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

[The Cool Thatguy]

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.

Well, are we supposed to believe in an era in which some men and women were slaves, that the Founding Fathers really wanted guns for everyone?

[worstblogever]

Well, are we supposed to believe in an era in which some men and women were slaves, that the Founding Fathers really wanted guns for everyone?

Everyone white, obviously.

A tradition that was brought back via the Mulford Act, made Ronald Reagan believe in gun control, when the Black Panthers started arming themselves. Not that Ronnie was racist or anything. (He very much was.)

2nd Amendment is absolute, as long as you're pale enough.

[Kirby101]

While I get where folks could see it that way?

This is from the case mentioned -





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

First, I was talking about NRA-gun nuts in general.
But OMG, you are actually quoting Scalia!?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1544...antonin-scalia

To support his point, Stevens also looked to debates during the ratification of the amendment, where discussions of the militia focused on military service instead of individual ownership. “The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger,” he wrote. “But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed.”

It’s not unusual for judges to look to English history when interpreting the Constitution. Stevens argued that it was a poor fit for this case. “The Court may well be correct that the English Bill of Rights protected the right of some English subjects to use some arms for personal self-defense free from restrictions by the Crown (but not Parliament),” he explained. “But that right—adopted in a different historical and political context and framed in markedly different language—tells us little about the meaning of the Second Amendment.”

[numberthirty]

First, I was talking about NRA-gun nuts in general.
But OMG, you are actually quoting Scalia!?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1544...antonin-scalia

Unless the guy actually created a time machine, and created the English law that he pointed to...

[numberthirty]

And...

That's not even talking about early state constitutions, and the language in them as far as the right.

(Pennsylvania/Washington being a pretty obvious examples...)

While it's a separate discussion from if you can create perfectly reasonable laws that are acceptable, it's not like no language that revolved around there actual being an individual right when it came to this existed at the time and folks are simply misunderstanding the Second Amendment.

[Kirby101]

Actually not a separate discussion. My exact point was NRA types accept no laws as acceptable or reasonable. You tried to change the subject with Scalias's garbage.

[numberthirty]

Actually not a separate discussion. My exact point was NRA types accept no laws as acceptable or reasonable. You tried to change the subject with Scalias's garbage.

Sure it is.

That they only see a whole does not change actual reality or history.

Never mind that Scalia certainly did not write the constitution of a state like Pennsylvania.

[Malvolio]

Everyone white, obviously.

A tradition that was brought back via the Mulford Act, made Ronald Reagan believe in gun control, when the Black Panthers started arming themselves. Not that Ronnie was racist or anything. (He very much was.)

2nd Amendment is absolute, as long as you're pale enough.

This. I know I can't remember the last time the NRA defended a gun owner who wasn't white.

[Mister Mets]

I can still remember when so many of us were so happy that Krysten Sinema became the first openly bisexual US Senator a few years ago. What a disappointment she's shown herself to be. And for what? So that she can be the center of attention on C-Span or CNN?

Perhaps someone who won a pivotal election knows what she's doing.

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.

Is the GOP wrong to think Democrats want to take guns away?

Much of the proposed legislation wouldn't have a significant impact and gun-owners are aware of this.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/nationa...ded-re-embrace

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.

If this were true, there's an easy solution for anyone opposed to gun violence. All they need to do is offer Republicans more money than the gun lobby can.

The reality is that it doesn't matter how much money the gun lobby spends, as much as the signal it sends voters.

And...

That's not even talking about early state constitutions, and the language in them as far as the right.

(Pennsylvania/Washington being a pretty obvious examples...)

While it's a separate discussion from if you can create perfectly reasonable laws that are acceptable, it's not like no language that revolved around there actual being an individual right when it came to this existed at the time and folks are simply misunderstanding the Second Amendment.

A 1982 Senate report on the meaning of the right to bear arms considers the history of the question, and generally suggests that the right to bear arms means what it says.

https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

[numberthirty]

...

A 1982 Senate report on the meaning of the right to bear arms considers the history of the question, and generally suggests that the right to bear arms means what it says.

https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

Sure.

Personally, I've always felt like it is straddling a pretty odd line.

Just seemed worth pointing out that there is a lot of historical context that points away from the idea that "What They Intended Was Strictly About A Militia, And It Has Been Misunderstood..."

[numberthirty]

This. I know I can't remember the last time the NRA defended a gun owner who wasn't white.

While I know that not everyone keeps up with exactly what that particular outfit is up to...

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/99359...watu-salama-ra

[Kirby101]

What must be remembered about the treasonous NRA is they laundered Russian mo ey to spend on the 2020 election and their President is a criminal. But yet the GOP continues it's complete fealty to them. Of course the GOP also sold their souls to the Russians.

[Tami]

Protestors surround Nashville hat store following controversial Instagram post

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – Protestors surrounded a Nashville hat store on Saturday following a controversial post on Instagram.

The hatWRKS hat shop in Nashville is on 8th Ave S. and the owner posted to Instagram on Friday wearing a yellow patch resembling the Star of David that read the words “not vaccinated”.

The post described the patches as “great” with a “strong adhesive back” and that they would be making hats soon.

The post was later deleted from the account after several people commented saying it was offensive. The shop then posted again questioning why people were outraged by the earlier post, but not with the “tyranny the world is experiencing” today.

Below is a statement on Twitter from the John B. Stetson company

We are aware of the situation in Nashville. We take this matter seriously and are investigating in order to take the necessary and appropriate next steps. Along with our distribution partners, Stetson condemns antisemitism and discrimination of any kind.

As a result of the offensive content and opinions shared by HatWRKS in Nashville, Stetson and our distribution partners will cease the sale of all Stetson products. We thank you for your continued support and patience.

[Tami]

Twitter Link

[worstblogever]

This. I know I can't remember the last time the NRA defended a gun owner who wasn't white.

I think the late former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger put the argument against gun control by the NRA and other groups as one of the "greatest frauds" in the history of our country back in 1991.



It's 30 years later. And somehow, people aren't tired of it being perpetuated yet. Even after the NRA got caught funneling Russian money into the American election.