More On The Second Amendment

The US House has done a bold move (or is it?)…..

The House passed legislation Friday to revive a ban on certain semi-automatic guns, the first vote of its kind in years and a direct response to the firearms often used in the crush of mass shootings ripping through communities nationwide. Once banned in the US, the high-powered firearms are now widely blamed as the weapon of choice among young men responsible for many of the most devastating mass shootings. But Congress allowed the restrictions first put in place in 1994 on the manufacture and sales of the weapons to expire a decade later, unable to muster the political support to counter the powerful gun lobby and reinstate the weapons ban. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed the vote toward passage in the Democratic-run House, saying the earlier ban “saved lives.”

President Biden hailed the House vote, saying, “The majority of the American people agree with this common sense action.” He urged the Senate to “move quickly to get this bill to my desk.” However, it is likely to stall in the 50-50 Senate, the AP reports. The House legislation is shunned by Republicans, who dismissed it as an election-year strategy by Democrats. Almost all Republicans voted against the House bill, which passed 217-213. The bill comes at a time of intensifying concerns about gun violence and shootings—the supermarket shooting in Buffalo, NY; massacre of school children in Uvalde, Texas; and the July Fourth shootings of revelers in Highland Park, Ill.

The bill would make it unlawful to import, sell, or manufacture a long list of semi-automatic weapons. Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, said it includes an exemption that allows for the possession of existing semi-automatic guns. Reps. Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania were the only Republicans to vote for the measure. The Democratic lawmakers voting no were Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas. Among the semi-automatic weapons banned would be some 200-plus types of semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s, and pistols. The restrictions would not apply to many other models.

Was this just a move to garner support for the upcoming election…..we all know that it will not fly in the Senate…..so what was this passing all about.

Then there will be the debate on the 2nd amendment……

I know–I know—-haven’t we had enough debate on the guns thing?

I say no because it is an issue that needs resolving one way or the other……

There have been more mass shootings in the last five years than in any other five-year span since 1996.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident where four or more people are injured or killed, there have been 2,403 mass shootings from 2017 to 2021, with 2,495 dead and 10,225 injured. The group’s data reveals a steep rise in recent years: 692 mass shootings in 2021, up 66% from 2019’s total of 417.

As of July 6, the group has recorded 320 mass shootings, putting 2022 on track to finish as one of the deadliest years in US history.

According to the CDC, 124 people die every day in the US in acts of gun violence.

Time for a re-think?

Years ago I made my thoughts known to my readers on the 2nd amendment……

Why The 2nd?

But that is just my opinion on the creation of this amendment….but let’s look deeper shall we?

Amid today’s heated debates about gun laws and the Second Amendment, what many people may not realize is that the phrase “the right to keep and to bear arms” is older than the Bill of Rights. It was penned years before the United States won its independence from England. 

In 1779, Founding Father and future president John Adams wrote this phrase at his law office in Quincy, Mass., as he drafted the Massachusetts Constitution — the oldest in the world. He did so a decade before the phrase appeared in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

James Madison argued on behalf of an armed citizenry as a bulwark to federal overreach in Federalist No. 46, published in 1788 as debate took place over shape of the new American government.

A national army of 25,000 to 30,000 men “would be opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands,” wrote the statesman often dubbed “Father of the Constitution.”

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/gun-laws-story-right-keep-bear-arms

That was from the FOX point of view…..now let’s look elsewhere…..

The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads: “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.” Responsible readings of this sentence note that it locates gun rights within the framework of militia service, not as an individual entitlement. By contrast, the 5th Amendment, ratified the same year, says that “No person” shall be denied due process.

Militias aside, there is also the “keep and bear” part of the 2nd Amendment to consider. In the founders’ era, to “keep” meant to own and possess something inside one’s home, while “bear arms” referred specifically to shouldering a musket or rifle in an army or militia.

Nowhere does the amendment declare or suggest a right to “go armed,” the term used in that era for carrying a weapon such as a pistol or dagger, either openly or in secret. Going armed was not legal. It was a form of misdemeanor known as an affray, from the French effrayer, to make afraid. Indeed, many of the new states responded to a disturbing rise in violence in the early republic with more restrictions on those carrying firearms and other weapons.

In part, that uptick in violence can be attributed to dueling, an aristocratic custom that the haughty officers of the Continental Army learned from their British and French peers. While duelists at least had the decency to count 10 paces and take aim before firing, the so-called “blades” of the southwestern frontiers simply swaggered around with pistols and cane swords, demanding that everyone treat them like royalty on pain of a beating or shooting.

Contrary to romantic mythologies about the frontier, neither duelists nor blades were very popular. Then as now, most people just wanted to go about their lives without getting shot, stabbed or bullied. And they were willing to stand up for their right to do so.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-22/gun-rights-control-second-amendment-supreme-court

Just a few more looks into the 2nd amendment….will this end the conversation (if it can be called that)?  Probably not but all aspects of this amendment should be studied.

There has got be common ground and soon…..for daily mass shootings keep happening and we are basically shrugging them off and moving on to something else.

Hopefully you will give the articles a read….and hopefully engage your brain for deeper thought that the shallowness we have today around guns.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Advertisement

Closing Thought–25Jul22

Another right winger goes into the ‘Can’t Fix Stupid’ File……

This tine it is that idiot from Florida (go figure), Gaetz, on the abortion issue…..

Appearing before a Florida convention of young people, Rep. Matt Gaetz said Saturday that women demonstrating for access to legal abortions are too unattractive to become pregnant. “Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions?” Gaetz told the group. “Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.” The Republican lawmaker was speaking to about 5,000 young people at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, USA Today reports.

“Calling women unattractive is kind of Gaetz’s go-to schtick,” Laura Bassett writes for Jezebel. He made a complementary point in a tweet when the US Supreme Court threw out Roe v. Wade, posting, “How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?” Bassett calls Saturday’s remarks by Gaetz, who is under federal investigation on suspicion of sex trafficking, “cartoonishly misogynist.”

The crowd did not boo the comments, which Gaetz included in his Twitter feed. Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey called Gaetz’s speech “brain-dead misogyny” in a tweet, warning that after the midterm elections this fall, the next Congress will include more lawmakers who think that way. Former President Donald Trump also addressed the student audience and referred to Gaetz. “What a wonderful guy,” Trump said.

This from a guy that is under investigation for his sexual proclivities….

I am speechless at the unfeeling bullsh*t these types of ‘people’ can come up with on any given day.

Another GOPer opens mouth and proves ‘You Can’t Fix Stupid’…..

It seems these morons try to out stupid each other daily…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

“Free The Nipple”

Before I am accused of being a dirty old man, that this movement is more about equality than just flashing one’s breasts…I would be a liar if I said that it is not enjoyable for me…there is so much more to this than you would think……

There have been many women’s movements….like
“Ban The Bra”…..the push for acceptance of public breast feeding…..of course the Puritan wing of the GOP have always been afraid of women’s breast in one form or the other….

Before I go on and make it look like I am that dirty old man your mother warned you about……

“Free the nipple” has made headlines yet again, this time over Instagram’s public apology to director Pedro Almodovar for censoring the poster for his latest movie Madres Paralelas. The image, designed by artist Javier Jaen, features a lactating nipple cropped to appear as a crying eye, and it was widely removed on the platform for violating Instagram’s guidelines. The apology issued by Instagram resulted in Almodovar proclaiming victory over the algorithm, and an abundance of media attention including the New York Times’s article.

The body-equality slogan “Free the nipple” is so ubiquitous that it sounds as though it belongs in the annals of history alongside “Make love not war” and “Votes for women,” but actually this international rallying cry is barely a decade old. Born into the Instagram-age and made infamous through it, “Free the nipple” has regularly popped up on social media accounts, despite the fact that #FreeTheNipple itself is invisible on the platform: Type in “#FreeTheNipple” in the Instagram search bar and it will direct to a stark notice: “This Hashtag Is Hidden.” Alternatively, add a year to the slogan such as #freethenipple2021 and it works, effectively rendering the movement a yearly trend rather than the full-voiced campaign for change that it is.

Free the Nipple: A History of a Hidden Movement

Personally I do not understand the fixation of women’s breast…..I would be lying as a man if I said it did not matter….but let’s be real….I am a man and I am not dead yet….the concern should be for the 300+ mass shootings this year so far and less about what breasts are doing.

This is the story I read that got me to thinking about the movement…..and of course the trolls on social media that attack the young woman….

Who would have thought that a sheer hot pink dress worn by an award-winning actress on the red carpet of a fashion show could have the power to send the internet into such a tizzy?

But it was never really about the dress, was it? It was about what’s under the dress and, more specifically, what exists just under the surface of society. The sheer fabric of a Valentino dress not only revealed Florence Pugh’s breasts, but shone a spotlight on the thinly veiled misogyny that remains rampant 2022.

This past Friday, Midsommar star Florence Pugh walked the red carpet at Valentino’s haute couture show in Rome wearing a fuschia tulle gown designed by the brand’s artistic director, Pierpaolo Piccioli. A nod to the emerging Barbie-core trend, the ensemble was all pink and featured a gauzy halter bodice that exposed the actress’ breasts and oh-so controversial nipples.

“Technically they’re covered?” Pugh wrote on Instagram, a platform known for its censorship of the female form. Posting these beautiful images to her following of 7.6million, it wasn’t long until the trolls crawled out of the woodwork.

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2022/0714/1310146-a-sheer-double-standard-why-are-womans-nipples-still-taboo/

It is the 21st century in real time but still Victorian in some eyes…..I do not understand the taboo-ness of nudity these….I mean one click on the PC and anyone can see all they want and much more graphic than some woman’s nipples.

I am old but I would to think that I have matured with time….I try to keep my thinking moving forward….I refuse to let it go in reverse.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Is SCOTUS The Final Word?

It is a common thought that all is lost when SCOTUS makes its decisions for they have the final word.

Is that necessarily true?

When the Supreme Court was holding oral arguments last December in the case that brought about the end of Roe v. Wade, Justice Sonia Sotomayor addressed the familiar argument that the Constitution doesn’t mention a right to privacy. That fact was a central argument in the court’s majority opinion issued last month, per NPR. But there’s a lot that’s not mentioned in the Constitution, the justice said. In fact, “there is not anything in the Constitution that says that the Court, the Supreme Court, is the last word on what the Constitution means,” Sotomayor pointed out. “And yet, she added, “what the Court did was reason from the structure of the Constitution that that’s what was intended.”

The justice might have been mostly intending to say that rights, including the one to privacy, can exist without being clearly stated in the Constitution, but Joshua Zeitz writes in an opinion piece in Politico that the power of judicial review is in the same boat. “Both exist by strong implication,” he says. Mostly, the court claimed that right for itself. Some framers did expect the Supreme Court, as well as lower federal courts, to exercise a veto on constitutional grounds over congressional and state acts, Zeitz writes. “But they did not intend this power to be unchecked or unlimited,” he says.

The Constitution is all about checks and balances, and the other branches could move to limit the judiciary just as the courts limit the activities of the others. The Constitution didn’t even design the court system, it left it to the other branches. So they can take steps to restrict the court on certain issues, Zeitz points out. Congress could pass a law denying the court authority over a new voting rights act, for example. “Ultimately, it is the responsibility and prerogative of the executive and legislative branches to encourage greater restraint and humility on the part of the judiciary,” Zeitz writes.

You can read the full piece here.

I have my doubts about this pronouncement…..why?

The US Congress is a toothless tiger.  It is so wrapped up in the mundane crap trying to find a consensus (at least one party is)….nothing will be done for SCOTUS is about political agenda and not what is best for this nation.

And of course there are opinions on how to ‘fix’ the Supreme Court….here are a few (my thoughts later)…..

The Supreme Court’s just-concluded term was a bacchanalia of reactionary indulgence. Roe v. Wade is dead. Gun laws throughout the nation are now in peril. The Court is pummeling the wall separating church and state — and it isn’t afraid to tell easily disprovable falsehoods to achieve this goal. The Court’s GOP-appointed majority curtailed the EPA’s power to fight climate change, and gave themselves an open-ended veto power over any federal regulation.

It’s likely that the worst is yet to come. Three “shadow docket” decisions this past term suggest that the Court is about to slash safeguards against racial gerrymandering. Another case looming in the next term, involving North Carolina’s gerrymandered congressional maps, is likely to give Republican state legislatures the power to defy their state constitution when writing election laws. And that’s after the Court has spent the last decade dismantling the Voting Rights Act and stripping the federal courts of any authority to fight partisan gerrymanders.

The Court’s Republican majority isn’t simply handing down bold conservative policy decrees, it is undermining democracy itself.

But just because court reform isn’t currently politically viable doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering, especially if Democrats somehow manage to pick up larger majorities in a future Congress. There are several options to deal with an increasingly partisan Supreme Court. Here are 10 of them.

https://www.vox.com/23186373/supreme-court-packing-roe-wade-voting-rights-jurisdiction-stripping

My thoughts on these ‘solutions’…..

Court packing is not viable….not in this political climate.

The Supreme Court lottery….now I can get behind this ‘solution’….

The most talked about ‘solution’ is term limits….another one that I agree with….as long as the Congress limits are included.

Omnibus legislation to overrule the court decisions…..again a good idea but the political climate these days will prevent anything like this idea to see the light of day.

SCOTUS needs reforming and some ideas are good……but as long as the court is run by political hacks all we can do is wish and hope and witness the death of the republic.

Any ideas you would like to share?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS–Only The Beginning

The recent rulings by our political hacks on the Supreme Court have ripped into the very foundation of our beloved nation….and sadly this session is only the beginning of the dismantling.

Disastrous rulings are crippling the process we call democracy….

No single day has better captured the current state of the Supreme Court than Thursday. At 10 a.m., the court issued a devastating assault on the Biden administration’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases in a 6–3 ruling joined by all of the court’s reactionary block. Ten minutes later, it issued a 5–4 opinion that just barely confirmed that the president, rather than a rogue judge in Texas, has authority over border policy, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh lending the lone votes preventing an absolutely insane outcome. Shortly thereafter, the court issued a bombshell orders list that tees up, for next term, one of the most important and dangerous democracy cases in American history, which asks whether state legislatures have near-unlimited authority over election laws.

The court’s most immediately lethal decision remains Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. But do not let Dobbs distract from the onslaught that followed it. If anyone still doubted that the Supreme Court served as the nation’s chief policymaking institution after Dobbs, Thursday should put that to rest. The court is ruthlessly efficient, putting our gridlocked Congress to shame with its speedy and definitive resolution of the most pressing issues facing the country today. It does not require hourslong hearings or endless negotiations to operate. The six-justice conservative majority chooses which conflicts to prioritize, takes up cases that present them, then picks a winner, nearly always for the benefit of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

Consider the issues that SCOTUS has resolved this term—the first full term with a 6–3 conservative supermajority. The constitutional right to abortion: gone. States’ ability to limit guns in public: gone. Tribal sovereignty against state intrusion: gone. Effective constraints around separation of church and state: gone. The bar on prayer in public schools: gone. Effective enforcement of Miranda warnings: gone. The ability to sue violent border agents: gone. The Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases at power plants: gone. Vast areas of the law, established over the course of decades, washed away by a court over a few months.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/climate-change-epa-supreme-court-revolution.html

A friend of my granddaughter asked the other day just how it came to this…..40 years of dark money is the best answer.

Over the past several decades, corporate lawyers, right-wing activists, Republican officials, and dark money groups with deep pockets have been laying the groundwork for a far-reaching legal assault on the federal government’s ability to regulate U.S. industry—including the oil and gas sector threatening the planet.

On Thursday, their investments bore major fruit.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, a Supreme Court packed with right-wing judges handpicked and boosted by some of the same forces leading the yearslong crusade against the power of regulatory agencies—which conservatives often dub the “administrative state”—dramatically restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to rein in greenhouse gas pollution from power plants.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/07/01/payoff-40-years-dark-money-supreme-court-delivers-corporate-america

All this abuses are standard fare these days….history is being crapped on by the very people that are suppose to guard our rights……

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is the most reactionary ever in American history.  Its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision taking away abortion rights from American women is the first time the Court has ever overturned a constitutional precedent to take away rights.  But let us not forget that this Court has also killed the Voting Rights Act by declaring most of it unconstitutional in  Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.  It has also killed union rights and unleashed corporate political money in Citizens United.  And it has consistently chipped away at the separation of Church and State as evidenced in the recent Carson v. Makin.  For a Chief Justice so worried about his legacy and the reputation of the Court, history will not be kind to him.

Ironically, history is central to the Roberts Court assault on rights.   Better yet it is the abuse of history in its method of legal analysis and reasoning.

Starting back with Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese conservative jurists, including Justice Antonin Scalia and the members of the Federalist Society, argued that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the intent of the framers.  Such an approach, asking us what a bunch of slaveholders, bankers, and land speculators who were White and Christian thought about the rights of average people such as women, the poor, and people of color most certainly would doom their rights.  That is why Justices such as  Earl Warren, William Brennan, and others argued that rights need to be looked at in terms of the evolving standards of decency that mark the maturing of society.  We need to read our Constitution with an evolving political morality that reflects political sensibilities reflective of today, not fixed in stone in 1787.

The Supreme Court and the Abuse of History: Rights Will Always Lose

Thanx to radical right wingers like the Federalist Society have worked for decades to undermine the Constitution….basically it is a power grab by the Neo-fascists of this country….and they are succeeding….

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/01/radical-power-grab-new-case-could-allow-right-wingers-to-ignore-voting-right-laws_partner/

As the republic is dying and the people that pretend to love this country are by-standers….unless that changes all is lost.

There are ways to fight back…..impeachment (the magical word)……

There is a movement afoot to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Per Newsweek, the petition on MoveOn.org was created earlier this year after revelations that Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, pressured lawmakers and White House aides to overturn the 2020 election results. Meanwhile, Justice Thomas was the lone dissenting vote early this year when the Supreme Court rejected former President Trump’s attempt to withhold presidential records from Jan. 6 Capitol riot investigators. “Thomas’ failure to recuse himself warrants immediate investigation and heightened alarm,” the petition states, “and it’s only the latest in a long history of conflicts of interest … and mixing his powerful role with his conservative political activism.”

The petition was appended and gained considerable attention after the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade. In denouncing Thomas and the majority for overturning 50 years of precedent, the petition adds that—in the same ruling—the justice suggested reconsidering decisions that established the right to contraception and same-sex marriage, according to the Hill, which notes that Democratic Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortes also called for impeaching other justices for misleading testimony during their Senate confirmation hearings. “If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath … and then issue—without basis, if you read these opinions—rulings that deeply undermine the human civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see [impeachment] through,” Ocasio-Cortes said on Meet the Press.

According to Salon, Ocasio-Cortes also raised Justice Thomas’ past failure to disclose nearly $700,000 in income his wife took from the conservative Heritage Foundation. “I believe that violating federal law in not disclosing income from political organizations, as Clarence Thomas did years ago, is … potentially an impeachable offense,” Ocasio-Cortes said. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar backed up her colleague in a tweet, saying, “We need an impeachment investigation into Clarence Thomas’s role in the January 6th coup, as well as into Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh’s testimony on Roe during their confirmation hearings.”

This will probably go nowhere….but at least it is a start.

Enough Said!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Freedom Of The Press

A little history for this Sunday…..a tidbit from out forgotten past…..

My continuing civics series….’where it all began’….

These days with all the hate speech and the defense of such speech citing the first amendment of our Constitution……it might be a good thing to learn about the this important amendment…..

Ever hear of John Peter Zenger?

I bet your history class did not cover this important event….let’s step back into American history to the year 1735…..

No democracy has existed in the modern world without the existence of a free press. Newspapers and pamphlets allow for the exchange of ideas and for the voicing of dissent. When a corrupt government holds power, the press becomes a critical weapon. It organizes opposition and can help revolutionary ideas spread. The trial of John Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was an important step toward this most precious freedom for American colonists.

John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant who printed a publication called The New York Weekly Journal. This publication harshly pointed out the actions of the corrupt royal governor, William S. Cosby. It accused the government of rigging elections and allowing the French enemy to explore New York harbor. It accused the governor of an assortment of crimes and basically labeled him an idiot. Although Zenger merely printed the articles, he was hauled into jail. The authors were anonymous, and Zenger would not name them.

In 1733, Zenger was accused of libel, a legal term whose meaning is quite different for us today than it was for him. In his day it was libel when you published information that was opposed to the government. Truth or falsity were irrelevant. He never denied printing the pieces. The judge therefore felt that the verdict was never in question. Something very surprising happened, however.

The first jury was packed with individuals on Cosby’s payroll. Throughout this process, Zenger’s wife Anna kept the presses rolling. Her reports resulted in replacing Cosby’s jury with a true jury of Zenger’s peers.

When the trial began and Zenger’s new attorney began his defense, a stir fluttered through the courtroom. The most famous lawyer in the colonies, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, stepped up to defend Zenger. Hamilton admitted that Zenger printed the charges and demanded the prosecution to prove them false. In a stirring appeal to the jury, Hamilton pleaded for his new client’s release. “It is not the cause of one poor printer,” he claimed, “but the cause of liberty.” The judge ordered the jury to convict Zenger if they believed he printed the stories. But the jury returned in less than ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty.

Cheers filled the courtroom and soon spread throughout the countryside. Zenger and Hamilton were hailed as heroes. Another building block of liberty was in place. Although true freedom of the press was not known until the passage of the First Amendment, newspaper publishers felt freer to print their honest views. As the American Revolution approached, this freedom would become ever more vital.

(ushistory.org)

This is where the much revered first amendment got its roots….

So when you are preaching the freedom of the press we Americans can thank Zenger for the importance that this issue was given when the Constitution was being drafted.

Happy May Day one and all….

Enjoy your Sunday…..

Class Dismissed!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Guns–I Remember When

With the horrific shooting that just keeps taking the lives of children and innocent by-standers….I got thinking about history (go figure) and the GOP.

I remember because I am an old fart when the GOP and the NRA embraced the concept of gun control (for lack of a better word)……the time was the late 1960s……

OMG!  Blacks with guns!

In the wake of two high-profile mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, the gun control debate in America continues. Mass shootings in the U.S. occur at an alarming rate. In the first 22 weeks of 2022, there were around 246 mass shootings in America. Even with outrageous numbers like that, gun control is still a divisive point of discussion in American society. But this discordance around guns is nothing new — gun restriction debates have always been part of America’s history. 

The Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, stating: “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.” And while the amendment is arguably ambiguous, one organization has explicitly honed in on the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” clause. Within the last few decades, the National Rifle Association has been an adamant force for gun rights — insistent that the right to bear arms trumps any attempts at regulation. 

Days following the tragic killings at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre vowed that the NRA would continue to fight to expand gun rights — “and not just in the face of tragic, horrible events when politicians and demagogues try to scapegoat us … but every day — for weeks, for months, for decades.”  

No matter the circumstances, one might assume that the NRA has always been a stark gun rights advocate that is positioned against gun control. But you may be surprised to learn that there was actually a time in American history when the NRA was in support of strict gun control regulations. 

In the late 1960s, the Black revolutionary organization the Black Panther Party was beginning to spread its message of Black empowerment across the U.S. Among various causes it supported, the BPP was determined to combat the rising number of police attacks against Black people by arming themselves with rifles. Using their Second Amendment rights, members of the BPP would often openly carry their rifles in the streets. But in a social and political system that was heavily based on racism and fearmongering, this made many white Americans uneasy, including the NRA. In an attempt to disarm Black Americans, the NRA took a racially motivated approach to gun control

https://blavity.com/did-you-know-the-nra-supported-gun-control-when-the-black-panther-party-was-armed

There be your history lesson.

Funny how things change….now ain’t it?

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Time For Men To Pay A Price

Roe v Wade decision has made our women second class citizens yet again….their personal choices out of their hands and put it into the hands of the old farts that run state governments.

Some have said that there should be some price for men to pay as well…..most of the concern is that of the popularity of Viagra….but I read about one idea that I could get behind and maybe you should as well if you are at all concerned about the loss of the right of choice.

An Oklahoma Democrat has proposed that young men in his state be forced to have vasectomies in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning the Roe Vs Wade ruling.

Last month, Mickey Dollens invited his fellow lawmakers to co-author a bill which would give a mandatory vasectomy to every young man in Oklahoma.

The vasectomy would only be reversed once each man could prove they were financially and emotionally stable, and not a moment before.

If any of this is sounding insane, that’s because Dollens is only raising the bill to make a point that the state having such invasive control over a person’s body is, indeed, insane.

This invasive control is exactly what will happen to many US women after the Supreme Court made the decision to overturn Roe Vs Wade last week, effectively ruling that the constitution doesn’t safeguard a woman’s right to an abortion.

The only exceptions to Oklahoma’s new abortion laws are in the case of rape or incest, and even then only if they have been reported to the authorities.

Saying he was thinking about introducing the legislation on forcing men to have vasectomies next year, Dollens suggested to Republicans who thought he was being ‘crazy’ that now ‘maybe you understand how 50 percent of Oklahomans feel’.

Republicans have argued that there is ‘nothing higher or more critical than the defence of innocent, unborn life’.

https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/lawmaker-mandatory-vasectomy-roe-wade-decision-20220627

It may sound a bit extreme but no more so than taking a woman’s right of choice.

I agree with this idea…..let men pay for a price as well as the women.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A New Pro-Choice Plan?

After the disastrous ruling by the political hacks on our Supreme Court I made my thoughts known and have said that the battle was lost and it was time to formulate a new plan that would bring back a woman’s right to choose.

It seems that I was not alone in my thoughts……

An interesting mood is rippling through abortion advocacy circles right now: a sense of possibility. At first, you might not expect that. The Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade is a historic affront, with devastating implications for the health, safety, and autonomy of millions. And so you might expect that people working on the front lines—abortion providers and reproductive rights activists and community organizers and clinic defenders—would curl into a collective ball: We lost! You would be very wrong.

As Roe was spiraling around the judicial drain, all throughout June 2022, Cosmo’s reporting team connected with grassroots movement leaders in all 50 states to gather dispatches from the ground. Many of these leaders used words like “optimism” and “excitement” to describe what’s fueling their work in this moment. Some said they’re feeling more inspired, more energized than they have in years. And this isn’t just in regions where abortion remains legally protected. What emerged from these conversations was an impassioned consensus: Progress toward reproductive freedom and justice is still very much happening, thank you. Regardless of the courts. Regardless of the alt-right rhetoric. Regardless of the discriminatory barriers that have always been there—but maybe won’t be for much longer, if we come together and do this next part right.

It’s understandable if you’re scared or uncertain right now, wondering, What does the future hold? For a road map, look to what folks have been out here doing all along: dreaming up new systems that not only protect but also expand abortion access, rooted in love, solidarity, and community care. Systems that, in some cases, are already up and running. The more of us who engage, the stronger and more real it all becomes. Welcome. Here’s how we’ll build something better.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a40376943/abortion-activists-movement-after-roe/

If you are so inclined please read the answers for a new direction and join in if you are also concerned.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

More SCOTUS Thoughts

Our political hacks that we call SCOTUS are rolling our country down the road to ruin because of a political agenda not what is right.

A few thoughts for you to consider.

We now know what the courts think about the right to choice…..but there is more than just abortions that could be the problem…..

More than 73,000 babies were born in the U.S. by means of in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques in 2020, slightly more than 2 percent of all births that year. About 85 percent of children born as a result of IVF procedures in this country are born from thawed embryos. Since 1987, more than 1 million Americans started their lives as embryos created outside of their mother’s bodies. By one estimate, as many as 1.4 million embryos remain frozen at U.S. fertility clinics.

It is not clear what effect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will have on would-be parents seeking to use IVF as a way to have children. The majority opinion states that abortion destroys “potential life” and what the Mississippi statute at issue in the case calls an “unborn human being.” It does not, however, mention IVF or other assisted reproduction techniques.

Infertility advocates and practitioners of fertility medicine are, nevertheless, concerned about the long-term implications of the Dobbs decision. In an article in Contemporary OB/GYN, Jared Robins and Sean Tipton, respectively the executive director and the chief policy and advocacy officer of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, argue that the Dobbs decision puts fertility care at “significant risk.” Under current practice, patients of IVF clinics generally choose to create numerous embryos for possible implantation. As fertility treatments proceed, embryos are often discarded when pre-implantation genetic diagnosis indicates significant inheritable maladies or after patients have completed their families.

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision Threatens Assisted Reproduction

Another ruling that could change everything and for a long time…..gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court handed down a brief order Tuesday evening that effectively reinstates racially gerrymandered congressional maps in the state of Louisiana, at least for the 2022 election.

Under these maps, Black voters will control just one of Louisiana’s six congressional seats, despite the fact that African Americans make up nearly a third of the state’s population. Thus, the Court’s decision in Ardoin v. Robinson means that Black people will have half as much congressional representation as they would enjoy under maps where Black voters have as much opportunity to elect their own preferred candidate as white people in Louisiana.

A federal trial court, applying longstanding Supreme Court precedents holding that the Voting Rights Act does not permit such racial gerrymanders, issued a preliminary injunction temporarily striking down the Louisiana maps and ordering the state legislature to draw new ones that include two Black-majority districts. Notably, a very conservative panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the state’s request to stay the trial court’s decision — a sign that Louisiana’s maps were such a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act that even one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country could not find a good reason to disturb the trial court’s decision.

https://www.vox.com/23187117/supreme-court-louisiana-racial-gerrymander-ardoin-robinson-congressional-maps

Gerrymandering is not good for the country….at least with competitive districts makes our nation stronger….we are losing that capability…..

Competitive congressional districts have been steadily disappearing for decades. In the current redistricting cycle, six highly competitive districts in the House of Representatives were drawn out of existence. The Cook Political Report estimates that less than 8 percent of congressional districts will be competitive come November.

This is a problem. It’s not because competitive districts are a powerfully moderating force on our democracy — instead, the decline of competitive districts is a problem that reflects deeper causes of partisan polarization and leaves the overwhelming majority of Americans in places where their votes don’t matter, and where parties and candidates don’t need to work for anybody’s votes.

Governing in America requires compromise. But when over 90 percent of congressional districts lean toward one of the two major parties, that means most representatives have little incentive to compromise. In fact, representatives increasingly face strong pressures to be very partisan, which has made governing very difficult.

But perhaps more importantly, when there isn’t competition, citizens and parties have little reason to show up and vote. Instead it becomes the highly organized donors and activists who are engaged, while the rest of the district is ignored. It’s true that competitive districts might not produce especially moderate candidates, but they are important when it comes to engaging and informing citizens. And this participation has valuable spillover effects for communities, well beyond our elections. 

What We Lose When We Lose Competitive Congressional Districts

Gerrymandering is just politicians choosing their voters not the other way around.

Any opinions?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”