All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[worstblogever]

Scott Stone

Welcome to what is the 990th profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be profiling Scott Stone, who served one term in the North Carolina House of Representatives in District 105 from 2016 to 2018, following in the footsteps of fellow CSGOPOTD Jaqueline Schaffer after being appointed to his place by dips*** former North Carolina Governor (and CSGOPOTD) Pat McCrory.

Stone was unseated in the 2018 Blue Wave by Democrat Wesley Harris, sent packing with 48% of the vote. During his brief career as a state legislator, Stone supported numerous GOP voter suppression bills, including his co-sponsorship of HB 1092. Perhaps the most galling vote he had was his “YEA” on HB 330 in April of 2017, a bill that would have limited the liability of any motorist who should drive their car into a crowd of protestors, which was exactly the sort of signal of tacit approval for such a thing that shouldn’t have been sent a the motherf***er who did exactly that at Charlottesville only months later.

After being unceremoniously booted from office by the public, Stone was hoping that a run for statewide office in 2020 to replace another Tar Heel State CSGOPOTD we looked at, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest, might be his way back into elected office.

Stone thought wrong. About a great many things. Like how in May of 2020, of all things, he put Potter Barn on blast on his Twitter account for doing sales at a location in his area by appointment only for pickups because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Dear @potterybarn (and other retailers) : I am NOT shopping by appointment. You’re allowed to be open, so be open. And why close at 5 when mall is open until 7? Do you actually want to sell anything?"

Because nothing is more of an “essential business” during a pandemic than a company that would provide you the right pot to plant tulips in. And he missed their posted store hours by mere minutes. After getting skewered by others on Twitter for his spoiled, clueless post, not for nothing, Stone also became a Covid-19 truther when he claimed that not as many people were dying as reported (as the death toll was approaching 100,000 people in just ten weeks).

Scott Stone finished eighth out of a possible nine candidates in the GOP Primary for Lieutenant Governor, earning just 6% of the vote. We will have to profile the eventual winner, Mark Robinson, another time, because he has said far dumber things on social media than Stone, and far more often, without any apology or deleting them.

[Tendrin]

We should start a rainy day liver transplant fund for WBE. Just in case. All this booze from the profiles can't be good for him!

[worstblogever]

We should start a rainy day liver transplant fund for WBE. Just in case. All this booze from the profiles can't be good for him!

Still not drunk or stupid enough to think there shouldn't be an investigation into 1/6, at least.

[Tendrin]

Still not drunk or stupid enough to think there shouldn't be an investigation into 1/6, at least.

Well, sure. You'd have to be someone who thinks Kamala Harris is in control of Justice Department policy to think like that.

[GindyPosts]

Funny thing. Qpublicans never worried that Democrats would cry foul about the dozen or so partisan investigations into Benghazi not being on the level.

But Benghazi happened during a Democratic presidency, which was when America was at its weakest, security-wise, based on their logic.

There's no need to investigate anything that happened when a Republican was president. Trust the honor system.

It says a lot that the party that hauled ass to get a new justice into the Supreme Court after somebody died when they refused to let Democrats do the same wants to prevent an investigation in a domestic act of terrorism. I guess if you can't blame Muslims or the left, then you must bury it.

[Jack Dracula]

If Q loonies truly think it was Antifa who started the riot/attempted coup shouldn’t they want it investigated?

They understand on some level that the results would not be in their favor.

Baton Rouge settles for $35,000 after officers strip search man and his 16-year-old brother

Only $35,000? That's probably less than a year's salary for a single one of those officers. Seems like the city got off pretty lightly.

[Malvolio]

**********

San Jose Shooter Was Reportedly Under Investigation At Work Over Racist Comments

A number of the 9 victims were people of color. Authorities found 12 other firearms and 22,000 rounds of various kinds of ammunition at the shooter’s home.

**********

But of course we can't do anything to prevent something like this from happening again because our Founding Fathers 230 years ago wanted to protect their muskets and pistols.

[shooshoomanjoe]

But of course we can't do anything to prevent something like this from happening again because our Founding Fathers 230 years ago wanted to protect their muskets and pistols.

Guns are too integrated into our culture, I don't think we can get rid of them. We can have better gun control laws but for some reason, the GOP see that as " the dems want to take my guns away." I think there's just too much ignorance and misinformation in the GOP that prevents the nation from progressing.

[Kirby101]

It's funny, when you bring up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment to a pro gun advocate, whatever law or regulation you think should be passed, they never see that as valid. In fact there are no laws they will agree the ''Well Regulated" provision applies to.

[Tami]

It's funny, when you bring up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment to a pro gun advocate, whatever law or regulation you think should be passed, they never see that as valid. In fact there are no laws they will agree the ''Well Regulated" provision applies to.

I'm no legal scholar, but my own belief about the 2nd Amendment was that the intended purpose of it was not to put the ownership of guns by civilians into the Constitution. Instead, it was simply intended to guarantee that every State could have its own Militia, Military, or other defense force. It was always only about the rights of the States for defense, even if that defense was against the federal government.

Logically, why would anyone put the ownership of guns by ordinary citizens into the Constitution when even back in the 1700s there were citizens who weren't exactly trustworthy.

Even during the Revolution, there were people in the Colonies who supported the British and would shoot George Washington or any of the other founding Fathers if they could.

The wording was poorly chosen for not making this clear, but that is how I see it.

[Kirby101]

I'm no legal scholar, but my own belief about the 2nd Amendment was that the intended purpose of it was not to put the ownership of guns by civilians into the Constitution. Instead, it was simply intended to guarantee that every State could have its own Militia, Military, or other defense force. It was always only about the rights of the States for defense, even if that defense was against the federal government.

Logically, why would anyone put the ownership of guns by ordinary citizens into the Constitution when even back in the 1700s there were citizens who weren't exactly trustworthy.

Even during the Revolution, there were people in the Colonies who supported the British and would shoot George Washington or any of the other founding Fathers if they could.

The wording was poorly chosen for not making this clear, but that is how I see it.

One could read the Federalist Papers and other Founders documents to see you are more right than wrong.

[Robotman]

Texas Republicans Finalize Major Bill of Voting Limits

[

Twitter Erupts After Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Breaks Out ‘Mexican Accent’

The ‘QAnon congresswoman’ pulled another outrageous stunt. Meanwhile, Craven Kevin McCarthy mumbles, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!"

There are bond to be countless insanely insane racist trolls like Greene for years to come because the media is obsessed with her and she’s become an infamous superstar. Any right wing looney from a deep red district that craves attention will try to emulate her I’m sure of it. There are no consequences for her actions except tons of media exposure and lots of funding from equally insane donors.

[AnakinFlair]

Guns are too integrated into our culture, I don't think we can get rid of them. We can have better gun control laws but for some reason, the GOP see that as " the dems want to take my guns away." I think there's just too much ignorance and misinformation in the GOP that prevents the nation from progressing.

No, the gun lobby sees gun control as something that would end up hurting their bottom line. The GOP sees whatever the gun lobby pays them to see.

[numberthirty]

It's funny, when you bring up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment to a pro gun advocate, whatever law or regulation you think should be passed, they never see that as valid. In fact there are no laws they will agree the ''Well Regulated" provision applies to.

While I know I'm gonna sound like a broken record...

We have actually been over this at least a couple of times, right?

No one has heard of or actually recalls District Of Columbia v. Heller?

[numberthirty]

I'm no legal scholar, but my own belief about the 2nd Amendment was that the intended purpose of it was not to put the ownership of guns by civilians into the Constitution. Instead, it was simply intended to guarantee that every State could have its own Militia, Military, or other defense force. It was always only about the rights of the States for defense, even if that defense was against the federal government.

Logically, why would anyone put the ownership of guns by ordinary citizens into the Constitution when even back in the 1700s there were citizens who weren't exactly trustworthy.

Even during the Revolution, there were people in the Colonies who supported the British and would shoot George Washington or any of the other founding Fathers if they could.

The wording was poorly chosen for not making this clear, but that is how I see it.

While I get where folks could see it that way?

This is from the case mentioned -

That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms en-acted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right.

Other than that erroneous point, JUSTICE STEVENS has brought forward absolutely no evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to carry arms in a militia. By contrast, New Hampshire’s proposal, the Pennsylvania minority’s proposal, and Sam-uel Adams’ proposal in Massachusetts unequivocally referred to individual rights, as did two state constitu-tional provisions at the time.

As for how they viewed it versus the way that we see the wording now -

JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whis-per” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is wrong. Story explained that the English Bill of Rights had also included a “right to bear arms,” a right that, as we have discussed, had nothing to do with militia service. 3 Story §1858. He then equated the English right with the Second Amendment:

A similar provision [to the Second Amend-ment] in favour of protestants (for to them it is con-fined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it be-ing declared, ‘that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their con-dition, and as allowed by law.’ But under various pre-tences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nomi-nal than real, as a defensive privilege.” (Footnotes omitted.)