Monday, June 6, 2022

NO MILITIA, NO GUNS: The Blood-Soaked Lie About the Second Amendment

The Blood-Soaked Lie About the Second Amendment  

Demonstrators hold signs during a 'March for Our Lives' rally in support of gun control, Saturday, March 24, 2018, in Chicago. (photo: AP)  

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

               -James Madison, the Second Amendment

 


Harvey Wasserman / Reader Supported News 

The blood-soaked lie about the Second Amendment is simple.

Gun-lovers who hide behind it to justify “the right to keep and bear arms” criminally ignore the demand with which the Amendment’s author, James Madison, began: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

The bar is clear: if you are a member of an armed unit that is being “well-regulated” by the community, and if your gun ownership can be proven to serve “the security of a free state,” then under the rubric of the Second Amendment, you have a right to own a gun.

But if you cannot meet those two qualifications, you do NOT.

Madison and his contemporary white Founders—-who some on the Supreme Court have elevated to Divine status—-would be horrified to see how this Amendment has been perverted to support a never-ending slaughter of civilians—-especially children—-while doing everything to undermine our nation’s security.

The Amendment was written, in part, to justify the arming of militias often used to capture runaway slaves and slaughter the Indigenous. Those two horrifying realities most (not all) Americans would today reject.

In Madison’s day they were equated with maintaining “the security of a free state.”

Local militias were also key to beating the British and winning our independence.

Rebellious Americans wary of their new government, wanted the right to get their guns and rise up—-as in the anti-tax Shays and Whiskey Rebellions—-to assert their rights (in both cases they were crushed by state and federal armies).

But there was NEVER the “right” of psychotic teenagers and other mass murderers to walk into any gun shop, buy an automatic weapon, then slaughter school children, teachers, doctors, hospital staff, co-workers, ex-spouses and lovers or anyone else that might randomly come to mind.

Confronted with such realities, the Founders of this nation would cry out in anguish over the betrayal of their expectations for “the security of a free state.”

The cynical use of the Second Amendment to justify the never-ending slaughter we now endure is a Constitutional abomination, full of lethal irony.

Many “Second Amendment people” (Trump’s phrase) who justify gun ownership also rabidly support huge arms budgets that have rendered the US military invulnerable to any hope of a citizen uprising.

The routs of the Shays and Whiskey rebels were early indicators of what federal armies and state guards could do to any civilian rebellion in this country. (In fact, a non-violent uprising and general strike would have a far greater chance of bringing down a fascist regime here than would an armed rebellion).

And as witnessed by the utterly corrupt National Rifle Association, the most powerful modern support for “the right to keep and bear arms” comes not from private citizens, but from the weapons industry.

Every mass slaughter in schools or elsewhere is an industry profit center. The instruments of death, the bullets that blow our children to pieces, the knee-jerk purchase of MORE guns for self-defense—-they’re all boons to the weapons business.

But the actual “security of a free state” depends on regulating weapons.

States with stronger gun controls almost all have lower murder rates than those without. The federal ban on automatic weapons vastly lowered the gun death rate—-and would again. Countries that don’t tolerate unregulated guns (nearly the entire rest of the world) suffer a tiny fraction of our murder rates.

The mangled bodies of our precious children prove again and again that there’s no greater threat to our national security than the non-existent “right” of twisted psychopaths to “keep and bear arms.”

Under our clearly stated Second Amendment, NOBODY has the right to a gun without belonging to a “well-regulated militia” or proof that their gun ownership somehow serves “the security of a free state.”

That non-existent “right” is drenched in our childrens’ blood, and has shredded the security of our nation’s existence.

From the mouths of grandmothers and the rest of us who manage to live without owning guns.


Sunday, June 5, 2022

The white headed hyena makes me ashamed to be a Georgia woman. Margie and Peach Tree dishes.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA - APRIL 22:  U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks during a court hearing on April 22, 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Rep. Greene is appearing at the hearing in a challenge filed by voters who say she shouldn't be allowed to seek reelection because she helped facilitate the attack on the Capitol that disrupted the certification of Joe Biden's presidential victory.  (Photo by John Bazemore-Pool/Getty Images)
Don't eat from the Peach tree dish said the moronic woman from the Peach State.  She makes David Perdue look like a genius.

First of all I want all to know I do remember all those having a hard time this Memorial Day...especially this Memorial Day.  It takes a toll on combat vets and now on sane people who are so upset over the massacre in Texas.

I did need a laugh but found myself just shaking my head over Marjorie Taylor Green’s latest tweet.  Watch this nutcase and tell me again why those people from Georgia wanted her not to run were wrong.  There should be an ad running over and over about her insanity: 

"The government wants to track our bowel movement plus they want to zap us via Bill Gates as they grow fake cheesburgers in a Peach dish.   

"McDonalds and Burger King should sue !!!!!"

OMG...Does she go outside and do mushrooms before going on camera or is she just this insane naturally?

"Peach Tree dish" instead of "petri dish."  She talks to hear her own voice.  She is not even halfway sensible,

I am from Georgia and it shames me to say this breed of insanity thrives up there in her territory.  

I need to check and if I have any peach dishes, she would be the second person my cheeseburger would zap.  Trump and his bleach drink would be the first.

Now let me see if I can find some peach dishes here in the house.   

Please dems… Run an ad with the former guy suggesting bleach drink and this one swearing peach dishes of fake meat "is" gonna zap us.

I would laugh but these people have drivers licenses and are walking around  free and need to be in padded cells.  Did she forget her boyfriend Donald eats cheesburgers?  He’ll wash it down with bleach….No worries.

And this is what passes for a Republican today.  Roll over Ronald Reagan.


Saturday, June 4, 2022

STOP THE GOP PRESSES!: It's not just WEED that causes mass shootings; it's also ABORTION!

ScreenShot2022-06-02at11.36.50AM.png

Rep. Good Ole Billy Boy Long of Missouri

The U.S. has seen more than 15 mass shootings since the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24. But of course, despite the increasing concern of gun violence in the U.S., some lawmakers continue to claim guns are not to blame. Instead, some have even jumped on the opportunity to use gun violence to advance their anti-abortion agenda.

In an interview with a radio station on Wednesday, one Republican lawmaker not only failed to acknowledge the role guns play in mass shootings, but blamed abortion for shootings taking place across the country. When asked by The Eagle 93.9, “Is there any appetite in D.C. amongst Republicans to look at doing some things differently as it relates to guns, Congressman?” Rep. Billy Long of Missouri claimed that “inanimate objects” are being blamed for tragedies, and that gun control is not the solution to ending gun violence.

“Unfortunately, they’re trying to blame inanimate objects for all of these tragedies, and there’s so many things that can be done,” he said. The interview focused on Uvalde and whether Republican lawmakers would support changes that enable stricter gun laws.

He not only implied that schools could be better designed to prevent shooting deaths but suggested the increase in gun violence could be traced back to when abortion became legal.

 “When I was growing up in Springfield, you had one or two murders a year. Now, we have two, three, four a week in Springfield, Missouri. So, something has happened to our society. I go back to abortion, when we decided it was okay to murder kids in their mothers’ wombs. Life has no value to a lot of these folks.”

Long’s comments come as no surprise. A section titled "Preserving the Second Amendment" on his campaign website reads: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I am a proven supporter of your right to keep and bear arms and will fight gun-grabbing politicians from infringing on that right. As your Senator I will work tirelessly to defend your 2nd Amendment rights and I won't back down in protecting this fundamental right."

It continues: "I am 100 percent pro-life. I will support Supreme Court nominees who support ending abortions in the United States. I will continue to advocate for the rights of the unborn and will actively fight against legislation that allows taxpayer dollars to fund abortions."

Of course, there is no data to back up his claims. But he isn’t the first to suggest that abortions cause mass shootings, as opposed to guns.

After 10 people were killed in Texas during a mass shooting in 2018, the state's Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick blamed abortion and video games instead of guns in the wrong hands, CNN reported. “We have 50 million abortions," Patrick said during a press conference in the wake of that shooting. "We have families that are broken apart, no fathers at home. We have incredible heinous violence as a game, two hours a day in front of their eyes. And we stand here and we wonder why this happens to certain students."

According to HuffPost, while data doesn't support the claim that mass shootings increased after abortion was made legal, it does show that mass shootings are linked to the production of guns and the lax processes in place to obtain them. 

Cartoon: At this difficult time

At this difficult time, remember to hold your loved ones a little closer... and please share #laloalcaraz cartoons. #Uvalde

Friday, June 3, 2022

ALDOUS J. PENNYFARTHING: Ingraham exposes the real cause of mass shootings: It's not the guns, silly liberal, it's the weed!

On Tuesday’s Ingraham Angle, host Laura Ingraham trotted out one of the Fox News audience’s fave golden oldies: Reefer Madness, baby!

One can imagine your typical Fox News viewer watching the segment late into the night, leering in the direction of his sixth Busch Light with something approaching feral concupiscence. The bleary outline of blonde American banshee Laura Ingraham fires up his once-languorous rods and cones.

“Shut up. Shut up!” he bellows to no one in particular. “Shut up. Laurie Inglemanson is discussing the very real and not-at-all-controversial connection between weed and mass shootings! I knew it. Now go fetch my beer!”

Indeed, while Republican politicians’ and pundits’ superpower remains the ability to walk among us with an utter lack of shame, Fox News viewers appear to have developed a preternatural talent for missing irony. Or for failing to understand that they’re nothing but credulous marks, whose willful naiveté continually gets spun into gold through an endless series of MyPillow and Trumpy Bear ads.

But before it can sell more right-wing tchotchkes, Fox first must regale its audience with its own number-one product: sedatives for aging white folks frightened by a changing world.

After taking a few jabs at President Joe Biden (Fox hosts repeatedly mock him for his speaking style and the things he says, somehow neglecting to note that The Former Guy continually acted like a glitching Furby and had an encyclopedic knowledge of things that weren’t true), Ingraham got into the meat of her segment on the uniquely American epidemic of mass shootings. Predictably, that meat was loaded with goopy fat and gristle—and nonsense.

The gist? It’s not the guns. No, it can never be the guns. It’s the weed, man! It’s always the weed. Turns out the Uvalde shooter’s grandma didn’t let him smoke weed, so obviously that means the weed—and not the AR-style rifles he bought at the tender age of 18—caused the massacre. I mean, how could it be any clearer than that?

Ingraham then went on to discuss some correlations that suggested a link between cannabis and violence—without actually proving anything.

Watch:

(Partial) Transcript!

INGRAHAM: “Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson has written extensively on this subject. ‘A 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, examining a federal survey of more than 9,000 adolescents, found that marijuana use was associated with a doubling of domestic violence in the U.S.’ Then there’s this, the National Library of Medicine. ‘Recent illicit and medical marijuana is of much higher potency and more likely to cause violent behavior. High-potency marijuana is a predictable and preventable cause of tragic violent consequences.’

“My question tonight is, why isn’t there a national conversation happening right now about this? Why aren’t reporters doing more to demand information on this potential drug use, in this case and others, both illicit drugs and prescription drugs? Antidepressants have long been known to be a problem for some young people. Or are we all just going to pretend that Joe confiscating all the 9 mms or Beto running a gun buyback program is going to heal and protect our youth? Is that what we’re hoping?

“You see, I’d rather operate in the real world, and that world is a lot more complicated than the anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun activists would suggest. Whenever there is a societal, cultural, familial, and spiritual deficit, bad things are going to rush in to fill it. Guns, gangs, drugs, then there will be harm to others or self-harm. And until we’re honest about all of this, young people will continue to be pawns in a political game.”

Now, at this point, your bullshit meter should be clanging and flashing red. If cannabis is behind this rash of gun murders, after all, shouldn’t we be seeing waves of mass shootings in Amsterdam? Isn’t it odd that the murder rate has dropped precipitously since the early ‘90s, even as daily cannabis use among young adults—one of the most crime-prone population cohorts—has shot up?

Consider this “blunt” conclusion from a 2017 University of Washington study that examined the impact of cannabis legalization on violent crime.

Results indicate that the legalization of marijuana, both recreational and medical, does not increase violent crime rates. In contrast, marijuana legalization could lead to a decline in violent crime such as homicide, robbery and aggravated assault.

Wait, the researchers determined cannabis legalization could actually lead to a decline in violence? How come they never mention those studies? 

Meanwhile, you’ll be shocked to learn that the former New York Times reporter Ingraham built her argument around has been trotted out by Fox News before. Of course they’d only mention The New York Times if they had fuck-all beyond this dude’s already debunked blathering.

Following two mass shootings in 2019, Fox host Tucker Carlson interviewed Berenson on his show—back when he was still kind of pretending to care about human lives enough not to tell people to forgo their vaccinations.

PolitiFact was swift to take a machete to Carlson’s anti-cannabis hatchet job.

"This is absolute nonsense," said Katherine Newman, interim chancellor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and the author of a book on school shootings. "There is no link whatsoever between marijuana and extreme violence."

Other experts told us there simply isn’t enough of a scientific consensus to draw Berenson’s conclusions.

Meanwhile, several researchers have taken issue with Berenson’s conclusions.

But [Berenson’s] book has been a source of controversy since it was published in January. A public letter signed by 100 scholars and clinicians refuted some of its central findings and accused Berenson of cherry-picking data and presenting correlation as causation.

Ah, yes, correlation and causation. The legendary double-headed hydra of rank bullshit. One could also say cannabis use is strongly correlated with my sitting on my patio, never going anywhere, and never bothering anyone. It’s a correlation that’s held steady for years now. What does it all mean!?

Republicans are bending over so far backward to pin these shootings on anything other than guns, their heads are finally within reach of their natural docking stations. But it’s all—quite predictably—nonsense. The Japanese love video games, but Japan’s gun murder rate remains vanishingly small. Other wealthy countries have high rates of single parenthood, but mass shootings remain rare everywhere but here. And, yes, the Dutch have tolerated cannabis use for decades, yet our rate of gun violence deaths is nearly 18 times theirs. 

Of course, Fox News isn’t all that interested in the truth—or in solving seemingly intractable problems. No, along with Mike Lindell’s quotidian foam sacks, they’re selling their audience hulking laundry loads of cozy confirmation bias.

It’s easy enough to see through, but sadly, it works. Ingraham knows that better than most. And that, dear folks, is why she does it.Fox News marks start of LGBTQ Pride Month by attacking trans people across multiple shows

 "Republicans are bending over so far backward to pin these shootings on anything other than guns, their heads are finally within reach of their natural docking stations."


Thursday, June 2, 2022

What Dissenting Justices Could Do to Save Roe

 The One Thing the Dissenting Justices Could Do to Save Roe 

SCOTUS left to right: Guy sleeping or praying or dead, guy who reallyreallyreally likes beer, guy smirking because his wife is off creating illegal mischief, liberal lady, guy who doesn't know who he can trust anymore, big tall guy posing as statue, guy who has no idea where he is, ventriloquist dummy waiting for Christian kook to pull her mouth cord, and, finally, another liberal lady. (photo: Erin Schaff/Getty Images)

Five of the nine Supreme Court justices are prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade and wrest from hundreds of millions of Americans the fundamental right to access abortion. The four justices in the minority can and must stop that from happening. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, should recuse themselves in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and deny the Supreme Court a quorum, preventing the end of Roe.

Federal law and the Supreme Court’s own rules establish the quorum of justices necessary to do business at six. Put another way, unless at least six justices agree to hear a case, the Supreme Court cannot act. Thus, a denial of quorum would deprive the presumptive five-justice majority in Dobbs from adopting Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion, leaving Roe intact for now.

Deprivations of quorum are not novel. For instance, in 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to hear American Isuzu Motors Inc. v. Ntsebeza, a case concerning a group of businesses accused of maintaining apartheid in South Africa. Because so many large corporations were named defendants, four justices recused themselves due to conflicts of interest. As a result, the Supreme Court lacked a quorum and the five remaining justices were unable to rule on the case.

In such situations, federal law states that a majority of the remaining justices can either affirm the judgment of the lower court or, if they believe the lack of quorum is temporary, hold the case until the next term and decide it then. Accordingly, a majority of the five qualified justices in Ntsebeza voted to affirm the appeals court’s judgment, presumably because they did not foresee their fellow justices’ conflicts of interest abating.

Moreover, justices can recuse themselves from any case for any reason. To that end, while federal law compels recusal in the face of certain conflicts of interest, it imposes no requirement that unconflicted justices hear a case. Indeed, despite some lower courts imposing a “duty to sit” on federal judges—a duty that Chief Justice William Rehnquist once thought applicable to Supreme Court justices—never has a majority of the Supreme Court held that its justices must decide a case where they are qualified to do so.

For example, despite his qualification to hear cases, Justice Robert Jackson famously took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court from 1945 to 1946 to serve as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, leaving eight justices to keep the court operating in his absence. Furthermore, to the extent a “duty to sit” ever applied to Supreme Court justices, Congress abolished it in 1974 to relieve federal judges from having to hear cases where they were arguably disqualified due to conflicts of interest, thus “enhanc[ing] public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial system.” One consequence of this legislation was an increase in the independence of the judiciary, giving judges the unchecked discretion to recuse themselves whenever they please, so long as federal law does not compel them to do so. Today, the four justices who will ostensibly make up the Dobbs minority can recuse themselves despite their having no apparent conflict of interest.

Justice and the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court demand that these justices do so. No government should force pregnant people to give birth against their will. Plus, if Roe falls, countless other fundamental rights will be on the chopping block. And as Sotomayor warned at oral argument, overturning Roe would undermine the republic itself by fomenting an enduring “stench” that “the Constitution and its reading are just political acts.” In contrast, saving Roe would signal that, at least sometimes, this court still upholds the rule of law, politics be damned. A court whose legitimacy is on life support is better than a court whose legitimacy has been aborted. For all these reasons, it is vital to prevent Roe’s downfall by any lawful means.

Here in Texas, we are familiar with such procedural maneuvers. Last summer, Democratic legislators fled the state to temporarily divest the Republican-led Texas House of Representatives of the quorum needed to pass a bill restricting voting rights. The gambit worked for several weeks until the legislators inevitably returned home. The difference here is that four justices could deny the Supreme Court a quorum to hear abortion cases permanently.

Although this tactic would be wholly novel in the judiciary, there is also nothing new about a minority of officials in one branch of our federal government thwarting majority rule. Americans are undoubtedly familiar with the filibuster—the arcane rule where a minority of senators can block debate and prevent a majority of senators from voting on a bill. Depriving the Supreme Court of a quorum is a similar tactic. These kinds of undemocratic moves are unfortunately the only weapons we have against a political minority that has cemented its outsize influence in undemocratic ways.

So, to the four justices writing your dissents in Dobbs: Stop writing. Take evasive action. Recuse yourselves. Denying quorum to avoid constitutional calamity may set a troubling precedent, but at least the Supreme Court would survive, as would the fundamental rights of millions upon millions of Americans. Watching your colleagues destroy a core constitutional right would be unimaginable. But watching them do so when you could have stopped them would be unforgivable.

There's something about this picture that just says it all where the Supreme Court is concerned.  What a sweetie.

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Canada Plans Complete Freeze on Handgun Ownership in Response to Uvalde Massacre

Royal Canadian Mounted Police display seized firearms in Surrey, British Columbia, last year. (photo: Darryl Dyck/AP)  
 
It will be illegal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in country, Justin Trudeau says

The Canadian government has introduced legislation that would put a freeze on importing, buying or selling handguns.

“We are capping the number of handguns in this country,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau. The regulations to halt the growth of personally owned handguns is expected to be enacted this autumn.

“It will be illegal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” the prime minister said.

Canada already has plans to ban 1,500 types of military-style firearms and offer a mandatory buyback programme that will begin at the end of the year.

Trudeau said if someone really wanted to keep their assault weapon it would be made completely inoperable.

Canada had already expanded background checks ahead of this total ban. Trudeau has long had plans to enact tougher gun laws but the introduction of the new measure comes after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, NY, this month.

Bill Blair, minister of emergency preparedness, said Canada was “very different from the United States”. “In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right,” he said. “This is a principle that differentiates ourselves from many other countries in the world, notably our colleagues and friends to the south. In Canada, guns are only intended to be used for hunting and sport purposes.”

Canada has had far fewer mass shootings than the US in part because of a lack of easy access to guns, though the US population also is far larger than Canada’s.

Blair said guns were often smuggled in illegally from the US, which he noted had one of the largest small arms arsenals in the world.

The Canadian government plans to fight gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border measures.

Trudeau said increased funding already helped border officials double the amount of smuggled guns confiscated at the US border. His government also said the bill would allow for the removal of gun licences from people involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment such as stalking.

The bill would create a new “red flag” law allowing courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police. The government said the measure would guard the safety of those applying through the process – often women in danger of domestic abuse – by protecting their identities.

Rifle magazines would be permanently altered so they can never hold more than five rounds, and the bill will ban the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines.

“Canada can teach us a lot,” tweeted Bruce Heyman, a former US ambassador to Canada under the Obama administration.

Trudeau said his government recognised that the vast majority of Canadians who owned guns were responsible, but the level of gun violence was “unacceptable”. “This is a concrete and real national measure toward keeping Canadians safe,” Trudeau said.

The new measures are likely to pass in Canada’s parliament as the ruling Liberals and leftist opposition New Democrats have enough votes.

Pierre Poilievre, who is running to be leader of the Conservative party, said law-abiding gun owners should be respected and dangerous criminals should be jailed.

Trudeau said: “Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.  “We need less gun violence. We cannot let the gun debate became so polarised that nothing gets done. We cannot let that happen in our country. This is about freedom. People should be free to go to the supermarket, their school or their place of worship without fear.”


Putin Has Trump Right Where He Wants Him

  President's outright betrayal of Ukraine shows the U.S. is in a precarious position       Heather Digby Parton / ...