable technology.[2] Cyborg technologies may enable or support collective intelligence.[3] A related, possibly broader, term is the "augmented human".[2][4][5] While cyborgs are commonly thought of as mammals, including humans, they might also conceivably be any kind of organism.

D. S. Halacy's Cyborg: Evolution of the Superman (1965) featured an introduction which spoke of a "new frontier" that was "not merely space, but more profoundly the relationship between 'inner space' to 'outer space' a bridge...between mind and matter."[6]

According to Donna Haraway, for as long as machines and technology have existed, a love-hate relationship has also existed between them and humanity. Haraway is at the forefront of this and dissects the interconnectedness of humans and technology.

She has written the Cyborg Manifesto, which is a break-down of her views of cyborgs and the route that humanity is toward that concept. Haraway is a self-claimed cyborg, a product of science and technology, nothing special or different. In the modern-day and age, humanity has become so woven in with technology that it is hard to tell where the line that divides them is. This is especially apparent in medicine with the modifications we are now able to accomplish with modern science and technology.

As humans advance as a society, Haraway explains how all boundaries between humans, animals, and technology have been breached. This breach leads to hybrids and more complexities. Every place that meets the eye there is some form of technology that humans need and depend on. Science and technology have evolved so far that we rely on them for every little task in our life. There is somewhat of a cyborg age upon us. Just how Haraways world is filled with these tangled networks of humans and machines, our bodies are networks in themselves. It is not as natural as made out to be, it is fed food, kept alive on pharmaceuticals, and altered through medical procedures. Haraway believes that in order to survive, we need to get behind the complex nature of technoculture.

This article can also be viewed from a feminist lens. Throughout history, women have always been told that they are naturally weak, submissive, and overemotional. But if we are cyborgs as Haraway says, then all of us can be reconstructed and improved. There exists the ability to construct your identity, sexuality, and all just as you please to do so.

Since we have allowed and created machines and technology to be so advanced, there should be no reason to fear what we have created. Cyborgs should be embraced because they are now part of human identities. This being said, it is important to empathize with both sides because only having one perspective can cause more harm than good.[7]

According to some definitions of the term, the physical attachments that humans have with even the most basic technologies have already made them cyborgs.[8] In a typical example, a human with an artificial cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, would be considered a cyborg, since these devices measure voltage potentials in the body, perform signal processing, and can deliver electrical stimuli, using this synthetic feedback mechanism to keep that person alive. Implants, especially cochlear implants, that combine mechanical modification with any kind of feedback response are also cyborg enhancements. Some theorists[who?] cite such modifications as contact lenses, hearing aids, smartphones,[9] or intraocular lenses as examples of fitting humans with technology to enhance their biological capabilities.

As cyborgs currently are on the rise, some theorists[who?] argue there is a need to develop new definitions of aging. (For instance, a bio-techno-social definition of aging has been suggested.)[10]

The term is also used to address human-technology mixtures in the abstract. This includes not only commonly-used pieces of technology such as phones, computers, the Internet, and so on, but also artifacts that may not popularly be considered technology; for example, pen and paper, and speech and language. When augmented with these technologies and connected in communication with people in other times and places, a person becomes capable of much more than they were before. An example is a computer, which gains power by using Internet protocols to connect with other computers. Another example is a social-media boteither a bot-assisted human or a human-assisted-botused to target social media with likes and shares.[11] Cybernetic technologies include highways, pipes, electrical wiring, buildings, electrical plants, libraries, and other infrastructure that people hardly notice, but which are critical parts of the cybernetics that humans work within.

Bruce Sterling, in his Shaper/Mechanist universe, suggested an idea of an alternative cyborg called 'Lobster', which is made not by using internal implants, but by using an external shell (e.g. a powered exoskeleton).[12] Unlike human cyborgs, who appear human externally but are synthetic internally (e.g., the Bishop type in the Alien franchise), Lobster looks inhuman externally but contains a human internally (such as in Elysium and RoboCop). The computer game Deus Ex: Invisible War prominently features cyborgs called Omar, Russian for 'lobster'.

In science fiction, the most stereotypical portrayal of a cyborg is a person (or, more rarely, an animal) with visible added mechanical parts. These include the superhero Cyborg from DC Comics and the Borg race from the Star Trek Universe.

However, cyborgs can also be portrayed as looking more robotic or more organic. They may appear as humanoid robots, such as Robotman from DC's Doom Patrol or most varieties of the Cybermen from Doctor Who; they can appear as non-humanoid robots such as the Daleks (again, from Doctor Who) or like the majority of the motorball players in Battle Angel Alita and its prequel Ashen Victor.

More human-appearing cyborgs may cover up their mechanical parts with armor or clothing, such as Darth Vader (Star Wars) or Misty Knight (Marvel Comics). Cyborgs may have mechanical parts or bodies that appear human. For example, the eponymous Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman (from their respective television series) have prostheses externally identical to the body parts that they replaced; while Major Motoko Kusanagi (Ghost in the Shell) is a full-body cyborg whose body appears human. In these examples, among others, it is common for cyborgs to have superhuman (physical or mental) abilities, including great strength, enhanced senses, computer-assisted brains, or built-in weaponry.

The concept of a man-machine mixture was widespread in science fiction before World War II. As early as 1843, Edgar Allan Poe described a man with extensive prostheses in the short story "The Man That Was Used Up". In 1911, Jean de La Hire introduced the Nyctalope, a science fiction hero who was perhaps the first literary cyborg, in Le Mystre des XV (later translated as The Nyctalope on Mars).[13][14][15] Nearly two decades later, Edmond Hamilton presented space explorers with a mixture of organic and machine parts in his 1928 novel The Comet Doom. He later featured the talking, living brain of an old scientist, Simon Wright, floating around in a transparent case, in all the adventures of his famous hero, Captain Future. In 1944, in the short story "No Woman Born", C. L. Moore wrote of Deirdre, a dancer, whose body was burned completely and whose brain was placed in a faceless but beautiful and supple mechanical body.

In 1960, the term "cyborg" was coined by Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline to refer to their conception of an enhanced human being who could survive in extraterrestrial environments:[1]

For the exogenously extended organizational complex functioning as an integrated homeostatic system unconsciously, we propose the term 'Cyborg'.

Their concept was the outcome of thinking about the need for an intimate relationship between human and machine as the new frontier of space exploration was beginning to open up. A designer of physiological instrumentation and electronic data-processing systems, Clynes was the chief research scientist in the Dynamic Simulation Laboratory at Rockland State Hospital in New York.

The term first appears in print 5 months earlier when The New York Times reported on the "Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight Symposium" where Clynes and Kline first presented their paper:

A cyborg is essentially a man-machine system in which the control mechanisms of the human portion are modified externally by drugs or regulatory devices so that the being can live in an environment different from the normal one.[16]

Thereafter, Hamilton would first use the term "cyborg" explicitly in the 1962 short story, "After a Judgment Day", to describe the "mechanical analogs" called "Charlies," explaining that "[c]yborgs, they had been called from the first one in the 1960s...cybernetic organisms."

In 2001, a book titled Cyborg: Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the Age of the Wearable Computer was published by Doubleday.[17] Some of the ideas in the book were incorporated into the documentary film Cyberman that same year.

Cyborg tissues structured with carbon nanotubes and plant or fungal cells have been used in artificial tissue engineering to produce new materials for mechanical and electrical uses.

Such work was presented by Raffaele Di Giacomo, Bruno Maresca, and others, at the Materials Research Society's spring conference on 3 April 2013.[18] The cyborg obtained was inexpensive, light and had unique mechanical properties. It could also be shaped in the desired forms. Cells combined with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) co-precipitated as a specific aggregate of cells and nanotubes that formed a viscous material. Likewise, dried cells still acted as a stable matrix for the MWCNT network. When observed by optical microscopy, the material resembled an artificial "tissue" composed of highly packed cells. The effect of cell drying was manifested by their "ghost cell" appearance. A rather specific physical interaction between MWCNTs and cells was observed by electron microscopy, suggesting that the cell wall (the outermost part of fungal and plant cells) may play a major active role in establishing a carbon nanotube's network and its stabilization. This novel material can be used in a wide range of electronic applications, from heating to sensing. For instance, using Candida albicans cells, a species of yeast that often lives inside the human gastrointestinal tract, cyborg tissue materials with temperature sensing properties have been reported.[19]

In current prosthetic applications, the C-Leg system developed by Otto Bock HealthCare, is used to replace a human leg that has been amputated because of injury or illness. The use of sensors in the artificial C-Leg aids in walking significantly by attempting to replicate the user's natural gait, as it would be prior to amputation.[20] A similar system is being developed by the Swedish orthopedic company Integrum, the OPRATM Implant System, which is surgically anchored and integrated by means of osseointegration into the skeleton of the remainder of the amputated limb.[21] The same company has developed e-OPRATM, a will-powered upper limb prosthesis system that is being evaluated in a clinical trial to allow sensory input to the central nervous system using pressure and temperature sensors in the prosthesis' finger tips.[22][23] Prostheses like the C-Leg, the e-OPRATM Implant System, and the iLimb, are considered by some to be the first real steps towards the next generation of real-world cyborg applications.[citation needed] Additionally cochlear implants and magnetic implants which provide people with a sense that they would not otherwise have had can additionally be thought of as creating cyborgs.[citation needed].

In vision science, direct brain implants have been used to treat non-congenital (acquired) blindness. One of the first scientists to come up with a working brain interface to restore sight was a private researcher William Dobelle.Dobelle's first prototype was implanted into "Jerry", a man blinded in adulthood, in 1978. A single-array BCI containing 68 electrodes was implanted onto Jerry's visual cortex and succeeded in producing phosphenes, the sensation of seeing light. The system included cameras mounted on glasses to send signals to the implant. Initially, the implant allowed Jerry to see shades of grey in a limited field of vision at a low frame-rate. This also required him to be hooked up to a two-ton mainframe, but shrinking electronics and faster computers made his artificial eye more portable and now enable him to perform simple tasks unassisted.[24]

In 1997, Philip Kennedy, a scientist and physician, created the world's first human cyborg from Johnny Ray, a Vietnam veteran who suffered a stroke. Ray's body, as doctors called it, was "locked in". Ray wanted his old life back so he agreed to Kennedy's experiment. Kennedy embedded an implant he designed (and named a "neurotrophic electrode") near the injured part of Ray's brain so that Ray would be able to have some movement back in his body. The surgery went successfully, but in 2002, Ray died.[25]

In 2002, Canadian Jens Naumann, also blinded in adulthood, became the first in a series of 16 paying patients to receive Dobelle's second-generation implant, marking one of the earliest commercial uses of BCIs. The second-generation device used a more sophisticated implant enabling better mapping of phosphenes into coherent vision. Phosphenes are spread out across the visual field in what researchers call the starry-night effect. Immediately after his implant, Naumann was able to use his imperfectly restored vision to drive slowly around the parking area of the research institute.[26]

In contrast to replacement technologies, in 2002, under the heading Project Cyborg, a British scientist, Kevin Warwick, had an array of 100 electrodes fired into his nervous system in order to link his nervous system into the internet to investigate enhancement possibilities. With this in place, Warwick successfully carried out a series of experiments including extending his nervous system over the internet to control a robotic hand, also receiving feedback from the fingertips in order to control the hand's grip. This was a form of extended sensory input. Subsequently, he investigated ultrasonic input in order to remotely detect the distance to objects. Finally, with electrodes also implanted into his wife's nervous system, they conducted the first direct electronic communication experiment between the nervous systems of two humans.[27][28]

Since 2004, British artist Neil Harbisson has had a cyborg antenna implanted in his head that allows him to extend his perception of colors beyond the human visual spectrum through vibrations in his skull.[29] His antenna was included within his 2004 passport photograph which has been claimed to confirm his cyborg status.[30] In 2012 at TEDGlobal,[31] Harbisson explained that he started to feel like a cyborg when he noticed that the software and his brain had united and given him an extra sense.[31] Neil Harbisson is a co-founder of the Cyborg Foundation (2004)[32] and cofounded the Transpecies Society in 2017, which is an association that empowers individuals with non-human identities and supports them in their decisions to develop unique senses and new organs.[33] Neil Harbisson is a global advocate for the rights of cyborgs.

Rob Spence, a Toronto-based filmmaker, who titles himself a real-life "Eyeborg," severely damaged his right eye in a shooting accident on his grandfather's farm as a child.[34]Many years later, in 2005, he decided to have his ever-deteriorating and now technically blind eye surgically removed,[35] whereafter he wore an eyepatch for some time before he later, after having played for some time with the idea of installing a camera instead, contacted professor Steve Mann at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert in wearable computing and cyborg technology.[35]

Under Mann's guidance, Spence, at age 36, created a prototype in the form of the miniature camera which could be fitted inside his prosthetic eye; an invention that would come to be named by Time magazine as one of the best inventions of 2009. The bionic eye records everything he sees and contains a 1.5mm2, low-resolution video camera, a small round printed circuit board, a wireless video transmitter, which allows him to transmit what he is seeing in real-time to a computer, and a 3-volt rechargeable VARTA microbattery. The eye is not connected to his brain and has not restored his sense of vision. Additionally, Spence has also installed a laser-like LED light in one version of the prototype.[36]

Furthermore, many cyborgs with multifunctional radio frequency identification (RFID) microchips injected into a hand are known to exist. With the chips they are able to swipe cards, open or unlock doors, operate devices such as printers or, with some using cryptocurrency, buy products, such as drinks, with a wave of the hand.[37][38][39][40][41]

bodyNET is an application of human-electronic interaction currently[when?] in development by researchers from Stanford University.[42] The technology is based on stretchable semiconductor materials (Elastronic). According to their article in Nature, the technology is composed of smart devices, screens, and a network of sensors that can be implanted into the body, woven into the skin or worn as clothes. It has been suggested, that this platform can potentially replace the smartphone in the future.[43]

The US-based company Backyard Brains released what they refer to as the "world's first commercially available cyborg" called the RoboRoach. The project started as a senior design project for a University of Michigan biomedical engineering student in 2010,[45] and was launched as an available beta product on 25 February 2011.[46] The RoboRoach was officially released into production via a TED talk at the TED Global conference;[47] and via the crowdsourcing website Kickstarter in 2013,[48] the kit allows students to use microstimulation to momentarily control the movements of a walking cockroach (left and right) using a Bluetooth-enabled smartphone as the controller.

Other groups have developed cyborg insects, including researchers at North Carolina State University,[49][50] UC Berkeley,[51][52] and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,[53][54] but the RoboRoach was the first kit available to the general public and was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health as a device to serve as a teaching aid to promote an interest in neuroscience.[47] Several animal welfare organizations including the RSPCA[55] and PETA[56] have expressed concerns about the ethics and welfare of animals in this project. In 2022, remote controlled cyborg cockroaches functional if moving (or moved) to sunlight for recharging were presented. They could be used e.g. for purposes of inspecting hazardous areas or quickly finding humans underneath hard-to-access rubbles at disaster sites.[57][58][44]

In the late 2010s, scientists created cyborg jellyfish using a microelectronic prosthetic that propels the animal to swim almost three times faster while using just twice the metabolic energy of their unmodified peers. The prosthetics can be removed without harming the jellyfish.[59][60]

A combination of synthetic biology, nanotechnology and materials science approaches have been used to create a few different iterations of bacterial cyborg cells.[61][62][63] These different types of mechanically enhanced bacteria are created with so called bionic manufacturing principles that combine natural cells with abiotic materials. In 2005, researchers from the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln created a super sensitive humidity sensor by coating the bacteria Bacillus cereus with gold nanoparticles, being the first to use a microorganism to make an electronic device and presumably the first cyborg bacteria or cellborg circuit.[64] Researchers from the Department of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley published a series of articles in 2016 describing the development of cyborg bacteria capable to harvest sunlight more efficiently than plants.[65] In the first study, the researchers induced the self-photosensitization of a nonphotosynthetic bacterium, Moorella thermoacetica, with cadmium sulfide nanoparticles, enabling the photosynthesis of acetic acid from carbon dioxide.[66] A follow up article described the elucidation of the mechanism of semiconductor-to-bacterium electron transfer that allows the transformation of carbon dioxide and sunlight into acetic acid.[67] Scientists of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of California, Davis and Academia Sinica in Taiwan, developed a different approach to create cyborg cells by assembling a synthetic hydrogel inside the bacterial cytoplasm of Escherichia. coli cells rendering them incapable of dividing and making them resistant to environmental factors, antibiotics and high oxidative stress.[68] The intracellular infusion of synthetic hydrogel provides these cyborg cells with an artificial cytoskeleton and their acquired tolerance makes them well placed to become a new class of drug-delivery systems positioned between classical synthetic materials and cell-based systems.

In medicine, there are two important and different types of cyborgs: the restorative and the enhanced. Restorative technologies "restore lost function, organs, and limbs."[69] The key aspect of restorative cyborgization is the repair of broken or missing processes to revert to a healthy or average level of function. There is no enhancement to the original faculties and processes that were lost.

On the contrary, the enhanced cyborg "follows a principle, and it is the principle of optimal performance: maximising output (the information or modifications obtained) and minimising input (the energy expended in the process)".[70] Thus, the enhanced cyborg intends to exceed normal processes or even gain new functions that were not originally present.

Although prostheses in general supplement lost or damaged body parts with the integration of a mechanical artifice, bionic implants in medicine allow model organs or body parts to mimic the original function more closely. Michael Chorost wrote a memoir of his experience with cochlear implants, or bionic ears, titled Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human.[71] Jesse Sullivan became one of the first people to operate a fully robotic limb through a nerve-muscle graft, enabling him a complex range of motions beyond that of previous prosthetics.[72] By 2004, a fully functioning artificial heart was developed.[73] The continued technological development of bionic and (bio-)nanotechnologies begins to raise the question of enhancement, and of the future possibilities for cyborgs which surpass the original functionality of the biological model. The ethics and desirability of "enhancement prosthetics" have been debated; their proponents include the transhumanist movement, with its belief that new technologies can assist the human race in developing beyond its present, normative limitations such as aging and disease, as well as other, more general inabilities, such as limitations on speed, strength, endurance, and intelligence. Opponents of the concept describe what they believe to be biases which propel the development and acceptance of such technologies; namely, a bias towards functionality and efficiency that may compel assent to a view of human people which de-emphasizes as defining characteristics actual manifestations of humanity and personhood, in favor of definition in terms of upgrades, versions, and utility.[74][75]

A braincomputer interface, or BCI, provides a direct path of communication from the brain to an external device, effectively creating a cyborg. Research into invasive BCIs, which utilize electrodes implanted directly into the grey matter of the brain, has focused on restoring damaged eyesight in the blind and providing functionality to paralyzed people, most notably those with severe cases, such as locked-in syndrome. This technology could enable people who are missing a limb or are in a wheelchair the power to control the devices that aid them through neural signals sent from the brain implants directly to computers or the devices. It is possible that this technology will also eventually be used with healthy people.[76]

Deep brain stimulation is a neurological surgical procedure used for therapeutic purposes. This process has aided in treating patients diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Tourette syndrome, epilepsy, chronic headaches, and mental disorders. After the patient is unconscious, through anesthesia, brain pacemakers or electrodes, are implanted into the region of the brain where the cause of the disease is present. The region of the brain is then stimulated by bursts of electric current to disrupt the oncoming surge of seizures. Like all invasive procedures, deep brain stimulation may put the patient at a higher risk. However, there have been more improvements in recent years with deep brain stimulation than any available drug treatment.[77]

Retinal implants are another form of cyborgization in medicine. The theory behind retinal stimulation to restore vision to people suffering from retinitis pigmentosa and vision loss due to aging (conditions in which people have an abnormally low number of retinal ganglion cells) is that the retinal implant and electrical stimulation would act as a substitute for the missing ganglion cells (cells which connect the eye to the brain).

While work to perfect this technology is still being done, there have already been major advances in the use of electronic stimulation of the retina to allow the eye to sense patterns of light. A specialized camera is worn by the subject, such as on the frames of their glasses, which converts the image into a pattern of electrical stimulation. A chip located in the user's eye would then electrically stimulate the retina with this pattern by exciting certain nerve endings which transmit the image to the optic centers of the brain and the image would then appear to the user. If technological advances proceed as planned, this technology may be used by thousands of blind people and restore vision to most of them.

A similar process has been created to aid people who have lost their vocal cords. This experimental device would do away with previously used robotic-sounding voice simulators. The transmission of sound would start with a surgery to redirect the nerve that controls the voice and sound production to a muscle in the neck, where a nearby sensor would be able to pick up its electrical signals. The signals would then move to a processor which would control the timing and pitch of a voice simulator. That simulator would then vibrate producing a multi-tonal sound that could be shaped into words by the mouth.[78]

An article published in Nature Materials in 2012 reported research on "cyborg tissues" (engineered human tissues with embedded three-dimensional mesh of nanoscale wires), with possible medical implications.[79]

In 2014, researchers from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and Washington University in St. Louis had developed a device that could keep a heart beating endlessly. By using 3D printing and computer modeling, these scientists developed an electronic membrane that could successfully replace pacemakers. The device utilizes a "spider-web like network of sensors and electrodes" to monitor and maintain a normal heart rate with electrical stimuli. Unlike traditional pacemakers that are similar from patient to patient, the elastic heart glove is made custom by using high-resolution imaging technology. The first prototype was created to fit a rabbit's heart, operating the organ in an oxygen and nutrient-rich solution. The stretchable material and circuits of the apparatus were first constructed by Professor John A. Rogers in which the electrodes are arranged in an s-shape design to allow them to expand and bend without breaking. Although the device is only currently used as a research tool to study changes in heart rate, in the future the membrane may serve as a safeguard against heart attacks.[80]

Automated insulin delivery systems, colloquially also known as the "artificial pancreas", are a substitute for the lack of natural insulin production by the body, most notably in Type 1 diabetes. Currently available systems combine a continuous glucose monitor with an insulin pump that can be remote controlled, forming a control loop that automatically adjusts the insulin dosage depending on the current blood glucose level. Examples of commercial systems that implement such a control loop are the MiniMed 670G from Medtronic[81] and the t:slim x2 from Tandem Diabetes Care.[82] Do-it-yourself artificial pancreas technologies also exist, though these are not verified or approved by any regulatory agency.[83] Upcoming next-generation artificial pancreas technologies include automatic glucagon infusion in addition to insulin, to help prevent hypoglycemia and improve efficiency. One example of such a bi-hormonal system is the Beta Bionics iLet.[84]

Military organizations' research has recently focused on the utilization of cyborg animals for the purposes of a supposed tactical advantage. DARPA has announced its interest in developing "cyborg insects" to transmit data from sensors implanted into the insect during the pupa stage. The insect's motion would be controlled from a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) and could conceivably survey an environment or detect explosives and gas.[85] Similarly, DARPA is developing a neural implant to remotely control the movement of sharks. The shark's unique senses would then be exploited to provide data feedback in relation to enemy ship movement or underwater explosives.[86]

In 2006, researchers at Cornell University invented[87] a new surgical procedure to implant artificial structures into insects during their metamorphic development.[88][89] The first insect cyborgs, moths with integrated electronics in their thorax, were demonstrated by the same researchers.[90][91] The initial success of the techniques has resulted in increased research and the creation of a program called Hybrid-Insect-MEMS (HI-MEMS). Its goal, according to DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office, is to develop "tightly coupled machine-insect interfaces by placing micro-mechanical systems inside the insects during the early stages of metamorphosis."[92]

The use of neural implants has recently been attempted, with success, on cockroaches. Surgically applied electrodes were put on the insect, which was remotely controlled by a human. The results, although sometimes different, basically showed that the cockroach could be controlled by the impulses it received through the electrodes. DARPA is now funding this research because of its obvious beneficial applications to the military and other areas[93]

In 2009 at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) MEMS conference in Italy, researchers demonstrated the first "wireless" flying-beetle cyborg.[94] Engineers at the University of California, Berkeley, have pioneered the design of a "remote-controlled beetle", funded by the DARPA HI-MEMS Program.[95] This was followed later that year by the demonstration of wireless control of a "lift-assisted" moth-cyborg.[96]

Eventually researchers plan to develop HI-MEMS for dragonflies, bees, rats, and pigeons.[97][98] For the HI-MEMS cybernetic bug to be considered a success, it must fly 100 metres (330ft) from a starting point, guided via computer into a controlled landing within 5 metres (16ft) of a specific end point. Once landed, the cybernetic bug must remain in place.[97]

In 2020, an article published in Science Robotics[99] by researchers at the University of Washington reported a mechanically steerable wireless camera attached to beetles.[100] Miniature cameras weighing 248mg were attached to live beetles of the Tenebrionid genera Asbolus and Eleodes. The camera wirelessly streamed video to a smartphone via Bluetooth for up to 6 hours and the user could remotely steer the camera to achieve a bug's-eye view.[101]

In 2016, Cybathlon became the first cyborg 'Olympics'; celebrated in Zurich, Switzerland, it was the first worldwide and official celebration of cyborg sports. In this event, 16 teams of people with disabilities used technological developments to turn themselves into cyborg athletes. There were 6 different events and its competitors used and controlled advanced technologies such as powered prosthetic legs and arms, robotic exoskeletons, bikes, and motorized wheelchairs.[102]

This was already a remarkable improvement, as it allowed disabled people to compete and showed the several technological enhancements that are already making a difference; however, it showed that there is still a long way to go. For instance, the exoskeleton race still required its participants to stand up from a chair and sit down, navigate a slalom and other simple activities such as walking over stepping stones and climbing up and down stairs. Despite the simplicity of these activities, 8 of the 16 teams that participated in the event drop off before the start.[103]

Nonetheless, one of the main goals of this event and such simple activities is to show how technological enhancements and advanced prosthetics can make a difference in people's lives. The next Cybathlon that was expected to occur in 2020, was cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The concept of the cyborg is often associated with science fiction. However, many artists have tried to create public awareness of cybernetic organisms; these can range from paintings to installations. Some artists who create such works are Neil Harbisson, Moon Ribas, Patricia Piccinini, Steve Mann, Orlan, H. R. Giger, Lee Bul, Wafaa Bilal, Tim Hawkinson, and Stelarc.

Stelarc is a performance artist who has visually probed and acoustically amplified his body. He uses medical instruments, prosthetics, robotics, virtual reality systems, the Internet and biotechnology to explore alternate, intimate and involuntary interfaces with the body. He has made three films of the inside of his body and has performed with a third hand and a virtual arm. Between 1976 and 1988 he completed 25 body suspension performances with hooks into the skin. For 'Third Ear', he surgically constructed an extra ear within his arm that was internet-enabled, making it a publicly accessible acoustical organ for people in other places.[104] He is presently performing as his avatar from his second life site.[105]

Tim Hawkinson promotes the idea that bodies and machines are coming together as one, where human features are combined with technology to create the Cyborg. Hawkinson's piece Emoter presented how society is now dependent on technology.[106]

Wafaa Bilal is an Iraqi-American performance artist who had a small 10-megapixel digital camera surgically implanted into the back of his head, part of a project entitled 3rd I.[107] For one year, beginning 15 December 2010, an image was captured once per minute 24 hours a day and streamed live to http://www.3rdi.me and the Mathaf: Arab Museum of Modern Art. The site also displays Bilal's location via GPS. Bilal says that the reason why he put the camera in the back of the head was to make an "allegorical statement about the things we don't see and leave behind."[108] As a professor at NYU, this project raised privacy issues, and so Bilal was asked to ensure that his camera did not take photographs in NYU buildings.[108]

Machines are becoming more ubiquitous in the artistic process itself, with computerized drawing pads replacing pen and paper, and drum machines becoming nearly as popular as human drummers. Composers such as Brian Eno have developed and utilized software that can build entire musical scores from a few basic mathematical parameters.[109]

Scott Draves is a generative artist whose work is explicitly described as a "cyborg mind". His Electric Sheep project generates abstract art by combining the work of many computers and people over the internet.[110]

Artists have explored the term cyborg from a perspective involving imagination. Some work to make an abstract idea of technological and human-bodily union apparent to reality in an art form utilizing varying mediums, from sculptures and drawings to digital renderings.Artists who seek to make cyborg-based fantasies a reality often call themselves cyborg artists, or may consider their artwork "cyborg". How an artist or their work may be considered cyborg will vary depending upon the interpreter's flexibility with the term.

Scholars that rely upon a strict, technical description of a cyborg, often going by Norbert Wiener's cybernetic theory and Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline's first use of the term, would likely argue that most cyborg artists do not qualify to be considered cyborgs.[111] Scholars considering a more flexible description of cyborgs may argue it incorporates more than cybernetics.[112] Others may speak of defining subcategories, or specialized cyborg types, that qualify different levels of cyborg at which technology influences an individual. This may range from technological instruments being external, temporary, and removable to being fully integrated and permanent.[113] Nonetheless, cyborg artists are artists. Being so, it can be expected for them to incorporate the cyborg idea rather than a strict, technical representation of the term,[114] seeing how their work will sometimes revolve around other purposes outside of cyborgism.[111]

As medical technology becomes more advanced, some techniques and innovations are adopted by the body modification community. While not yet cyborgs in the strict definition of Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, technological developments like implantable silicon silk electronics,[115] augmented reality[116] and QR codes[117] are bridging the disconnect between technology and the body. Hypothetical technologies such as digital tattoo interfaces[118][119] would blend body modification aesthetics with interactivity and functionality, bringing a transhumanist way of life into present day reality.

In addition, it is quite plausible for anxiety expression to manifest. Individuals may experience pre-implantation feelings of fear and nervousness. To this end, individuals may also embody feelings of uneasiness, particularly in a socialized setting, due to their post-operative, technologically augmented bodies, and mutual unfamiliarity with the mechanical insertion. Anxieties may be linked to notions of otherness or a cyborged identity.[120]

Sending humans to space is a dangerous task in which the implementation of various cyborg technologies could be used in the future for risk mitigation.[121] Stephen Hawking, a renowned physicist, stated "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war... I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." The difficulties associated with space travel could mean it might be centuries before humans ever become a multi-planet species.[citation needed] There are many effects of spaceflight on the human body. One major issue of space exploration is the biological need for oxygen. If this necessity was taken out of the equation, space exploration would be revolutionized. A theory proposed by Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline is aimed at tackling this problem. The two scientists theorized that the use of an inverse fuel cell that is "capable of reducing CO2 to its components with the removal of the carbon and re-circulation of the oxygen..."[122] could make breathing unnecessary. Another prominent issue is radiation exposure. Yearly, the average human on earth is exposed to approximately 0.30 rem of radiation, while an astronaut aboard the International Space Station for 90 days is exposed to 9 rem.[123] To tackle the issue, Clynes and Kline theorized a cyborg containing a sensor that would detect radiation levels and a Rose osmotic pump "which would automatically inject protective pharmaceuticals in appropriate doses." Experiments injecting these protective pharmaceuticals into monkeys have shown positive results in increasing radiation resistance.[122]

Although the effects of spaceflight on our bodies are an important issue, the advancement of propulsion technology is just as important. With our current technology, it would take us about 260 days to get to Mars.[124] A study backed by NASA proposes an interesting way to tackle this issue through deep sleep, or torpor. With this technique, it would "reduce astronauts' metabolic functions with existing medical procedures."[125] So far experiments have only resulted in patients being in torpor state for one week. Advancements to allow for longer states of deep sleep would lower the cost of the trip to Mars as a result of reduced astronaut resource consumption.

Theorists such as Andy Clark suggest that interactions between humans and technology result in the creation of a cyborg system. In this model, cyborg is defined as a part-biological, part-mechanical system that results in the augmentation of the biological component and the creation of a more complex whole. Clark argues that this broadened definition is necessary to an understanding of human cognition. He suggests that any tool which is used to offload part of a cognitive process may be considered the mechanical component of a cyborg system. Examples of this human and technology cyborg system can be very low tech and simplistic, such as using a calculator to perform basic mathematical operations or pen and paper to make notes, or as high tech as using a personal computer or phone. According to Clark, these interactions between a person and a form of technology integrate that technology into the cognitive process in a way that is analogous to the way that a technology that would fit the traditional concept of cyborg augmentation becomes integrated with its biological host. Because all humans in some way use technology to augment their cognitive processes, Clark comes to the conclusion that we are "natural-born cyborgs."[126] Professor Donna Haraway also theorizes that people, metaphorically or literally, have been cyborgs since the late twentieth century. If one considers the mind and body as one, much of humanity is aided with technology in almost every way, which hybridizes humans with technology.[127]

Given the technical scope of current and future implantable sensory/telemetric devices, such devices will be greatly proliferated, and will have connections to commercial, medical, and governmental networks. For example, in the medical sector, patients will be able to log in to their home computer, and thus visit virtual doctor's offices, medical databases, and receive medical prognoses from the comfort of their own home from the data collected through their implanted telemetric devices.[128] However, this online network presents large security concerns because it has been proven by several U.S. universities that hackers could get onto these networks and shut down peoples' electronic prosthetics.[128] Cyborg data mining refers to the collection of data produced by implantable devices.

These sorts of technologies are already present in the U.S. workforce as a firm in River Falls, Wisconsin, called Three Square Market partnered with a Swedish firm Biohacks Technology to implant RFID microchips (which are about the size of a grain of rice) in the hands of its employees that allow employees to access offices, computers, and even vending machines. More than 50 of the firm's 85 employees were chipped. It was confirmed that the American Food and Drug Administration approved of these implantations.[129] If these devices are to be proliferated within society, then the question that begs to be answered is what regulatory agency will oversee the operations, monitoring, and security of these devices? According to this case study of Three Square Market, it seems that the FDA is assuming a role in regulating and monitoring these devices. It has been argued that a new regulatory framework needs to be developed so that the law keeps up with developments in implantable technologies.[130]

In 2010, the Cyborg Foundation became the world's first international organization dedicated to help humans become cyborgs.[131] The foundation was created by cyborg Neil Harbisson and Moon Ribas as a response to the growing number of letters and emails received from people around the world interested in becoming cyborgs.[132] The foundation's main aims are to extend human senses and abilities by creating and applying cybernetic extensions to the body,[133] to promote the use of cybernetics in cultural events and to defend cyborg rights.[134] In 2010, the foundation, based in Matar (Barcelona), was the overall winner of the Cre@tic Awards, organized by Tecnocampus Matar.[135]

In 2012, Spanish film director Rafel Duran Torrent, created a short film about the Cyborg Foundation. In 2013, the film won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival's Focus Forward Filmmakers Competition and was awarded US$100,000.[136]

Cyborgs have become a well-known part of science fiction literature and other media. Although many of these characters may be technically androids, they are often erroneously referred to as cyborgs.

Perhaps the best known examples of cyborgs in popular culture are the Terminator, the Borg from Star Trek and the Daleks and Cybermen from Doctor Who. Other prominent cyborgs include RoboCop, Evangelion, characters from Universal Soldier, United States Air Force Colonel Steve Austin in both the novel Cyborg and, as acted out by Lee Majors, The Six Million Dollar Man, the Replicants from Blade Runner, Darth Vader, Lobot, and General Grievous from Star Wars, Inspector Gadget and the Cylons from the 2004 Battlestar Galactica series.

From American comic books are characters including Deathlok and Victor "Cyborg" Stone; and manga and anime characters including 8 Man (the inspiration for RoboCop), Kamen Rider, Battle Tendency's Rudol von Stroheim, and Ghost in the Shell's Motoko Kusanagi.

Player characters such as Kano, Jax, Cyrax, and Sektor from the Mortal Kombat franchise,[137][138] as well as Genji, an advanced cyborg ninja, who appears in Overwatch and Heroes of the Storm,[139] are examples of cyborgs in video games. The Deus Ex video game series deals extensively with the near-future rise of cyborgs and their corporate ownership, as does the Syndicate series.

William Gibson's Neuromancer features one of the first female cyborgs, a "Razorgirl" named Molly Millions, who has extensive cybernetic modifications and is one of the most prolific cyberpunk characters in the science fiction canon.[140] The cyborg was also a central part of singer Janelle Mone's 48-minute video corresponding with the release of her 2018 album "Dirty Computer." This emotion picture intertwined the relationship between human and technology, highlighting the power of the digital on a futuristic, dystopian society. Mone has previously referred to herself as an android, depicting herself as a mechanical organism often conforming to idealistic standards, thus using the cyborg as a way to detach from these oppressive structures.

Reference entries

Link:

Cyborg - Wikipedia

Cyborg | DC

Posted on by

Part man, part machine, Vic Stone is a former member of the Teen Titans and a current member of the Justice League who wrestles to preserve his humanity with every new upgrade.

Although he always exhibited a genius level intellect, young Victor Stone didnt want a life dedicated to science and research like his parents. Instead, Vic dreamed of being a football player, and devoted all of his time to becoming a star athlete while he was still in high school. But a tragic twist of fate that should have left him dead instead found him becoming part man and part machinea Cyborg.

Saved by his scientist father after an accident left very little of Victors body intact, Dr. Silas Stone used all of his advanced scientific knowledge to save his only childs life, and to rebuild him into a superior being, one that was arguably now more machine than man. As a cyborg, Vic was now far stronger than the average person, could interface with computers, and emit various types of energy that made him a formidable fighter. Although he ultimately chose the path of the superhero, Victor never fully acclimated to being only partially human. Healways carried a sadness within himas he mourns for the normal life he never had.

One of the planets greatest heroes, Cyborg nevertheless puts all of his internal struggles aside when the time comes tosaveinnocent lives and protectthe Earth. Because of his ability to interface with computer systems, perhaps there is no hero more fitting for this modern, digital age.

See the rest here:

Cyborg | DC

What is a Cyborg? – Definition from Techopedia

Posted on by

What Does Cyborg Mean?

A cybernetic organism or cyborg in IT is defined as an organism with bothbiological and technological components. In some definitions, a cyborg isdescribed as a hypothetical or fictional creation. However, in a technicalsense, humans can be seen as cyborgs in various types of situations, includingthe use of artificial implants.

Part of the diverse use of the word cyborg revolves around how humans see their interactions with technology. A person could be considered a cyborg when they are outfitted with implants such as artificial heart valves, cochlear implants or insulin pumps. A person could even be called a cyborg when they areusing specific wearable technologies like Google Glass, or even using laptops ormobile devices to do work.

However, a different definition of a cyborg involves fictional pictures of human individuals with enhanced virtual-reality vision, robotic implants on limbs and torso, and other more significant body IT components. The popular definition of cyborg changes as a range of science-fiction-type ideas become realities.

View post:

What is a Cyborg? - Definition from Techopedia

Cyborg (DC Comics) – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Comic book superhero

Comics character

Cyborg (Victor Stone) is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics. The character was created by writer Marv Wolfman and artist George Prez, and first appeared in an insert preview in DC Comics Presents #26 (October 1980).[1] Originally known as a member of the Teen Titans,[2] Cyborg was established as a founding member of the Justice League in DC's 2011 reboot of its comic book titles.

Cyborg made his live-action debut in the television series Smallville, portrayed by Lee Thompson Young. Ray Fisher portrayed the character in the DC Extended Universe films Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016), Justice League (2017), and Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) while Joivan Wade portrays Cyborg in the television series Doom Patrol. In animated media, the character was voiced by Khary Payton and Zeno Robinson.

In an interview, Perez described his design approach for the character. "In the case of Cyborg I was inspired visually- and I think it is obvious from the head- by Deathlok... then I decided to make him more robotic than android by making more metallic parts of him, so that he wasn't quite as human... but the half-face metallic plate was obviously inspired by Deathlok by Rich Buckler, and then I used a young Jim Brown as my inspiration for how I would handle the body language for the character."[3]

Victor Stone is the son of Silas Stone and Elinore Stone, scientists who use him as a test subject for various intelligence enhancement projects. While these treatments are ultimately successful and Victor's IQ subsequently grows to genius levels, he grows to resent his treatment.

Victor strikes up a friendship with Ron Evers, a young miscreant who leads him into trouble with the law. This is the beginning of a struggle in which Victor strives for independence, engaging in pursuits of which his parents disapprove, such as athletics and abandoning his studies. Victor's association with underage criminals leads him down a dark path in which he is often injured, but he still lives a "normal" life in which he is able to make his own decisions. However, this rebellious path does not bury Victor's conscience considering that he refuses to participate in Evers' grandiose plans of racially motivated terrorism.

Victor's situation changes radically when he visits his parents' lab where experiments in inter-dimensional access are done. At that moment of his entry, an aggressive gelatinous creature was accidentally pulled through and Victor's mother is killed by it. It then turned on Victor and he was severely injured by its attack before his father was able to send it back to its native dimension.

With his wife dead and his son mutilated, unconscious and near death from the incident, Silas is driven to take advantage of his prototype medical prosthetic research to treat Victor. Unfortunately, Victor only regains consciousness after the extensive artificial limbs and implants were installed in his body without his consent. Victor was horrified at the discovery of the metallic components, which involve most of the left side of his head and face, and raged that he would rather have died than be such a victim of his father's manipulations.

Although his bitterness remained for some time, Victor eventually calmed down enough to successfully adjust to his implants physically. He found himself rejected by the public because of his implants, including his girlfriend, who would later thoughtlessly blurt out that she would prefer he had died instead of being in that state. However, Victor's conscience was unbowed, as evidenced by the fact that when Evers tried to manipulate him into participating in a terrorist attack on the United Nations, Victor decided to equip himself with his weaponized attachments and stop him on the top of United Nations Headquarters.

When Robin assembles the Teen Titans, Victor joins initially for the benefit of a support group of kindred spirits and freaks, and has remained with that group ever since.[2] Fortunately, Victor eventually finds additional new civilian friends such as a group of juveniles who are adjusting to their own prosthetics and idolize him because of his fancy parts and his exciting adventures. It also turns out that their beautiful teacher Sarah Simms, who has often assisted Cyborg and the Titans, admires him as well.

Another person who sees past the cybernetic shell is Dr. Sarah Charles, a S.T.A.R. Labs scientist who helps him to recuperate after having his cybernetic parts replaced. Cyborg and Dr. Charles date for some time and she, along with Changeling, keeps trying to reach him when he is seemingly mindless following the severe injuries he incurs during the "Titans Hunt" storyline.

Although Cyborg's body was repaired by a team of Russian scientists after the missile crash he had been in, albeit with more mechanical parts than previously, his mind was not. Eventually, his mind was restored by an alien race of computer intelligences called the Technis, created from the sexual union of Swamp Thing and a machine-planet when Swamp Thing was travelling through space. Cyborg, however, had to remain with the Technis both to maintain his mind and because, in return for restoring him, he had to teach them about humanity. He took the name Cyberion, and gradually started becoming less human in outlook, connecting entirely to the Technis planet.

Eventually, Cyberion returned to Earth, establishing a Technis construct on the moon and a smaller base on Earth. With Vic's consciousness dormant, but his desire for companionship controlling the actions of the Technis' planet, it began kidnapping former Titans members, his conscious mind so suppressed that he was not only searching for deceased Titans, but even sent one probe looking for himself as Cyborg. He ended up plugging them into virtual reality scenarios, representing what he believed to be their "perfect worlds"; for example, Beast Boy was back with the Doom Patrol, Damage was spending time being congratulated by the Justice Society as a true hero, and Nightwing was confronted by a Batman who actually smiled and offered to talk about their relationship. Although the Titans were freed, there was a strong disagreement between them and the Justice League over what action to take; the League believed that there was nothing left of Victor to save, whereas the Titans were willing to try, culminating in a brief battle, where the Atom and Catwoman (who had followed the Justice League to investigate) sided with the League while the Flash fought with the Titans, until the two were convinced to work together after Batman and Nightwing found the system containing Vic's core consciousness. While Vic was distracted trying to aid his friends, a Titans team consisting of Changeling and the original five Titans were sent by Raven to try making contact with Vic's human side, while Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, the Martian Manhunter, Power Girl, Captain Marvel, and Mary Marvel moved the moon back to its proper place. Eventually, thanks primarily to Changeling's encouragement, and Omen and Raven holding Vic together long enough to come up with a plan, Vic's consciousness was restored, and "downloaded" into the Omegadrome, a morphing war-suit belonging to former Titan Minion. In the wake of this event, the Titans reformed and Vic was part of the new group.[2] However, he felt less human than ever before.

Shortly after this, Nightwing revealed he had cloned Vic's body, and by flowing the Omegadrome through the clone, Vic regained his human form, but still had the abilities of the Omegadrome. He often used the Omegadrome to recreate his original look in battle. With his newfound humanity, Vic took a leave of absence, moving first to L.A. with Beast Boy and then to Central City. While in Central City, Vic was involved in one of the Thinker's schemes, helping Wally hack the Thinker's attempt to plug himself into the minds of Central City's population so that Wally could outthink his opponent, though Vic lost the abilities of the Omegadrome in the process.

Vic mentored the new incarnation of the Teen Titans, consisting mainly of sidekicks, most of whom have taken over the identities of former members (i.e. Tim Drake, the third Robin, instead of Dick Grayson, the original Robin and Titans leader), as well as stalwarts such as Starfire, Raven, and Beast Boy, where they have fought enemies such as Deathstroke, Brother Blood, Doctor Light, The Titans Tomorrow, and a brainwashed Superboy and Indigo during a team up with the Outsiders in the Insiders storyline. In the end, Cyborg was the only one capable of standing up to Dr. Light, thanks to his solar shields, although he makes it clear that he only won the fight because the rest of the Titans had softened Light up first.

During the 20052006 storyline "Infinite Crisis", Cyborg joined Donna's New Cronus team that went to investigate a hole in the universe that was found during the Rann-Thanagar War. He left Beast Boy in charge of the Titans while he was gone. They arrived at the reset center of the universe and with the help of assorted heroes aided in the defeat of Alexander Luthor, who was attempting to recreate the multiverse and build a perfect Earth from it.

According to 52 Week 5, Cyborg was fused together with Firestorm after returning to Earth. This was caused by the energy ripples caused by Alexander Luthor Jr. which altered the Zeta Ray Beams the heroes were going to use to return home.

After being severely damaged during the events of "Infinite Crisis", Cyborg was rebuilt over time in thanks to Tower caretakers Wendy and Marvin. He awoke a year later to find a wholly different Teen Titans being led by Robin, the only member from the team he formed prior to going into space. He is still a member of the team, but feels that Kid Devil and Ravager are hardly worthy Titans, and thus is attempting to find a way to reform "the real Titans".

After the team along with the Doom Patrol defeated the Brotherhood of Evil, Cyborg asked Beast Boy to rejoin the Titans, but Gar refused, saying that his skills were needed with the Doom Patrol. After returning to Titans Tower, Cyborg began reviewing the security tapes during the last year, in which it appears that he was looked to by all the Titans of the past year for a shoulder to lean on, despite being in a coma-like state.

It appears that although Cyborg has returned to the team, the role of leader is now in the hands of Robin. He does however retain the position of statesman amongst the team and occasionally plays second-in-command.

In Justice League of America (vol. 2) #3, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman agree that Cyborg should be offered membership in the new Justice League. However, following a battle against Amazo, Green Lantern and Black Canary take over the formation of the JLA, and Cyborg is not amongst the roster.

In the Teen Titans East one-shot, Cyborg gathered together a new team of Titans. During a training exercise, the group was attacked by Trigon, and Cyborg was blasted by a giant energy beam. He was last seen in a crater, with only his head and torso remaining.

In the aftermath of Trigon's assault in the Titans East one shot, Cyborg has been placed into a special hoverchair while he recuperates. Cyborg's body is completely repaired in Titans (vol. 2) #5. Soon after, the resurrected and unbalanced Jericho enters Cyborg's body, using him to manipulate the defenses at Titans Tower to kill the Teen Titans. Jericho's plans are foiled when Static, the newest Teen Titan, uses his electrical powers to overload the Tower's systems, causing feedback that knocks Jericho out of Cyborg.[4] After recovering, Cyborg pretends to still have Jericho inside of him, to draw out Vigilante, who was currently targeting Jericho. The plot works too well when Vigilante appears and shoots Cyborg in the head.[5]

In an unspecified time during the Teen Titans comics, a man with enhancements similar to Cyborg's attacks Dr. Sarah Charles on the day of her wedding to Deshaun, a young scientist. Cyborg rushes in for the save, discovering how Deshaun, connected to Project M, has sold the technology used to turn Stone into Cyborg to the military. He also finds that the enhanced man was Ron Evers, once Vic's best friend now turned terrorist, who was seeking vengeance for the soldiers used as test subjects. After Cyborg manages to calm down his friend and discovers the truth: Mr. Orr, revealed as the mastermind behind Project M's cyborg research, brings his Stone-derived best subjects: the current Equus, an armored form of the Wildebeest, and a cyberized man sporting enhancements even more powerful than Stone's current ones called Cyborg 2.0.

Cyborg 2.0 turns out to be the Titans Tomorrow Cyborg 2.0, snatched from his proper timeline and cajoled by Orr into fighting his younger self for the possession of their shared technology and Orr's permission to use it in the battlefield. Cyborg is soon forced to fight simultaneously against the Phantom Limbs, an elite force of soldiers crippled in the Middle East and restored by his tech, and the Cyborg Revenge Squad, a broader formation composed of the Fearsome Five, Magenta, Girder, the Thinker, and Cyborgirl. Although the Cyborg Revenge Squad soon gains the upper hand, with the help of his fellow Titans Cyborg is able to hold his own in combat, reverse engineer on the fly some of the future technology used by Cyborg 2.0, and enhance his own body enough to win against Mr. Orr. He later decides to get a new lease in life, forgiving Deshaun and Sarah Charles on their wedding day for abusing his technology, resuming dating Sarah Simms and having the Phantom Limbs fitted with new, non-military, prosthetics. It is however implied the Phantom Limbs, unwilling to see Stone's offer as a sign of good will, are trying to get back their weaponized prosthetics and wait for a rematch.

During the events of Blackest Night, Cyborg joins with Starfire, Beast Boy, and several other heroes to form an emergency team to fight off the army of dead Titans who have been reanimated as Black Lanterns. He later joins in the final battle at Coast City.

Following the dissolution of the current JLA after Justice League: Cry for Justice, Cyborg is invited by Donna to join Kimiyo Hoshi's new Justice League.[6] He befriends Red Tornado, and claims that he has come up with a plan to make him indestructible.[7]

After a battle with Doctor Impossible's gang, Cyborg is forced to take a leave of absence from the team to not only help rebuild Red Tornado, but also help Roy Harper, who had his arm severed by Prometheus.[8] During this time, Victor leads Superboy and Kid Flash to the city of Dakota to rescue the Teen Titans, who had been defeated and captured by Holocaust.[9] The Titans emerge victorious from the battle after Kid Flash uses his powers to send Holocaust plummeting into the Earth's inner core.[10]

Despite apparently being written off the team, writer James Robinson explained that Cyborg will continue to have a presence on the JLA, and will even be given a co-feature in the back of the book for Justice League of America (vol. 2) #4850.[11] In the co-feature, Cyborg battles Red Tornado after he has been driven insane by the power of the Starheart. In the midst of the battle, a flashback reveals that Victor had rebuilt Red Tornado using self-replicating nanites similar to the ones that Prometheus infected Roy with after cutting off his arm, thus making the android indestructible.[12] Cyborg manages to free Red Tornado his power matrix.[13]

Cyborg briefly appears in Justice League: Generation Lost, where he is shown helping Wonder Woman and Starfire search for Maxwell Lord after his resurrection.[14]

Following an adventure in another dimension, Static is left powerless, and Miss Martian is rendered comatose. Cyborg stops the powerless Static from returning to Dakota, and instead tells him that he and a scientist named Rochelle Barnes will be taking him to Cadmus Labs to find a way to get his powers back and awaken Miss Martian. As Static packs up his belongings, Cyborg and Rochelle have a conversation which reveals that they are lying to Static, and have an ulterior motive for taking the two Titans to Cadmus.[15]

He later appears in the final two issues of The Return of Bruce Wayne, where he helps his former teammate Red Robin in his attempt to stop Bruce Wayne from inadvertently unleashing an apocalyptic explosion of Omega Energy.

Cyborg and Red Tornado later travel to the moon alongside Doctor Light, Animal Man, Congorilla, Zauriel, Tasmanian Devil and Bulleteer as part of an emergency group of heroes gathered to assist the Justice League in their battle against Eclipso. Shortly into the battle, Cyborg and the others are taken over by Eclipso and are turned against their JLA comrades.[16] The reserve JLA members are all freed after Eclipso is defeated.[17]

As of August 2011, Cyborg is featured as one of the main characters in a new Justice League ongoing series written by Geoff Johns and drawn by Jim Lee as part of DC's The New 52 relaunch. Johns has said of Cyborg, "He represents all of us in a lot of ways. If we have a cellphone and we're texting on it, we are a cyborgthat's what a cyborg is, using technology as an extension of ourselves."[18]

In a revised origin, Victor Stone appears as a high school football star who is heavily sought after by scouts, but has a distant relationship with his father, Silas, a S.T.A.R. Labs Scientist.[19] Victor appears at his father's Lab as Silas' team is studying a Mother Box that Superman brought them. After a heated argument about Silas not attending Victor's games even after hearing about his son's success, the Mother Box explodes. The explosion kills the other scientists and destroys most of Victor's body, but spares Silas.[20] Silas does everything he can for Victor's survival, along with Sarah Charles, and T. O. Morrow by using the technology kept in S.T.A.R's "Red Room" safe. Ultimately Silas uses an injection of experimental nanites with Dr. Morrow adding robotic pieces onto Victor to assist. Victor recovers, now transformed into a Cyborg but as a side effect of the Mother Box's energies introduced into his body and interacting with his cybernetic parts, he access the vast New Gods data library, where he discover Darkseid's invasion plans and that it's executed as he was being rebuilt.[21] Victor is getting used to his new body when Parademons attack, attempting to grab Dr. Charles. Cyborg's defense systems react, and he quickly dispatches the Parademons while also destroying part of the lab. Victor blames Silas for his condition after hearing his father out and leaves. Later on after attempting to help a few civilians under attack, Victor inadvertently absorbs some of the attacking Parademon's components giving him access to Boom Tube technology. This ability automatically activates and transports him to where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, and Aquaman are fighting against Darkseid's force, just moments before Darkseid arrives. He fights alongside the other heroes against Darkseid and his army, but Darkseid proves to be too strong. Victor is able to reverse engineer the alien boom tube technology and teleport all the invading army including Darkseid away, saving the Earth and then helps found the Justice League.

Silas attempt to study his son more from a scientific perspective, but Victor refuses instead focusing on helping people as a superhero leading both to remain at odds. After David Graves makes an attack against the Justice League, Cyborg learns that he walks the line between life and death after he sees a false apparition of his human self. The appriation tries to convince him that the real Victor died and Cyborg is just his body being animated by the robotics to believe it's still Victor. Victor is able to get past that ideal as just a ruse, though later leads him to question his humanity or lack thereof.[22] Flash attempts to be there for Victor during his time of questioning. During the Throne of Atlantis storyline, Cyborg is offered an upgrade his father has that would allow him to operate underwater at the price of his remaining lung, which Victor rejects at first.[23] However following the capture of the rest of the Justice League by Ocean Master, Cyborg reluctantly accepts the upgrade.[24] This allows him and Mera to rescue the others.[25]

During the "Trinity War" storyline, Cyborg gets a visual of Shazam heading to Kahndaq, to which Batman assembles the Justice League with the help from Zatanna to meet in Kahndaq to stop Shazam.[26] Following the supposed death of Doctor Light in Kahndaq, Batman tells Superman that Cyborg and Martian Manhunter are doing an autopsy to prove his death was not Superman's fault.[27] As Wonder Woman leads the Justice League Dark to go look for Pandora, Cyborg is among the superheroes that remain at A.R.G.U.S. while Batman, Flash, Aquaman, Shazam, Steve Trevor, the Justice League of America, Zatanna, and Phantom Stranger go to stop Wonder Woman.[28] Cyborg was present when Atom tells him, Superman, Element Woman and Firestorm the true purpose of the creation of the Justice League of America and that she was spying on the Justice League which is how the Justice League of America ended up in Kahndaq.[29] When the Crime Syndicate arrives on Prime Earth, Cyborg's old prosthetic parts combine to form a robot called Grid (who is operated by a sentient computer virus).[30] During the Forever Evil event, after Batman and Catwoman drop Cyborg off to his father in Detroit,[31] he makes the choice to willingly receive a new cybernetic body and helps his father and Dr. Morrow create one that is slimmer in appearance so Cyborg could look more human.[32] Working together with the Metal Men created by Doc Magus, Cyborg succeeds in shutting down Grid.[33]

Afterward, Cyborg helped newcomer to the group Shazam fit in with the league as the rest set out to find Power ring's missing accessory which flew off after the death of the former wearer.[34] While on monitor duty he and Shazam experiment with some of his magical powers to aid in finding the ring after joking about having an Xbox in his left shoulder; only for the young ward to conjure up a ping pong table, which they play while having spare time on their hands.[35] Eventually the call goes out and everyone in the league mobilizes to secure the new rampaging Power Ring before the Doom Patrol does.[36] After coaxing Billy into action against Jessica Cruis, Victor moves in to interface with the ring itself, finding out a great deal about the ring of Volthoom and his current host, only to be forcefully thrown out after the ring entity rejects him by causing his systems to short circuit, removing him from the battle.[37] He is last seen recovering at S.T.A.R. Labs, after Shazam rushed him to the med bay, following the power ring crisis. Cyborg wondered what he saw within the ring after his dad warned him interfacing with it again could trap him in it forever.[38]

An incident involving Batman's son, Damian Wayne, during the "Robin Rises Alpha & Omega" story arc in Batman, led up to most of the Justice League battling against Glorious Godfrey and a Parademon horde from Apokolips when they captured the chaos shard and the sarcophagus of Damian, before retreating back home.[39] All the league members present, Cyborg included, state to an adamant Bruce Wayne that running headlong into unmarked X-factor territory for a suicide mission was less than ideal, considering the consequences that could befall the earth. This eventually culminates with Batman hijacking Cyborg's teleportation systems, to zip up to the Watchtower in an attempt to retrieve an experimental and highly dangerous combat suit, to mete out his agenda. However, Cyborg manages to block his administrative access so that he, Shazam, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Lex, and Cold could physically restrain him, causing Batman to begrudgingly give up and retire to the Batcave.[40]

After the Bat left, the rest of the Bat-Family turned up asking Victor for help with some digitized doppelgangers of baddies that Bruce initially set up to distract the League, destabilize watchtower security to secure the Hellbat, and eventually use a personal Mother Box (secured from a Parademon kept in cold storage) to vacate to Apokolips.[41] After making his way to the Batcave to meet with them, he's directed over to a console which enabled him to directly access the Batcomputer's more sophisticated systems. However, it was all a ruse utilizing a preemptive countermeasure devised by Batman tailored to Cyborg's specific weaknesses. Cyborg was temporarily incapacitated and was set into a VR simulation where he relived his more peaceful days in college, while Batgirl went to work on his Mother Box to secure a path towards Apokolips and chase after their father. But Victor eventually snapped out of his dream haze and followed them through, angered that they used him in such away.[41] Cyborg traveled along with Titus, who hitched a ride on his leg, to catch up with the rest of the Batman Family. They all then have a run-in with the scavengers of Armegeddo who quickly vacate after some Apokoliptian Hunger Dogs make their way onto the scene. They eventually catch up with the armor-clad Dark Knight ripping his way through a sizable chunk of Apokolips's forces singlehandedly. Jason Tim and Barbara show Batman the Robin Medals Alfred gave them to remind him of his purpose, causing him to snap out of his berserker rage and note that Cyborg had reluctantly accompanied them to Hell itself. Having made their way into Darkseid's citadel where Kalibak was readying his Chaos Cannon to fire again, the caped crusaders kept Darkseid's forces occupied while Cyborg made short work of the massive war engine, literally tearing it in half. But when he went to set a timed self-destruct sequence within the Apokoliptian computers, Vic suffered catastrophic feedback that fried most of his internal systems leaving him inoperable just as Darkseid himself made his appearance.[42]

While Batman fought and held Darkseid off, Cyborg ran Batgirl through a crash course on how to hotwire his own Mother Box. Since Darkseid smashed Batman's Boom Tube generator, Cyborg was their only chance off Apokolips. After successfully jury-rigging his internal systems, Cyborg and the rest of the Bat rogues made a hasty exit stage left as Bruce powered his recovered fragment of the Chaos Shard with Darkseid's Omega Effect, blasting Darkseid against a wall to cover their escape.[43] In the aftermath, Cyborg, who is still unable to facilitate himself, wonders what is going on as Damian Wayne is successfully revived, however, a second anomaly cranks out of the Boom Tube that was opened and Kalibak comes charging through it. With Kalibak occupied by the rest of the gang, Vic tries his best to reestablish his downed systems. He is successful and gains control over the still-open tube as Batman readies the Batplane. As Batman rams his jet into the evil New God sending him careening back to Apokolips, Cyborg closes the portal banishing Darkseid's firstborn for good. With the threat over, Cyborg heads back topside to inform the rest of the league of what all transpired and stating he has JL business to attend to.[44]

An eponymous ongoing series, by writer David F. Walker and artist Ivan Reis, debuted in July 2015.[45]

This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2017)

As of Rebirth, he is a part of the relaunched Justice League bi-monthly series as well as his own solo monthly series. It is unclear whether he has the ability of flight in Rebirth.

During Dark Nights: Metal, he is captured by the alternate Batmen of the Dark Multiverse, who attempt to hack him to learn the secrets of his teammates. As the crisis escalates, Cyborg is confronted by the controlling consciousness of other Mother Boxes, who claim that he will only gain the power to overcome the Dark Batmen if he fully surrenders to the Mother Box that powers his body at the cost of the transformation deleting his old personality. He is nearly tempted to give in to this transformation, but the appearance of Raven's soul-self convinces him to hold on to himself while partially succumbing to the transformation. This allows him to free his teammates and 'hack' the multiverse as they travel to find new allies in the battle against the Dark Batmen.

Following this and the Justice League: No Justice miniseries, the Justice League series was canceled after 43 issues and was relaunched into a new monthly series and Cyborg will also be featured as part of a separate Justice League faction that is part of the new Justice League Odyssey series. In addition, Cyborg's own solo monthly series was also canceled and ended in June 2018 with the release of Issue 23.[46]

Large portions of Victor Stone's body have been replaced by advanced mechanical parts (hence the name Cyborg) granting him superhuman strength, speed, stamina, and flight. His mechanically-enhanced body, much of which is metallic, is far more durable than a normal human body. Cyborg's internal computer system can interface with external computers. Other features include an electronic "eye" which replicates vision but at a superhuman level. His mechanical parts contain a wide variety of tools and weapons, such as a grappling hook/line and a finger-mounted laser. Perhaps his most frequently-used weapon is his sound amplifier (often referred to as his "white sound blaster" in the comic books; the Teen Titans animated series calls it a "sonic cannon") which can be employed at various settings either to stun his foes or to deliver concentrated blasts of sound potent enough to shatter rock and deform steel.[47]

Cyborg is consistently depicted as making adjustments to his cybernetic parts, enhancing his functions and abilities to levels beyond those set by his father. This change has allowed writers to adjust his powers as needed for various stories. Following DC's New 52 reboot in 2011, Cyborg's origin story was changed so that his enhancements were the product of alien technology, specifically that of a Mother Box from the planet New Genesis. His cybernetics are now seen as a living extension of his body, and a host of new skills such as EMP blasts, technology absorption, and underwater adaptation were added to his powerset. Most significantly, he was given the ability to generate boom tubes powerful teleportation tunnels that are used by the New Gods to travel vast distances due to this Mother Box connection. Elements of Victor's original backstory were re-established following DC's Trinity War storyline when his father rebuilds systems following extensive damage to them.

In addition to his mechanical enhancements, Stone possesses an "exceptionally gifted" level of intelligence; his IQ has been measured at 170.[48]

In Teen Titans: Earth One, Vic Stone is re-introduced as a founding member of the Titans here portrayed a group of children, as part of STAR Lab's experiments with the Meta-Gene with his mother Elanor as leader. Vic was bonded with liquid metal via a crashed alien ship related to Starfire, granting him super strength and a robotic appearance. [49]

In the Flashpoint event, the timeline is greatly altered. In this alternate version of events, Cyborg is America's greatest superhero (occupying the role held by Superman in DC's standard timeline). He attempts to put together a group to stop the war between Aquaman and Wonder Woman's forces. However, the heroes he approaches all refuse, after Batman declines.[50] Cyborg connects the resistance member Lois Lane to spy on the Amazons for any information.[51] Cyborg rescues people in the subway station from arsonist Heat Wave.[52] Abin Sur crashes on Earth; he is subsequently taken into custody by Cyborg and the US government to be questioned about his reasons for being on Earth. When Abin Sur is recovering, he is on a mission to retrieve the Entity, however, Cyborg convinces him to join with Earth's heroes.[53] Afterwards, Cyborg is seen talking with the President in his headquarters in Detroit. The President states that Steve Trevor sent a signal to the resistance but was intercepted by a traitor among the heroes that Cyborg tried to recruit and suspicion leads to the Outsider. For Cyborg's failure, he is relieved of duty as the Element Woman sneaks into the headquarters. Later, Cyborg is called by Batman and the Flash for help in tracking down "Project: Superman", the government branch responsible for 'raising' Kal-El after his rocket destroyed Metropolis upon its arrival. Cyborg and them agree to join the cause to stop Wonder Woman and Aquaman, but only if Batman gets to choose whom to recruit, and Cyborg agrees as long as he comes with them. The three sneak into the government underground bunkers, and the group comes across a giant vault door bearing the Superman logo. Cyborg opens the door and sees a weakened Kal-El, with the arrival of guards. Forced to escape, Kal-El's powers begin to manifest, and flies off leaving them at the hands of the guards.[54] While they are fending off the guards, they are rescued by Element Woman. Later, Cyborg and other heroes arrive at the Marvel Family's place helping the Flash from drastically forgetting his memories. After the Flash is recovering, he asked to stop the Atlantean/Amazon war from casualty, although Cyborg and the heroes are not willing unless Batman wants to join them, because Cyborg explains to him that they believe Batman was invincible. However, the Flash convinces him that no one is invincible and the group of heroes is agreeing to join the Flash. The heroes arrive at New Themyscira to stop the Atlantean/Amazon war, and the Flash tells Cyborg to find Aquaman's ultimate bomb to dispose of it.[55]

In the Titans Tomorrow storyline, a future version of Victor Stone called Cyborg 2.0 is a member of Titans East. He is shown having similar plating as the animated Cyborg from the Teen Titans animated series.[56]

An alternate version of Cyborg appears as part of the Justice League of Earth-23 in the DC Multiverse.[57]

In Mark Waid and Alex Ross's Kingdom Come, a now liquid metal Cyborg appears as the third Robotman, he joins up as part of Superman's Justice League. [58] He is petrified by the nuclear blast in battle with Batman's group and the rouge metahumans. [59]

Cyborg appears as a character in the prequel comic to the game, where he joins Superman's Regime to force peace on the world. He serves as Superman's eyes and ears over the world, offering insight on any activity deemed disruptive. At the end of Year Two, he discovers someone is trying to hack into the Regime's system during a war with the Green Lantern Corps (Oracle) and goes to the Watchtower to locate her. Jim Gordon follows and corners him, managing to rip Cyborg's metallic faceplate off and knock him unconscious, stopping the locating sequence. Cyborg spends most of the next year a prisoner of the Insurgency until he is released when the two groups collide in a battle that nearly destroys them when Trigon and Mr. Mxyzptlk get involved. In Year Four he and the Regime are confronted by the Greek gods, who want Superman to step down as ruler. While the Regime is forced to go underground, they come together to defeat the gods once and for all. During Year Five tension grows among the Regime because of Superman's growing hostility and controversial decisions, such as enlisting the aid of villains to help the Regime. Cyborg is especially disgusted when he discovers that during a rally with supporters of the Joker who reject Superman, the Man of Steel killed over two hundred defenseless protesters in anger. Batman and Batwoman later go to the Hall of Justice to kidnap Cyborg because he is the only one aware of this and has the information stored in his data. He is incapacitated and taken underground to the ruins of Metropolis where Batgirl works to find the data and reveal it to the world. While they succeed in finding it, Raven casts a massive blackout over the world to prevent the video from being seen, and the Insurgency is forced to retreat before Flash comes to get Cyborg. Superman has Cyborg erase any data containing information on his killings so the incident will not repeat itself.

Cyborg appears in a prequel comic to the sequel game. He remained in prison with Superman, even after the League of Assassins and impostor Batman's Suicide Squad raid the Ryker's Island to free only Damian Wayne/the current Nightwing.

Cyborg appears as a main character in the DCeased series. His body was used to create the virus which ravaged Earth and he unwillingly became a carrier of the virus. Cyborg spends the majority of the series helping out the surviving characters. In the final issue, Cyborg chooses to remain on Earth, surmising that he could cause another outbreak. While fighting the infected Wonder Woman, he decides to use the Lasso of Truth on her. Asking her if there's a cure, Cyborg is shocked to find out that he held the cure inside him all along. Before he could inform the others, Wonder Woman uses the opportunity to catch him off-guard and decapitate him.

The character of Cyborg has been analyzed as a hero who is both Black and disabled, and has been called "an exceptional figure in a genre replete with wonders."[60] His appearance has also been analyzed as a visual design of a Black superhero.[61]

Cyborg appears in media set in the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), portrayed by Ray Fisher.

Read the rest here:

Cyborg (DC Comics) - Wikipedia

Cyborg (film) – Wikipedia

Posted on by

1989 film by Albert Pyun

Cyborg[a] is a 1989 American martial-arts cyberpunk film directed by Albert Pyun. Jean-Claude van Damme stars as Gibson Rickenbacker, a mercenary who battles a group of murderous marauders led by Fender Tremolo (Vincent Klyn) along the East coast of the United States in a post-apocalyptic future. It was followed by the sequels Cyborg 2 (1993) and Cyborg 3: The Recycler (1994).

A plague known as the living death cripples civilization. A small group of surviving scientists and doctors located in Atlanta, home of the CDC work on a cure to save what remains of humanity. To complete their work they need information stored on a computer system in New York City. Pearl Prophet volunteers for the dangerous courier mission and is made into a cyborg through surgical augmentation.

Pearl, accompanied by bodyguard Marshall Strat, retrieves the data in New York but is pursued by the vicious Fender Tremolo and his gang of pirates. Fender wants the cure so he can have a monopoly on its production. Strat, badly injured while fighting the pirates, tells Pearl to leave him and find a mercenary, known as a "slinger", who can escort her to safety. She gets cornered but is saved by a slinger named Gibson Rickenbacker. After she explains her situation, they are overrun by Fender's gang, and Gibson is knocked out by falling debris. Fender demands that she accompany him to Atlanta or die.

Fender's gang slaughters a family and steals their boat. They head south for Atlanta via the Intracoastal Waterway with the captive Pearl. Gibson, who had been tracking the pirates, arrives at the scene of slaughter later that night. A shadowy figure attacks him, but he disables her. She turns out to be Nady Simmons, a young woman who mistook him as a pirate. Nady, whose family was wiped out by the plague, joins Gibson. Gibson is less concerned with a cure for the plague than with killing Fender. Gibson and Nady trek southward through the wastelands, where bandits ambush them. Concerned for Nady, Gibson unsuccessfully attempts to convince her to stay away. After declining sex with Nady, Gibson reveals that all he cares about is revenge against Fender, who killed his lover and destroyed his chance to have a normal life and family.

Intercepting Fender and his crew near Charleston, South Carolina, Gibson defeats most of his men, but Fender shoots him with an air rifle. Now nursing a gunshot wound, Gibson realizes Haley (his dead lover's younger sister whom Fender kidnapped) is now a loyal member of Fender's crew. He flees the pirates and ends up alone with Pearl and Nady. Pearl refuses to go with him she calculates that Gibson is not strong enough to defeat Fender and will be unable to get her to Atlanta safely. She says she will go along with Fender and lure him to his death in Atlanta, where she has resources at her disposal.

Tired, wounded and badly outnumbered, Gibson flees with Nady through the sewer into a salt marsh, where they are pursued by the rest of the pirates and eventually separated from each other. Gibson is thoroughly beaten by Fender and crucified high on the mast of a beached, derelict ship. Haley lingers at the scene but still leaves with Fender. Gibson spends the night on the cross. In the morning, near death, he kicks the mast repeatedly with his dangling foot in a last fit of rage. The mast snaps, sending him crashing to the ground, his arms still tied and nailed to the cross. Finally, Nady appears out of the marsh to free him.

Gibson and Nady intercept Fender once again in Atlanta, this time better prepared. Fender's gang is taken down one by one until he and Gibson face off. During their fight, Nady rushes Fender with a knife, but he stabs and kills her. Gibson in turn stabs Fender in the chest. Thinking him dead, Gibson embraces Haley, who, during the battle turned decisively against Fender. However, Fender gets back up, and they continue to battle in a nearby shed, where Gibson finally kills Fender by impaling him on a meat hook. Gibson and Haley escort Pearl to her final destination before heading back off.

Cannon Films initially intended to make a sequel to the 1987 He-Man film Masters of the Universe and a live-action Spider-Man film. Both projects were planned to be shot simultaneously by Albert Pyun.[5] Cannon, however, was in financial trouble and had to cancel deals with both Mattel and Marvel Entertainment Group, the owners of He-Man and Spider-Man, respectively. Cannon had already spent $2 million on costumes and sets for both films and decided to start a new project in order to recoup that money. Pyun wrote the storyline for Cyborg in one weekend. Pyun had Chuck Norris in mind for the lead, but co-producer Menahem Golan cast Jean-Claude van Damme. The film was shot for less than $500,000 and was filmed in 23 days.[2] The film was shot entirely in Wilmington, North Carolina.

Several of the characters' names are references to well-known manufacturers and models of guitars and other musical instruments.

After the success of Bloodsport, Cannon films offered Jean-Claude van Damme the lead in Delta Force 2, American Ninja 3 or Cyborg. He chose the latter although he later admitted "I didn't like [the film] so much."[4]

Jackson "Rock" Pinckney, who played one of Fender's pirates, lost an eye during filming when Jean-Claude van Damme accidentally struck his eye with a prop knife. Pinckney sued Van Damme in a North Carolina court and was awarded $485,000.[6]

Violent scenes were heavily cut to gain an R rating rather than an X, including a throat-slitting and some blood and gore during the village massacre. Also excised was the death of a man Van Damme was fighting, which caused an inconsistency that made him look like he suddenly disappeared.[7][8]

Cyborg was released in the United States on April 7, 1989. In the Philippines, the film was rereleased as First Hero on August 16, 1995, with "Re Issue" written in small print within the credits of the poster.[9]

To coincide with the film's home video release, Cannon published a one-shot comic book. Narration largely follows the action of the film, although the final fight ends on a cliffhanger. Credited to author Noah Sirk and artists Mike Van Cleave and Pete Von Sholly, it also features behind-the-scenes articles and interviews.[10][11] The comic was reprinted for limited editions of the film published by French company ESC[12] and Austrian-German company Plaion.[13]

Cyborg received a generally negative reception from critics despite the box office success.[14][15][16][17] Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports a 22% positive score based on 18 reviews and an average rating of 3.5/10.[18] On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 24 out of 100, based on 8 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[19] The film debuted at number four at the American box office[20] and went on to gross $10,166,459.[21]

Cyborg 2, starring Elias Koteas and Angelina Jolie, was released in 1993. Cyborg 3: The Recycler, a direct-to-video release, followed in 1995. Both films bear little to no relation to the first film and were heavily panned by critics, even more than the original.

In 2011, director Albert Pyun's Curnan Pictures got hold of the missing tapes of the original cut of Cyborg through Pyun's original choice for score artist, Tony Riparetti. This director's cut of the film features Pyun's editing and previously unreleased scenes. It is commercially available through the director himself.[22] Pyun's director's cut was released in 2014 in Germany with the film's original title "Slinger".

American rapper Method Man sampled most of Fender's opening words as the opening lyrics in the song "Judgement Day" from his 1998 album Tical 2000: Judgement Day. The lyrics are slightly modified. The intro is also in the opening of the song "World Damnation" by the death metal band Mortician. The intro of Fender talking about death and starvation is thought as the official opening of metal band Chimairas' song "Resurrection." It is often played at live shows as an intro. The same intro is also played the beginning of a song by Australian, Christian, gore-grindcore band Vomitorial Corpulence.

Here is the original post:

Cyborg (film) - Wikipedia

Victimless Crimes – Examples, List & Explanation – Study.com

Posted on by

Victimless Crime Examples

Remember, victimless crimes in the United States are classified as such if they do not harm other individuals or property and involve only consenting adults. Regardless, these acts are still considered to be crimes because they involve acts that many consider unethical or immoral, such as drug use, illegal gambling, and prostitution.

Trespassing that does not harm the property or other individuals is considered a victimless crime.

A more complete list of crimes that are perceived as victimless include:

Because prostitution typically occurs between two consenting adults, many say that it is a victimless crime. However, others argue that prostitution exploits sex workers, who are often forced to engage in sex work against their will. They also argue that because it often involves sex acts which are considered by many to be degrading, it is harmful to all women because it perpetuates their continued objectification. Sex worker advocates say because they often lack resources, those who are employed in prostitution are also victimized by the criminal justice system.

When most people think of victimless crimes, drug use is usually among the first to come to mind. Drug use is often done in private and involves only consenting individuals (spiking someone's drink or somehow drugging them without their consent is not a victimless crime). However, drug use and drug trafficking, in particular, often have indirect victims. As mentioned above, children of drug users are often considered victims, as are other family members. Some say the entire community is harmed because those who abuse drugs are often unable to be productive members of society. Public drug users can leave behind needles which can harm others.

Drug trafficking can be a highly lucrative activity. Sometimes competition and a desire to evade law enforcement leads those involved to commit additional crimes which do have victims. Additionally, drug users themselves, particularly when under the influence, often become victims of other crimes, including robbery or sexual assault.

Some have also argued that the "War on Drugs" and other efforts to stop drug use have been used to justify racist policing policies that have victimized communities of color. Studies have shown that when compared to white men, black men have been disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for drug-related offenses. The "broken windows" theory of policing asserts that relatively minor crimes, including many victimless crimes, lead to more serious crimes. That theory led the New York City Police Department and other law enforcement agencies to take a "stop and frisk" approach, allowing officers to stop individuals in hopes of finding drugs or other evidence of illegal activity. Because Black and brown males have been stopped at much higher rates, stop and frisk policies have been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the rights of brown and black residents, who were unfairly victimized.

Possession and use of marijuana, once considered a crime, has been legalized in several states.

When a large percentage of a jurisdiction's citizens no longer opposes victimless crimes, the crimes often become legal or decriminalized. In the U.S., the possession and use of marijuana has been decriminalized in several states, including Massachusetts, Colorado, California, and others. Assisted suicide is now legal in several states. Prostitution has been legal for decades in some parts of Nevada. Outside the United States, other countries view victimless crime from vastly different perspectives, with some handing down harsh punishment for the actions, while other countries deem the same action to be legal.

Victimless crimes are illegal acts that occur between one or more consenting adults and do not harm property or other people. In the United States, some examples of victimless crimes include:

Some experts say that all crimes harm society and there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Drug use and prostitution both happen between consenting adults, however, it can be argued that they harm others and, therefore, are not victimless crimes. When a society's view of victimless crimes changes, those acts are often legalized. Assisted suicide and marijuana use are two examples of acts that were once criminalized that are now legal in many parts of the United States.

The rest is here:

Victimless Crimes - Examples, List & Explanation - Study.com

ARE VICTIMLESS CRIMES ACTUALLY HARMFUL? – Office of Justice Programs

Posted on by

Abstract

A "victimless" crime is traditionally defined as "an illegal act that is consensual and lacks a complaining participant." This study examined whether or not a sample of the public views drug trafficking, drug abuse, pornography, and prostitution (traditional "victimless" crimes) as sufficiently harmful to be criminalized. Study subjects were 178 college students enrolled in introductory social science courses at a medium-sized Midwestern university, as well as 766 high school students, yielding a total sample of 944 subjects. The subjects were selected as reflective of future voters who might significantly impact criminal justice policy decisions. Generally, the study indicates that the majority of the respondents view the four traditional "victimless" crimes as harmful, such that they should not be decriminalized. Ratings of harm varied from a low of 1.15 (between "very little" and "little") for gambling, to a high of 3.68 (between "much" and "very much") for drugs. In terms of the percentage of respondents opposed to decriminalization, the results varied from a low of 36 percent for gambling to a high of 96 percent for pornography. Implications of these findings for theory and policy are discussed. 7 tables and 18 references

Link:

ARE VICTIMLESS CRIMES ACTUALLY HARMFUL? - Office of Justice Programs

VICTIMLESS CRIMES | Office of Justice Programs

Posted on by

Abstract

Two of the articles report on empirical analyses of victimless crime issues. One study examined college and high school students' perspectives regarding the extent of harm caused by victimless crimes (drug usage, gambling, pornography, and prostitution). The majority of the subjects viewed these activities as being sufficiently harmful to warrant their continued criminalization. Another study analyzed the opinions of a sample of sheriffs throughout the country regarding the enforcement of victimless-crime laws and the impact of this enforcement on the criminal justice system. Although the sheriffs recognized that the enforcement of victimless-crime laws, particularly drug laws, has contributed to an overburdened criminal justice system, they do not favor decriminalization. Another article analyzes victimless crimes (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, gambling, and drug abuse) as social issues that impact the religious, political, and economic forces at work in the United States in the 1990's. Two articles analyze the legal, programmatic, and ethical issues associated with the use of drug courier profiles to establish the "reasonable suspicion" required for an investigative stop and search. The two authors disagree about the U.S. Supreme Court's acceptance of this practice as a constitutional investigative technique. For individual articles, see NCJ 143897-143901. Article references and data

See the original post here:

VICTIMLESS CRIMES | Office of Justice Programs

What is antifa? Is it a group or an idea, and what do … – CBS News

Posted on by

Antifa has seen a steady increase in media attention ever since former President Donald Trump took office in January 2017. Republicans often portray antifa as a highly organized group of "terrorists" worthy of national watch lists. Some conspiracy theoristsfalsely blamedantifa for the January 6Capitol riots that led tofive deaths.

Right-wing media blames antifa members for rioting and looting. Democrats have also condemned such violence, but many on the left say the rhetoric about antifa is greatly exaggerated, and that it's less of an organized movement than just something of "an idea."

But much of what politicians say about antifa isn't quite true. Here's what antifa is, what it isn't, and what you need to know.

Antifa is not a highly organized movement, nor is it merely an idea. Antifa is a loose affiliation of local activists scattered across the United States and a few other countries.

The term "antifa" is short for anti-fascist; it's used both by its adherents and its foes.

In general, people who identify as antifa are known not for what they support, but what they oppose: Fascism, nationalism, far-right ideologies, white supremacy, authoritarianism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia. Some antifa activists also denounce capitalism and the government overall.

Mostly, people aligned with antifa are on the left of the political spectrum. Antifa is not, however, affiliated with President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party or its leaders. Mr. Biden has condemned antifa and called violence "unacceptable."

Antifa actions have included everything from tracking and publicly identifying members of alt-right groups to physically attackingadversaries.

In "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," author Mark Bray, an organizer for the Occupy Wall Street movement, lays out antifa's methods this way:

"Despite the media portrayal of a deranged, bloodthirsty antifa the vast majority of anti-fascist tactics involve no physical violence whatsoever. Anti-fascists conduct research on the far right online, in person, and sometimes through infiltrations; they dox them, push central milieux to disown them, pressure bosses to fire them

"But it's also true that some of them punch Nazis in the face and don't apologize for it."

During public demonstrations, antifa activists often wear top-to-toe black; even before the coronavirus pandemic, they were also known for wearing face coverings at public gatherings.

Antifa has no official national leadership, though followers have organized themselves into small, local cells that sometimes coordinate with other movements, such as Black Lives Matter. Some self-described antifa adherents have organized to confront Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys, and other far-right groups during public demonstrations. Some of those rallies have devolved into violence.

Some antifa adherents keep a very low profile, while other local groups venture to give themselves a more public profile with a name and a website. One of the oldest such groups appears to be Rose City Antifa, which says it was founded in Portland, Oregon, in 2007. According to its website, its main focus is "any work that prevents fascist organizing, and when that is not possible, provides consequences to fascist organizers. This is supported by researching and tracking fascist organizations."

Over Mr. Trump's years in office, coverage of "antifa" skyrocketed in the mainstream press. That coverage started on the day of his inauguration, when dozens of people took to the streets of the nation's capital in a protest that would soon grow violent. Authorities would later arrest several dozen of them, many of whom later identified themselves as antifa, and accuse them of starting fires and riots. Charges were eventually dropped for the bulk of the defendants, while others were acquitted by juries.

Mr. Trump pointed a finger at what he called the "alt-left" following the infamous "Unite the Right"rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. After a white supremacist deliberatelyplowed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing a woman namedHeather Heyer, Mr. Trump sparked more outrage when he suggested an equivalency between the white supremacists and the protesters on the other side, who despite his claims were mostly peaceful.

"What about the alt-left that came charging at, what you say, the alt-right?" Mr. Trump wondered aloud. "Do they have any semblance of guilt? What about the fact they're charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do."

In the years since then, media coverage has identified antifa as participants, and sometimes agitators, in clashes at numerous rallies and protests around the country. That includes a 2017 anti-hate rally in Berkeley, California, and a Patriot Prayer "freedom rally" in Portland, Oregon, in 2018.

In at least one instance, a person self-identifying as an antifa supporter has been linked to a deadly attack at a protest. Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was considered a prime suspect in the August 2020 killing of 39-year-old Aaron "Jay" Danielson, a right-wing activist who was shot during heated demonstrations in Portland. Reinoehl was later shot to death by federal authorities as they moved to arrest him.

Reinoehl had described himself in a social media post as "100% ANTIFA."

In the summer of 2019, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy introduced a resolution calling for antifa to be labeled as a domestic terror organization. President Trump voiced his support on Twitter.

But at the time, the Trump administration's own Department of Homeland Security and FBI didn't appear to view antifa as aleading threat. A DHS draft document from September 2020 reportedly namedwhite supremacist groups as the biggest terror threat to America. That same document doesn't mention antifa at all.

The FBI also considers far-right groups the "top of the priority list." FBI director Christopher Wray said in February 2020 that the FBI places the risk of violence from racially-motivated extremist groups "on the same footing" as the threat posed by foreign terrorist organizations such as ISIS and its sympathizers.

That's not to say the FBI hasn't also taken aim at antifa. After arson and looting broke out amid the protests in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd, Wray said: "We're seeing people who are exploiting this situation to pursue violent, extremist agendas anarchists like ANTIFA, and other agitators. These individuals have set out to sow discord and upheaval, rather than join in the righteous pursuit of equality and justice."

But the idea of designating antifa a terror group worries some civil rights advocates.

"The designation would grant federal law enforcement broad powers, under the federal terrorism code, to surveil and investigate anyone labeled as antifa," the Southern Poverty Law Centersaid in a statement. "It could also allow federal law enforcement to broadly target anyone involved in protests viewed unfavorably by the Trump administration, even retroactively."

The center added, "President Trump's announcement is rooted in politics, not the present realities of the terror threat in the U.S."

Antifa has earned its reputation for sporadic violence. But many other rumors about antifa have been spun from whole cloth, sometimes by people later identified as right-wing extremists. In June 2020, Twitter shut down multiple fake antifa accounts that were inciting violence against white suburbs; subsequent investigations tracked the accounts to Identity Evropa, a white supremacist organization.

Right-wing figures and other commentators on social media also have falsely accused unspecified antifa members of starting wildfires on the West Coast, prompting police and fire officials to appeal to the public to stop spreadingwhat one agency called "an UNTRUE rumor."

Another common conspiracy theory has alleged, without evidence, that billionaire philanthropist George Soros is funding antifa.

After the January 6 Capitol riots that left five dead, including a Capitol police officer, false rumors claimed antifa was behind the attacks. In fact, among the hundreds of criminal complaints filed so far, dozens involve suspects affiliated with right-wing organizations including Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Three Percenters, and pro-Trump followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory, according to federal prosecutors.

One alleged rioter reportedly told friends that he planned to pose as antifa to fool law enforcement.

"When we looked at the data around the insurrection, we saw literally millions of pro-Trump [internet] posts that repeated the phrase 'antifa,'" said CBSN tech reporter Dan Patterson. "[But] when we look at the data, this boogeyman is nonexistent."

Continue reading here:

What is antifa? Is it a group or an idea, and what do ... - CBS News

Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat? – Center for Strategic and …

Posted on by

In response to the death of George Floyd, an unarmed African American who died after his neck was pinned under a police officers knee for nearly nine minutes in May 2020, protests erupted in over 140 U.S. cities. While the vast majority of protesters were peaceful, some violence and pillaging occurred. In New York City, for example, looters tore off the plywood that covered Macys iconic store in Herald Square on 34th Street, smashed windows, and stole whatever items they could grab before police chased them away. Others ransacked a nearby Nike store after shattering windows and walking off with armloads of athletic shirts, jeans, jackets, and sweatpants. In other citiesfrom Raleigh, North Carolina, to San Francisco, Californiaa small minority of individuals burned cars, attacked police officers, and looted businesses. In response, some U.S. officials fingeredwithout evidenceAntifa as the main culprits. On May 31, President Trump tweeted that he intended to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization. Attorney General William Barr similarly remarked that the violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.

Q1: Who are Antifa?

A1: Antifa is a contraction of the phrase anti-fascist. It refers to a decentralized network of far-left militants that oppose what they believe are fascist, racist, or otherwise right-wing extremists. While some consider Antifa a sub-set of anarchists, adherents frequently blend anarchist and communist views. One of the most common symbols used by Antifa combines the red flag of the 1917 Russian Revolution and the black flag of 19th century anarchists. Antifa groups frequently conduct counter-protests to disrupt far-right gatherings and rallies. They often organize in black blocs (ad hoc gatherings of individuals that wear black clothing, ski masks, scarves, sunglasses, and other material to conceal their faces), use improvised explosive devices and other homemade weapons, and resort to vandalism. In addition, Antifa members organize their activities through social media, encrypted peer-to-peer networks, and encrypted messaging services such as Signal.

Antifa groups have been increasingly active in protests and rallies over the past few years, especially ones that include far-right participants. In June 2016, for example, Antifa and other protestors confronted a neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento, California, with at least five people stabbed. In February, March, and April 2017, Antifa members attacked alt-right demonstrators at the University of California, Berkeley using bricks, pipes, hammers, and homemade incendiary devices. In July 2019, William Van Spronsen, a self-proclaimed Antifa, attempted to bomb the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, using a propane tank but was killed by police.

Like some other types of domestic extremists in the United States, Antifa follow a decentralized organizational structure. In an influential article in the 1992 edition of the magazine Seditionist, anti-government activist Louis R. Beam advocated an organizational structure that he termed leaderless resistance. As Beam noted, Utilizing the Leaderless Resistance concept, all individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid organization. Beam argued that the tactic was just as useful for left-wing as it was for right-wing extremists. The New American Patriot, he wrote several years later, will be neither left nor right, just a freeman fighting for liberty. Leaderless resistance became a useful model for many types of extremists, including far-left networks like Antifa.

Q2: What role have Antifa groups played in the protests?

A2: While it is difficult to assess with fidelity the identity or ideology of many of the looters, my conversations with law enforcement and intelligence officials in multiple U.S. cities suggest that Antifa played a minor role in violence. The vast majority of looting appeared to come from local opportunists with no affiliation and no political objectives. Most were common criminals.

Still, there was some evidence of organized activity by left-wing and right-wing extremists, including from individuals that traveled from other states. John Miller, the deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York Police Department, warned that a small, fringe network of extremists organized violence in New York City. Before the protests began, organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise bail money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with police, he said, based on intelligence collected by New Yorks Joint Terrorism Task Force. They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by corporate entities. There were also multiple reports of white supremacists infiltrating peaceful protests in cities like Boston, Denver, Tampa, and Dallas.

To add to the confusion, there was significant disinformation and a proliferation of fake accounts on social media platforms. For example, Twitter shut down several accounts that it said were operated by a white supremacist group called Identity Evropa, which was posing as Antifa. In one fake account with the Twitter handle @Antifa_US, Identity Evropa members allegedly called for violence in white suburban areas in the name of Black Lives Matters. Tonights the night, Comrades, one tweet noted with a brown raised fist emoji. Tonight we say F--- The City and we move into the residential areas... the white hoods.... and we take what's ours As Twitter explained, This account violated our platform manipulation and spam policy, specifically the creation of fake accounts. We took action after the account sent a Tweet inciting violence and broke the Twitter Rules. More broadly, extremists flooded social media with disinformation, conspiracy theories, and incitements to violenceswamping Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms.

Q3: What is the broader threat from Antifa and other types of extremists?

A3: The threat from Antifa and other far-left networks is relatively small in the United States. The far-left includes a decentralized mix of actors. Anarchists, for example, are fundamentally opposed to the government and capitalism, and they have organized plots and attacks against government, capitalist, and globalization targets. Environmental and animal rights groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, have conducted small-scale attacks against businesses they perceive as exploiting the environment. Antifa followers have committed a tiny number of plots and attacks.

Like virtually every domestic extremist group in the United Statesincluding such white supremacist organizations as the Base and the Atomwaffen Divisionthe U.S. government has not designated Antifa as a terrorist organization. Instead, the U.S. government has generally designated only international terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In April 2020, the Trump administration designated the Russian Imperial Movement, an ultra-nationalist white supremacist group based in Russia, as a terrorist organization. The designation allowed the U.S. Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control to block any U.S. property or assets belonging to the Russian Imperial Movement. It also barred Americans from financial dealings with the organization and made it easier to ban its members from traveling to the United States. While President Trump raised the possibility of designating Antifa as a terrorist organization, such a move would be problematic. It would trigger serious First Amendment challenges and raise numerous questions about what criteria should be used to designate far-right, far-left, and other extremist groups in the United States. In addition, Antifa is not a group per se, but rather a decentralized network of individuals. Consequently, it is unlikely that designating Antifa as a terrorist organization would even have much of an impact.

Based on a CSIS data set of 893 terrorist incidents in the United States between January 1994 and May 2020, attacks from left-wing perpetrators like Antifa made up a tiny percentage of overall terrorist attacks and casualties. Right-wing terrorists perpetrated the majority57 percentof all attacks and plots during this period, particularly those who were white supremacists, anti-government extremists, and involuntary celibates (or incels). In comparison, left-wing extremists orchestrated 25 percent of the incidents during this period, followed by 15 percent from religious terrorists, 3 percent from ethno-nationalists, and 0.7 percent from terrorists with other motives. In analyzing fatalities from terrorist attacks, religious terrorism has killed the largest number of individuals3,086 peopleprimarily due to the attacks on September 11, 2001, which caused 2,977 deaths. In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 fatalities, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethno-nationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths.

Viewed in this context, the threat from Antifa-associated actors in the United States is relatively small.

Seth G. Jones holds the Harold Brown Chair and is director of the Transnational Threats Project at Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. He is the author, most recently, of A Covert Action (W.W. Norton, 2019).

Critical Questionsis produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

2020 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Read more from the original source:

Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat? - Center for Strategic and ...

What Is Antifa: 5 Things To Know About The Movement

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, D.C. President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday afternoon that the United States will designate antifa as a terrorist organization, although some say the U.S. government doesn't have the legal authority to do so.

The State Department can designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups, but the United States has no domestic terrorism statute, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Let's be clear: There is no legal authority for designating a domestic group," the ACLU tweeted Sunday. "Any such designation would raise significant due process and First Amendment concerns."

On Tuesday, Twitter announced that a white nationalist group had been posing as antifa, presumably to cause dissension.

For those who might be a little unsure as to what and who antifa is, here are five things to know about the movement of militant activists.

1. What does Antifa stand for and what are their general beliefs?

Antifa, short for anti-facists, is an umbrella description for a broad group of people whose political beliefs often fall to the far left but do not conform with the Democratic Party.

Antifa members stand against what they view as authoritarian, homophobic and racist systems, according to The New York Times.

2. How long has antifa existed?

The original antifa groups date back to fights against European fascists in the 1940s. The modern antifa movement in America began in the 1980s with a group called Anti-Racist Action, according to the "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook."

3. Who is in antifa?

Part of the issue with Trump's claim that he will designate antifa as a terrorist organization is that it's difficult to label antifa as an organization at all.

The movement has no official leaders or headquarters. Over the past decade, antifa has worked with other local activist networks that are rallying around shared beliefs, such as Black Lives Matter, but it's impossible to know how many members there are, according to The New York Times.

4. What does antifa protest, and what are its tactics?

Antifa members take part in protests and rallies aimed at disrupting authoritative speakers and actions. Many antifa organizers participate in peaceful forms of community organizing, but what sets the group is apart is its willingness to use violence.

Antifa members say they use violence as a means of self-defense and that property destruction does not equate to violence, according to CNN.

"There is a place for violence," Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, told CNN. "Is that the world that we want to live in? No. Is it the world we want to inhabit? No. Is it the world we want to create? No. But will we push back? Yes."

5. Why do antifa members dress in all black?

Antifa members will often dress in all black, sometimes also covering their faces with masks, so they can't be identified by opposing groups or the police.

The all-black uniform is also an intimidation tactic, which allows members to move through a protest as one uniformed group.

Read more here:

What Is Antifa: 5 Things To Know About The Movement

Finally, Portland Antifa is being brought to justice for its violence

Posted on by

After a year of anarchy and unchecked violence, prosecutors are finally doing something about Antifas rolling riot in Portland, Ore.: These last two weeks have seen more than two dozen suspected Antifa thugscharged for an assortment of violent crimes dating as far back as November.

It shouldnt have taken a whole year of watching protesters pelt police with Molotov cocktails and destroy local businesses to realize that the do nothing strategy wasnt working, but here we are.

Its a notable turnaround for District Attorney Mike Schmidt, who after taking office last August refused to prosecute 90 percent of riot- and protest-related cases. At the time, he claimed that change sometimes takes property damage and that it requires more than just peaceful protests to get the governments attention.

But dozens of deaths, hundreds of injured cops and billions in insurance damages across the country seem to have changed his tune. Or maybe it was the fact that Mayor Ted Wheeler received death threats last month for promising to take our city back from the reign of terror.

Charges against 10 suspected Antifa were announced on Thursday alone, mostly for vandalism around Election Day and an Inauguration Day riot. Several more face federal charges.

For the sake of Portlands beleaguered citizens, and for the national rule of law, hope this is just the beginning of a long-overdue crackdown.

View post:

Finally, Portland Antifa is being brought to justice for its violence

What is antifa and who funds it? | Fox Business

Posted on by

Antifa is an umbrella term to describe radical left-leaning militant groups that typically confront neo-Nazism and white supremacists at demonstrations.

Public and elected officials, including President Trump, have blamed antifa activists for violence at protests sparked by the death of George Floyd last week. Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died last Monday after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee on Floyd's neck for several minutes.

HOW SHOULD AMERICA HANDLE ANTIFA?

But officials have said thatin parts of the country, what started as peaceful protests have devolved into organized riots.

Short for anti-fascists, antifa has no hierarchical structure or universal set of tactics that makes its presence immediately recognizable, though members tend to espouse revolutionary and anti-authoritarian views, said Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

Literature from the antifa movement encourages followers to pursue lawful protest activity as well as more confrontational acts, according to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report.

ANTIFA PROTESTS NEW YORK CITY POLICE, TRANSPORTATION

The literature suggests that followers monitor the activities of white supremacist groups, publicize online the personal information of perceived enemies, develop self-defense training regimens and compel outside organizations to cancel any speakers or events with a fascist bent, the report said.

People associated with Antifa have been present for significant demonstrations and counter-demonstrations over the last three years, sometimes involving brawls and property damage.

Trump and members of his administration have singled out antifa as being responsible for the violence at protests triggered by the killing of Floyd.

PROTESTS DRIVE DEMAND FOR TASER MAKER AXON'S LAW ENFORCEMENT PRODUCTS

On Tuesday, Trumps personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told FOX Business Maria Bartiromo the FBI has evidence that shows antifa's involvement.

This is an organized effort. I dont say its a strictly organized effort, but its organized, Giuliani said. Theyre communicating with each other, you know the FBI has a lot of the texts that show antifa's involvement. Theyre anarchists, theyre people who want to drive this government down.

In a pair of statements over the weekend, Attorney General William Barr described antifa-like tactics" by out-of-state agitators and said antifa was instigating violence and engaging in domestic terrorism" and would be dealt with accordingly.

At a White House appearance Monday, Trump blamed antifa by name for the violence, along with violent mobs, arsonists and looters.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters earlier in the day that antifa is a big element of this protest," though she deferred to the Justice Department on the question of how one could be identified as a member.

But it's unclear how big its involvement is.

Police stand near an overturned vehicle and a fire as demonstrators protest the death of George Floyd, Sunday, May 31, 2020, near the White House in Washington.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Bray said that although he believes people associated with antifa are participating in the demonstrations, it is difficult to establish how big of a role they're playing since there is no official roster of members and since the movement lacks the numbers to mobilize nationwide in such a dramatic, forceful way.

The radical left is much bigger than antifa much, much bigger and the number of people who are participating in the property destruction are much, much bigger than the radical left, Bray said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Little is known about who funds antifa activists, or how the groups get their resources. Antifa is not a single organization, and therefore, financial details, if any exist, are murky.

Earlier this week, Trump tweeted: The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization."

Asked Monday what legal authority the president would have for labeling antifa a terror organization, McEnany pointed to the existing statute under the U.S. criminal code that defines acts of domestic and international terrorism.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Even if antifa is not a designated terror organization, FBI Director Chris Wray has made clear that it's on the radar of federal law enforcement.

He has said that while the FBI does not investigate on the basis of ideology, agents have pursued investigations across the country against people motivated to commit crimes and acts of violence "on kind of an antifa ideology."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:

What is antifa and who funds it? | Fox Business

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Posted on by

1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".[8][9] In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.[10][11] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to the Bill of Rights to assure ratification. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[15] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[16][17]

In the 21st century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[17] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[18][19] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun.[20][21][19] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[22] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare". The debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[23]

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.[24][25][26][27] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.[28][29]

The final, handwritten original of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, with the rest of the original prepared by scribe William Lambert, is preserved in the National Archives.[30] This is the version ratified by Delaware[31] and used by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[32]

Some state-ratified versions, such as Maryland's, omitted the first or final commas:[31][33][25]

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states:[34]

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.[35][36]

The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas:[31]

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The right for Protestants to bear arms in English history is regarded in English common law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property. According to Sir William Blackstone, "The... last auxiliary right of the subject... is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is... declared by... statute, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[a]

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament, and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic JamesII was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants WilliamIII and MaryII, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm his subjects, after King Charles II and JamesII had disarmed many Protestants that were "suspected or knowne" of disliking the government,[37] and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[b] The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by JamesII, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[38] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[39]

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown, stating: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[40] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[41]

The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evil Councillors Judges and Ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom (list of grievances including)... by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch)... thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including)... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[40]

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[c][d]

The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law". This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.[42]

There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 168889 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did "little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [sic]."[43] Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[44] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a subordinate auxiliary right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.[45][46]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[47]

Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided in Heller). Some in the United States have preferred the "rights" argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.[48] Without a regular army and police force, it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[49]

In 1757 Great Britain's Parliament created "An Act for better ordering of the militia forces in the several counties of that part of Great Britain called England".[50] This act declared that a well-ordered and well-disciplined militia was essentially necessary to the safety, peace and prosperity of the English Kingdom, and that the current militia laws for the regulation of the militia were defective and ineffectual. Influenced by this act, in 1775 Timothy Pickering created "An Easy Plan of Discipline for a Militia".[51] Greatly inhibited by the events surrounding Salem Massachusetts, where the plan was printed, Pickering submitted the writing to George Washington.[52] On May 1, 1776, the Massachusetts Bay Councell resolved that Pickering's discipline, a modification of the 1757 act, be the discipline of their Militia.[53] On March 29, 1779, for members of the Continental Army this was replaced by Von Steuben's Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.[54] With ratification of the Second Amendment, after May 8, 1792, the entire United States Militia, barring two declarations, would be regulated by Von Steuben's Discipline.[55]

Settlers in Colonial America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[e][f][57][58][59][60][61][62]

Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."[69]

During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build-up, the British parliament established an embargo of firearms, parts and ammunition against the American colonies.[70] King George III also began disarming individuals who were in the most rebellious areas in the 1760s and 1770s.[71]

British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[72] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[72] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars' interpretation of Blackstone.[73]

The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 objecting to the Crown suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:

Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[72][74]

The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with regular French army and naval forces and various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[75] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown on an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.[76] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[77][78] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[79]

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[80] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[81]

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[82] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[83] as Alexander Hamilton explained in his Concerning the Militia essay published in 1788:

...it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.[83][84]

Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection into the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[85][86] Other writers, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. They cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to... institute new Government") and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").[87]

There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent French Revolution.[88] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[g] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[72] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by ArticleI, Section8 of the Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[89][90]

Note: On May 10, 1776, Congress passed a resolution recommending that any colony with a government that was not inclined toward independence should form one that was.[91]

Virginia's Constitution lists the reasons for dissolving its ties with the King in the formation of its own independent state government. Including the following:

* These same reasons would later be outlined within the Declaration of Independence.

A Declaration of Rights. Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[92]

Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[93]

This is the first instance in relationship to U.S. Constitutional Law of the phrase "right to bear arms".

Article 43. The inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed;[94]

It is relevant that Pennsylvania was a Quaker Colony traditionally opposed to bearing arms. "In settling Pennsylvania, William Penn had a great experiment in view, a 'holy experiment', as he term[ed] it. This was no less than to test, on a scale of considerable magnitude, the practicability of founding and governing a State on the sure principles of the Christian religion; where the executive should be sustained without arms; where justice should be administered without oaths; and where real religion might flourish without the incubus of a hierarchical system."[95] The Non-Quaker residents, many from the Western Counties, complained often and loudly of being denied the right to a common defense. By the time of the American Revolution, through what could be described as a revolution within a revolution, the pro-militia factions had gained ascendancy in the state's government. And by a manipulation through the use of oaths, disqualifying Quaker members, they made up a vast majority of the convention forming the new state constitution; it was only natural that they would assert their efforts to form a compulsory State Militia in the context of a "right" to defend themselves and the state.[96]

Articles XXVXXVII. 25. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government. 26. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up, without consent of the Legislature. 27. That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to and control of the civil power.[97]

A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[98]

Article XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.[99]

Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[100]

A Declaration of Rights. Chapter 1. Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.[101]

In March 1785, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference to fashion a remedy to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[105][106]

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal Congress and giving it the power to raise a standing army.[107] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States by doing the following:[108]

Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[109] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[110][111] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This compromise persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[112] The Constitution was declared ratified on June21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[113] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June8, 1789, and was adopted on December15, 1791.

The debate surrounding the Constitution's ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[114]

Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[115] though Whitehill's language was never debated.[116]

There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[117][118]

In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[119]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concerned about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved... Is it possible... that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? Or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[120] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[13][121]

George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of the British government's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[13][122]

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[123]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[124]

In the slave states, the militia was available for military operations, but its biggest function was to police the slaves.[125][126] According to Dr Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law of the Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island,[125] the Second Amendment was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control.[127]In his close analysis of James Madison's writings, Bogus describes the South's obsession with militias during the ratification process:[127]

The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.

This preoccupation is clearly expressed in 1788[127] by the slaveholder Patrick Henry:

If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress ... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution; addition not mentioned in source], can call forth the militia.[125]

Therefore, Bogus argues, in a compromise with the slave states, and to reassure Patrick Henry, George Mason and other slaveholders that they would be able to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government, James Madison (also slave owner) redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia."[127]

Legal historian Paul Finkelman argues that this scenario is implausible.[68] Henry and Mason were political enemies of Madison's, and neither man was in Congress at the time Madison drafted Bill of Rights; moreover, Patrick Henry argued against the ratification of both the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and it was Henry's opposition that led Patrick's home state of Virginia to be the last to ratify.[68]

Most Southern white men betweenthe ages of 18 and 45 were required to serve on "slave patrols" which were organized groups of white men who enforced discipline upon enslaved blacks.[128] Bogus writes with respect to Georgia laws passed in 1755 and 1757 in this context: "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."[129][130][unreliable source]

Finkelman recognises that James Madison "drafted an amendment to protect the right of the states to maintain their militias," but insists that "The amendment had nothing to do with state police powers, which were the basis of slave patrols."[68]

Firstly, slave owners feared that enslaved blacks might be emancipated through military service. A few years earlier, there had been a precedent when Lord Dunmore offered freedom to slaves who escaped and joined his forces with "Liberty to Slaves" stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. Freed slaves also served in General Washington's army.

Secondly, they also greatly feared "a ruinous slave rebellion in which their families would be slaughtered and their property destroyed." When Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, the Haitian Revolution, a successful slave rebellion, was under way. The right to bear arms was therefore deliberately tied to membership in a militia by the slaveholder and chief drafter of the Amendment, James Madison, because only whites could join militias in the South.[131]

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson had submitted a draft constitution for Virginia that said "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". According to Picadio, this version was rejected because "it would have given to free blacks the constitutional right to have firearms".[132]

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[133]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed that a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[134] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[135] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[136]

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around the risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as British forces had attempted to destroy the Patriot militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[137]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States".[138] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[139]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. A motion passed to replace the words "the best", and insert in lieu thereof "necessary to the" .[140] The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version by the Senate was amended to read as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789, to accept the changes made by the Senate.

The enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, on permanent display in the Rotunda, reads as:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[141]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, having been ratified as a group by all the fourteen states then in existence except Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Georgia which added ratifications in 1939.[142]

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[70] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.[70] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[70]

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia... [and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[143]

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."[143] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65percent.[144] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. Though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[145] None is mentioned in the legislation.[143]

The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[146] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[70] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[70] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[70] Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[147] Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.[145]

In the 20th century, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903. The act defined the militia as every able-bodied male aged 18 to 44 who was a citizen or intended to become one. The militia was then divided by the act into the United States National Guard and the unorganized Reserve Militia.[148][149]

Federal law continues to define the militia as all able-bodied males aged 17 to 44, who are citizens or intend to become one, and female citizens who are members of the National Guard. The militia is divided into the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia.[150]

In May of 1788, the pseudonymous author "Federal Farmer" (his real identity is presumed to be either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith) wrote in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a "militia":

Read the original here:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution