Good Morning!
1 The Las Vegas Strip massacre has triggered so many dumb and unethical quotes flying around on social media and out of the mouths of elected officials that it’s hard to keep up: any of them could sustain a full post.
- Here’s one from Gloria Steinem, quoted approvingly by a feminist Facebook friend:
“How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”
Wow.
First, we learn that no matter what the human tragedy, all some activist can think of is how it can further their own single issue obsession. With Gloria, that single issue abortion, even though there are no helpful or intellectually honest comparisons to be made between guns and abortions. Second, we learn that Gloria never grasped the old “two wrongs don’t make a right” concept. The various abortion-blocking measures she alludes to are all unethical and unconstitutional interference with a Constitutionally protected right, but she would joyfully inflict them on citizens trying to exercise their rights, because she doesn’t care about those.
- This one is more surprising and depressing: Matthew Dowd, a regular on ABC’s Sunday morning round-tables with George Stephanopoulos, meaning that he is presented as competent, historically informed, and trustworthy, actually tweeted,
“2nd amendment was all about having a militia available to protect the government from threat foreign or domestic w/out a standing army.”
This is not just wrong, but spectacularly and inexcusably wrong. Dowd is either lying, ignorant, or unable to process information. His nonsense has been used by anti-gun fanatics for decades, but the Supreme Court and the vast majority of Constitutional scholars reject it, concluding that the Bill of Rights, which all focus on individual rights that cannot be taken away by the government, would not include as #2 provision endorsing militias and nothing more.
The tweet should disqualify him from commenting on any gun policy issues from now until the stars turn cold.
- I decided that Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has already been exposed enough on Ethics Alarms this year (as a result of his unethical and divisive boycott of President Trump’s inauguration) that I don’t need to hand him another Ethics Dunce, but this rant delivered during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball” (which network has been more shameless in anti-gun ravings, MSNBC or CNN? Tough call…) is certainly worthy of the award:
“The American people will not stand to see hundreds and thousands of their fellow citizens mowed down because the lack of action on the part of the Congress…We have to do something…The time is always right to do what is right. We waited too long. How many more people will die? Would it be a few hundred? A few thousand? Several thousand? We have to act. We cannot wait.”
This should be enshrined in the “Do something!” Hall of Fame. Lewis never hinted at what exactly will end gun deaths, just that Republicans and the NRA are responsible for not doing it. This is pure demagoguery and designed to mislead and inflame his party’s Second Amendment hating base. “We have to act! We cannot wait!”
To do what, Congressman? Only one measure would have the results that you claim we cannot wait to enact: banning and confiscating all guns, and even that wouldn’t work.
Lewis has parlayed a well-deserved reputation for courage during the civil rights protest into a too-long career as an incompetent, irresponsible, hyper-partisan and racially divisive legislator.
- Oh, let’s do one more. We can’t ignore the Hollywood crowd, who shoot people on screen for a living, then lecture us about gun control. Here’s actress Patricia Arquette (“Medium”) on Twitter:
“You may have the right to have a gun but you don’t have the right to shoot it at people because you are simply angry…This isn’t about right and left it’s about people thinking they have a right to shoot people b/c they are angry.”
- Are you hungry for more? Here’s Nancy Sinatra (admit it: you were wondering why I had that video at the beginning…) sticking both of her boots in her mouth:
Yes, Nancy, the solution to gun violence is to shoot people for their political views.
2. And now for something completely different: In Catalan, which just completed a referendum on breaking away from Spain that went 90% in favor of “Catalexit,” many of the citizens who did not vote are complaining mightily about the looming secession. Once again, I have to blame the victims. There is some evidence that the Catalan public doesn’t favor breaking away, but the secession group is more passionate and pro-active. It appears that only those wanting to leave bothered to vote.
Well, that’s democracy. Citizens have a duty to vote and participate in their own government. It they can’t be bothered, that apathy is implied consent to let others decide how you are going to be governed. The New York Times quotes Noemi Aguro, 38, a supporter of independence who has no sympathy her neighbors. “They didn’t vote, they had the chance, they shouldn’t complain now,” she said.
There’s an ethics catch, though. Spain tried to block the vote, which it claimed was illegal, directing police to use “truncheons and rubber bullets” to enforce the national government’s order. This thrusts the ethics of the vote into chaotic territory, with such questions as,
…Should a crucial referendum held under such conditions be binding?
…Is it fair and just for voters who cared enough about the fate of their region to come to polls despite police state threats not be able to have their votes count?
…If the referendum results are declared invalid because voting was suppressed by police action, doesn’t that mean that Spain succeeded in using force to suppress democracy in action?
…Can we imagine more bone-headed and incompetent than a government fearing the results of a referendum using threats that are likely to suppress the voters who are likely to support that government’s position more than the voters who oppose the government?
Ethics Alarms 
I hate to point this out, but I got lost here “meqaning that he ispresented as competent,” 😦
No wonder. I thought I proofed better than that this morning. I apologize. Fixed. I think.
Silly Jack. Didn’t you hear? The Spanish government said “Today, we have not had a referendum for self-determination in Catalonia.”, so despite what you think you may have seen, and what was broadcast all over the world, apparently showing Spain, until recently a 1st world country, to now be a third rate banana republic.
I mean, I though Baghdad Bob was bad
How are we not sanctioning the hell out of Spain right now?
Jack,
“Well, that’s democracy.”
Not exactly. The vote wasn’t authorized or approved of by the Spanish Government (who still legally governs the territory) and there’s an ongoing question as to whether or not the referendum has an real legal binding or was even constitutional under Catalonian law. In other words, the pro-separatists held a vote in defiance of the government’s rules and is now asking that same government to accept the results.
So instead of treating this referendum like that, and ignoring the results as not legally binding, they send in cops to hit old lady’s over the heads with clubs for voting? That is reasonable to you? Lets just go straight to violence?
They just legitimized this movement to a whole new tranche of people, and I think ensured violence going forward. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” –JFK
Rusty:
How is that even a little bit what I said?
Jack made the claim that those who didn’t vote “lost” because they chose not to show up. My point was that there are serious questions as to the basic legitimacy of the election itself. Of COURSE the way Spain reacted was terrible, but that only furthers the point. This wasn’t democracy, this was tad amount to asking the choir to vote for the congregation.
The Separatists set up the vote without Spanish authority (so non-separatists boycotted it as illegitimate and didn’t vote), and the Spanish tried shutting it down (voter suppression which further skewed the results). This whole situation makes Bush v. Gore look like a town-hall.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Neil. It seems like leaving out that the election itself was not even approved by the government is a pretty glaring omission. I trust that Jack simply wasn’t aware of this fact.
What part of “Spain tried to block the vote” is unclear? See, when the government tries to BLOCK a vote, it indicates to me, and I assume everyone else familiar with logic and English, that the government did not APPROVE the vote, since typically when one approves something, one does not interfere with it. Of course I was aware of that–this is why I mentioned it, and also pointed out that blocking it was self-defeating. Of course, perhaps the statement “Spain tried to block the vote” was confusing we so often see governments approve of an election and then use force to keep it from taking place. Maybe I missed all of these passive-aggreesive elections where a government says, “OK, you can hold your referendum, but just so you know, we plan on shooting anyone who tries to vote with rubber bullets.” if so, I apologize for my slovenly research.
I must say, however, that calling something a “glaring omission” when it wasn’t omitted at all seems a tiny bit unfair.
Jack,
Just to be clear, I neither said nor implied any of that. I only restated the facts of the case in support of my thesis that the people who didn’t vote still have every right contest the results. If your neighbors held a vote tomorrow on whether or not to secede from the Union, and you didn’t show up because you thought “What a bunch of crack pots!” I would argue you still have every right to argue the results are null if one of them started parking tanks on their front lawn.
In this case, you had separatists holding a renegade election, the results of which were not likely to be accepted by the Spanish Government (and they were right), and so droves of people (largely non-separatists) stayed away assuming it was political theater. On top of that, you had police actively harassing people who entered polling stations and forcibly shutting others down by force. How can those numbers be trusted? How can we have any real idea of who’s “right” when both sides have behaved so poorly (like one of those z-word ethical quagmires you always talking about)?
In other words, that’s not democracy. It’s a farce, and one crafted so that each side would have something to point at the other about and claim betrayal. It was divisive from the beginning and neither side attempted a real compromise and, now, everyone’s just yelling.
P.S.
Why does everyone have to yell? My ears work great.
“GUNS! PUERTO RICO! NO GUNS! BASQUE! WHITE MEN! CATALAN! NO WHITE MEN! GALICIA!”
One of these days you’ll validate something rational I’ve said.
Apologies, Jack; I missed the part about Spain blocking the election. I still agree with Neil, though.
Let’s hope that Spain can hold its union together with less loss of life than it cost Lincoln et al in quashing the secessions of southern states in 1860-61. At least the Spanish president is on stronger legal grounds in being able to point to their 1978 democratically approved constitution which affirms the “indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”. But when tragic mismanagement allows the passions to flare, the legalities may prove irrelevant. And the young men die.
Civil War does not only take young men. That is why they are so tragic.
#1 How about the claim I recently read that said that the right for individuals to keep and bear arms was created by the Supreme Court in 2008 and prior to that the 2nd amendment was never intended to apply to individuals’ keeping and bearing arms.
Yes there you have it folks; we’ve obviously never understood that the rights granted in the Constitution are not rights until the Supreme Court says they are. So the individual right to “keep and bear arms” never existed until 2008 despite the fact that the operative text of the 2nd Amendment very specifically states “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Is this twisted activist view of reality fixable; if so, how?
“Is this twisted activist view of reality fixable; if so, how?”
I wanted to hope that it is fixable by education but I now have serious doubts. A speaker from the ACLU tried to educate students at the College of William and Mary about First Amendment rights. She was shouted down by BLM demonstrators who stated among other things that “The revolution will not uphold the Constitution.”
John Billingsley wrote, “BLM demonstrators who stated among other things that “The revolution will not uphold the Constitution.” “
Well I guess there you have it. The Constitution is dead to BLM – this is a shocking “new” development, shocking.
And hate is dead to BLM – if you trust the Southern Poverty Law Center:
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-not-hate-group
I wonder: Could someone like Nancy Sinatra be designated as a one-person hate group? (Is she fronting for a real hate group?)
I mean, SPLC has practically done that with President Trump – declared him a one-person hate group, that is:
https://www.splcenter.org/tell-president-trump-take-responsibility-hate-hes-unleashed
I am not convinced yet, either, that the stupid, disgusting scrawlings on the black cadet’s whiteboard at the Air Force Academy (Prep School) – “Nigger Go Home!” – was not a false flag op.
“…a false flag op” – or just a thrill-seeking troll’s bait to trigger an unnecessary (and conveniently diversionary), virtue-signaling shitstorm.
“if you trust the Southern Poverty Law Center”
Do tell!
An ethicsalarms commentater EmeritusPar Excellence/Extra Primo Good posted this a while back:
(abridged) “Journalists almost always cite the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when it comes to assessing how much ‘hate’ is in America. There are major problems with using the SPLC, but let’s play along.
”A perfunctory dive into the SPLC’s ‘hate groups’ lists show the fastest-growing hate group segment is…wait for it…Black Nationalists.
”According to the SPLC, Nazi groups have diminished, from 142 in 2014 to 99 in 2016, the most recent data available. From 2014-2016, the only group that grew each year was black nationalists. There were 72 KKK groups identified in 2014, which jumped to 190 in 2015, and then dipped down to 130 in 2016.
”The Black Nationalist groups went from 113 to 180, to currently 193.
”Per the admittedly Lefty-leaning SPLC, the media’s favorite arbiter of hate in America, there are currently almost twice as many black nationalist hate groups (193) as there are Nazi groups (99).
”Do the math: for all the furor (sorry) over Nazis, there are twice as many Black Nationalist hate groups defined by the SPLC — and that’s without adding in Black Lives Matter!
”If you combine all the SPLC’s white-specific hate groups on this year’s ‘hate map,’ you’ll get 450. Even if you include all the listed hate groups, including those that don’t specifically mention race, such as organizations listed because of their traditional Christian beliefs about gay marriage, of the 917 ‘hate groups’ listed, if black groups make up nearly 200 of those, that’s still way out of whack with their 12-13 percent population (black groups making up 21 percent of all hate groups — and this is using every hate group besides black hate groups, according to the SPLC).
”So if you take population into consideration, since whites are 77 percent of the US population, and blacks are just 12-13 percent, it’s a fact that, according to the SPLC, Blacks are far more likely to join a hate group than Whites. (bolds mine)
”This correlates with the ADL, which has published several studies finding Blacks are far more likely to engage in antisemitism than Whites. So are Hispanics.
”I’m always skeptical of these statistics, because they aren’t based on convictions, but on subjective data. And lest we forget, we’ve seen a big uptick in instances of hate hoaxes.
”Of course, there are always fringe idiots who do idiotic things. But how big a threat are Nazis, anyway? If we go by the media’s darling, the SPLC, the black groups are a faster-growing, and much bigger threat.
”Per the SPLC’s ‘hate list,’ black nationalists were also the biggest growing segment of hate groups from 2005-2015. So both long-term and in the past few years, the black hate groups have been the biggest gainers.”
Casts a certain gloom over things, doesn’t it?
Paul, it certainly suggests a certain, er, furor may be rising. [smiling]
”So if you take population into consideration, since whites are 77 percent of the US population, and blacks are just 12-13 percent, it’s a fact that, according to the SPLC, Blacks are far more likely to join a hate group than Whites. (bolds mine)
I have shown you before why this is not a valid interpretation of the data. To determine whether blacks are more likely to join hate groups than whites, you would have to count not the number of groups, but the number of individuals in such groups. What you’re doing now is equivalent to counting up the numbers of blacks-only scholarships and whites-only scholarships, and then concluding that blacks are more likely to go to college than whites.
It is not an invalid interpretation of the data. It is a possible interpretation of the data, but more like conjecture, because there’s an assumption about statistics, that across the board, these types of groups will average about the same amount.
It’s a reasonable assumption, but not a slam dunk solid assumption. That being the case, an interpretation in the opposite direction is valid also, that the black groups, though there be more of them, have smaller “memberships”, while the white groups, though there be fewer, have larger “memberships”.
So it comes down to whether or not the assumption that, across the spectrum of groups, would they tend to *average* about the same “memberships” or not, is a reasonable assumption.
Given also that the overall percentages of the population vary considerably, I don’t think Paul’s conclusion is unreasonable. I don’t think it is slam-dunk, but it isn’t unreasonable.
(also, you’re analogy is flawed)
It’d be more like there being a greater number of blacks-only scholarship organizations than whites-only, and then assuming that more black people receive blacks-only scholarships than whites.
Without reviewing the total size of the scholarship funds or the total number of individual scholarships awarded.
The analogy you propose: “counting up the numbers of blacks-only scholarships and whites-only scholarships, and then concluding that blacks are more likely to go to college than whites.”
Would address if Paul were claiming that counting the total number of blacks only scholarships and whites-only scholarships would allow you to conclude how many blacks and how many whites were in the whole nation.
”Is this twisted activist view of reality fixable; if so, how?”
Possibly.
“I wanted to hope that it is fixable by education”
Was it Alinsky that said make them live up to their own standards?
Going with that, it could be fixable by reeducation, a tried-n-true (tried leastways) method whose results (consequences?) are well documented..
Steinem who embodies the dark side of feminism apparently hasn’t thought much about the vast numbers of women who own handguns, home defense weapons, and rifles and have used them to protest themselves against rape and assault. Some of these women gun owner are actually hunters and some belong to the NRA. Would she disarm these women and make them walk though a walk of shame in order to buy a gun? Or does that apply only to white men?
That should be “protect” rather than “protest”.
”the vast numbers of women who own handguns, home defense weapons, and rifles and have used them to protest themselves against rape and assault.”
One of those would be my Dear Sister, a career Lefty.
Her staunch, and I believe fairly administered, activism has earned her more than her share of death threats, little doubt having been issued by cowardly Righties.
“parental permission”?? Whatta maroon!
Perhaps Gloria “where the boys are” Steinem should stick to something within her skill set, like insulting X-Chromosomal Units whose thinking isn’t ideologically certified.
Aspiring underage abortion recipients?
”According to Guttmacher Institute, a group that tracks abortion policy and statistics, a majority of states require consent and/or notification.
”In 38 states, minors either have to get consent and/or notify their parents, while in 12 states they don’t need either.” (bolds mine)
Aspiring tattoo recipients?
“According to data through March 2015 compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 45 states have laws prohibiting minors from getting tattoos, with the majority of those states allowing it if there’s parental consent. For example, Florida law requires written, notarized consent of a minor’s parent or legal guardian in order to tattoo a minor.”
Nationwide, it appears easier, or at least not as difficult, to get an abortion than it is to get a tattoo.
‘Course, tattoos don’t kill people…
They can make them blind though.
Nice
Putting the approximately 5 million members of the NRA before firing squads would put Nancy well ahead of Pol Pot but greatly lagging Stalin as a mass murderer. I suppose if she adds all the Americans who are in favor of the 2nd Amendment but not actually members of the NRA she could beat Hitler.
Do these people not even think about what they are advocating? They literally want anyone who disagrees with their political agenda dead. Maybe they will settle for a living death by just putting them in a concentration camp.
Considering who has the guns, I would not expect Gloria to survive very long if she got her way
They never seem to get that the beauty and utility of the 2nd Amendment is precisely in preventing potential despots such as themselves from establishing their desired totalitarian state. Thank God for the prescience of the Founding Fathers.
Thank God, indeed. Now, let us with better sense arm-up, lock and load.
They are well aware of what they would like to do, and what they have to change to get there. Socialist always seem to end up with some sort of ‘camp’ for their opponents, and they always collect their opponents guns first.
Socialism always begins with free health care! Free housing! Free education!
But somewhere along the way we get purges, gulags and secret police.
“There is some evidence that the Catalan public doesn’t favor breaking away, but the secession group is more passionate and pro-active. It appears that only those wanting to leave bothered to vote.”
I’ve been watching the secessionist movement in Catalonia because I find it… interesting. Generally, you got it right, but there’s more to the reason why those people didn’t show up than mere disinterest.
The government of Spain had said long in advance that not only was the referendum invalid, but that they would not recognize the results, they had already sent Spain’s national police force into Catalonia, and there was a nonstop stream of video showcasing those policemen pulling people out of polling booths, shutting down polls, pepper-spraying and shooting people with rubber bullets in the streets.
I just don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to assume disinterest in the political process when you have a nation like Spain literally shooting their citizens on the streets to keep them from voting in a referendum they already said they won’t honor.
That 43% of Catalans still managed to get their votes cast was nothing short of a miracle.
But on this note…. Gun Control advocates: take note. In Spain, gun ownership is seen as a privilege, and not a right, everything is heavily restricted and regulated. There were exactly 3,516,681 registered firearms in Spain as of December 31, 2011. And they had a total of 288 firearms related deaths in a country of 47 million people.
Paradise, right?
The people might disagree with you. See… Even if 100% of Catalans voted to leave in the referendum the Spanish government was sewering by clubbing their citizens in the street (at least the ones they aren’t shooting), destroying polling stations, and burning ballot boxes. Spaniards generally don’t have guns, and Catalonia is no different. Spain has threatened that regardless of the mandate of the Catalan people, if their government actually declares independence, Spain will bring in the military to steamroll them, charge their officials with treason and invoke an article of their confederation to remove Catalonia’s ability to self govern.
Because that’s democracy, right?
he various abortion-blocking measures she alludes to are all unethical and unconstitutional interference with a Constitutionally protected right, but she would joyfully inflict them on citizens trying to exercise their rights, because she doesn’t care about those.
I’m not willing to even concede that, Jack. The word “firearm” is explicitly stated in the second amendment.
I’m not seeing anywhere in the constitution nor the amendments any words synonymous with “termination of a pregnancy.” Those “rights” were found by some judges using a fourth amendment argument 195 years after the amendment was ratified. I do understand and agree with Katz v. United States extending the fourth amendment argument to include wiretaps and that has cascaded into computer privacy, smart phone privacy, etc… But the federal government does snoop into medical records with little limitation except for abortion.
On Steinem… Line by line:
“How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period,”
Between stupid and evil, always assume stupid. Gun control advocates have no idea what the rules and regulations are, and so they say stupid things like this. Anyone remember that journalist who was going to buy an AK-47 to show how easy it was, and then failed his background check because he beat his wife? Generally… There IS a waiting period when you’re going to buy a gun. Generally… you CAN’T walk into a store and walk out with a gun.
“parental permission,”
Parental permission is only relevant when the person we’re talking about is under a certain age… Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m almost entirely sure this happens with minors looking to make gun purchases.
“a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because).”
I mean… Yeah, these are shitty practices… The ones that actually happen, granted. But what they’re designed to do is to slow down the process and give time to reconsider. Is that ethical? Probably not. But there are parallel practices.
“Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun.”
States don’t close down abortion clinics, they do things like place burdensome code requirements on their buildings. States DO regulate gun retailers. The difference is that guns are a 31.8 billion dollar a year industry, and their customers support them enough that they can remain open.
“Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.”
Those crowds aren’t state sanctioned, you sanctimonious twit, and nothing would prevent you from doing exactly that, if you and your hordes of slacktivists were up to the task.
“It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?””
No, just 664,000 babies, one at a time.
“Between stupid and evil, always assume stupid.”
The assumption is fair, but it’s too easy to make that assumption and neglect how stupid becomes a basis for evil, and enables and proliferates evil, and thus in its effects is, in the end, essentially synonymous with evil. I believe that the stupidity that is invested in claiming a “right” to abort a prenatal child is one of the more glaring examples to support my point.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m almost entirely sure this happens with minors looking to make gun purchases.”
Oh absolutely.
Here, we do not allow children 4 and under to purchase firearms without adult permission.
Well played, sir.
I wonder if he will take up Holocaust denial yet.
“It was just resettlement to the East!”
John Lewis fails to be aware that about 13,000 people are murdered in the U.S. each year.
6,500 people are murdered by blacks in the U.S. each year. Among them were Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
So I wish someone in the media would inform Lewis about black violence, and ask him what is the “something” we need to do to prevent black violence?
Sundown towns?
South African style pass laws to limit the movements of young black males?
Require young black males to live in barbed wire enclosed hostels?
I I am certain that these measures, had they been in place at the time, would have prevented the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
Is it worth it to infringe on the freedoms of black people in order to save lives?
Lewis betrayed the ideals that he marched for.
Will someone in the network media call him out on this?
How is she wrong.
I have made this same point.
Mere POSSESSION of weapons do not violate people’s rights.
It is SHOOTING these weapons to commit murder, or vandalism, or reckless endangerment that violates people’s rights, and that is already ILLEGAL.
White nationalists probably want to line the “murderous members” of the NAACP in front of a wall and shoot them for opposing Sensible Legislation®™ against black violence, such as requiring young black males to live in barbed wire enclosed hostels.
They are not right either.
and here is one point I want to make.
Last month, the focus was on #BlackLivesMatter and #TakeAKnee. They say they were not protesting the anthem, but racism. They whined about how cops are habitually gunning down unarmed black men,They whined about police brutality. they whined about how the police oppress people of color. They whine about how the police oppress communities of color.
Now the network media and many spokesholes completely ignore that and call for gun control. Chris Kelly is a prime example. He used to post on his Facebook page about how racist cops are, but suddenly he is now posting in favor of gun control.
Do we expect these allegedly brutal, racist cops to enforce gun control laws in an even-handed manner?
Because if you combine #BlackLivesMatter with #GunControlNow, that is exactly what we are supposed to believe.
Are Joshua Black and I the only ones who recognize this?
We have just learned to not expect truth, fair play, principled debate, or consistency from most progressives.
Excellent point in your final 5 paragraphs, Michael.
The Founding Fathers had just fought a brutal revolution against a government that the believed was oppressing its own subjects. They were justifiably wary of a new government being able to do the same thing.
There is no way that the Second Amendment didn’t envision individuals being able to defend themselves — as well as being able to form militias to defend both themselves and their states.
But also remember that the writers of the constitution had a curious blind spot in Philadelphia regarding the Bill of Rights. They basically thought that these rights were so self evident that there was no need to include them in the Constitution. I believe history has proven this to be a bad assumption, and that it was a good thing that the ratification fight ensured that Congress would promptly propose these amendments.
“…the Supreme Court and the vast majority of Constitutional scholars reject it, concluding that the Bill of Rights, which all focus on individual rights that cannot be taken away by the government, would include as #2 provision endorsing militias and nothing more.”
I believe that should be “would NOT include”.
Ya think? $#@!!#%
Fixed.
The only way purchasing a gun could be compared to having an abortion is if every time you went to buy a gun you were required to shoot a baby first.