9 thoughts on “Yes THIS! No more accepting THEIR framing!”
This is the shit that needs to be said every single time we have a shooting. The NRA and the politicians they bought will say the exact same thing regardless of what we do, so why not put a ton of pressure on them every time?
As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law in 1967. Written by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford, the legislation was the most sweeping state edict in all the country, prohibiting the more or less free carrying of firearms in public. It went along with the rest of his heavy-handed entire law-and-order agenda and inspired an avalanche of new gun laws nationwide.
The purpose of the law was to disarm the Black Panthers, a radical leftist group that openly carried firearms, kept an eye out on the police, and even took their rifles to the state Capitol to protest what they decried as racist legislation.
Most things are only going to change with the SCOTUS at this point. Way too many politicians are afraid to cross the NRA, so there's little chance to have them fix this.
But Justice Ginsberg could've said the same thing about slavery or school integration or one-man/one-vote, or prayer in school, or Citizens United or almost any other decision they've ever made that people are still pissed about. With all due respect their job is not to follow public opinion but to interpret the Constitution. If it leads us to a place that some segments of the electorate can't live with, there are mechanisms (succession excluded) to fix that.
It can't be that hard to interpret the Constitution to allow some sort of gun control. The current "view" literally ignores the second half of the second amendment, which seems like more of a stretch than making it harder to, at the very least, restrict certain kinds of guns and have background checks for those. I guarantee the reason that amendment was made wasn't to allow any random person to have sniper rifles and gigantic magazines.
Edit: Reading that again I'm probably replying to someone agreeing with me, but keeping it up anyway.
So true! If ordinary citizens can keep .22 rifles for squirrel hunting, but can't own MIRV-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles, then we're only talking about increments, not principles. And that means we're negotiating, and that means compromise is possible. Someday. Maybe.
This is the shit that needs to be said every single time we have a shooting. The NRA and the politicians they bought will say the exact same thing regardless of what we do, so why not put a ton of pressure on them every time?
Yes, 270 mass shootings in U.S. this year so far.
edit: I just checked the Julian calendar and today is 274, so we are holding around one per day.
If Congress doesn't do anything about it this time, the only safe recourse is to get some guns.
I remember one "liberal" columnist that said the way to stop racial violence is to have black people everywhere openly carry guns.
Most things are only going to change with the SCOTUS at this point. Way too many politicians are afraid to cross the NRA, so there's little chance to have them fix this.
But Justice Ginsberg could've said the same thing about slavery or school integration or one-man/one-vote, or prayer in school, or Citizens United or almost any other decision they've ever made that people are still pissed about. With all due respect their job is not to follow public opinion but to interpret the Constitution. If it leads us to a place that some segments of the electorate can't live with, there are mechanisms (succession excluded) to fix that.
It can't be that hard to interpret the Constitution to allow some sort of gun control. The current "view" literally ignores the second half of the second amendment, which seems like more of a stretch than making it harder to, at the very least, restrict certain kinds of guns and have background checks for those. I guarantee the reason that amendment was made wasn't to allow any random person to have sniper rifles and gigantic magazines.
Edit: Reading that again I'm probably replying to someone agreeing with me, but keeping it up anyway.
So true! If ordinary citizens can keep .22 rifles for squirrel hunting, but can't own MIRV-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles, then we're only talking about increments, not principles. And that means we're negotiating, and that means compromise is possible. Someday. Maybe.