If the move to impeach Thomas (which I support) did bear (non-strange) fruit, it should be coupled with the demand to approve only Merrick Garland (or someone even more-favorable to Democrats, as a corrective to the unprecedented stealing of a president’s SCOTUS appointment power from him the American people) as his replacement. I damn sure don’t want to give Agent Orange another ‘free pick’.
1 Like
Oh, I support the impeachment of Thomas, too. The thought that Clarence Thomas holds the Supreme Court seat once held by Thurgood Marshall makes me sick to my stomach. Thomas is worse than a non-entity.
I don’t want a Supreme Court justice favorable to Democrats: I want a justice committed to the Constitution as a living social contract.
1 Like
I’ve greatly valued your input here Davey (sorry, I can’t write that w/o hearing Goliath’s voice saying it!) for years, but think that repeal of the 2nd Amendment isn’t necessary, at least not as a requirement for many improvements to be enacted through legislation and (mainly) a return to the historical interpretations of 2A, which you yourself cited.
One thing I suggest we remember is that, as others have reminded us, the “militias” 2A refers to were in large part, the slave patrols used to police and intimidate the enslaved. Another is that no other constitutional amendment is absolute–recall the “no right to shout fire in a crowded theater” limitation on the 1st Amendment, as but a single well-known example. How and why would anyone claim otherwise for the 2nd–particularly with its “well-regulated” modifier?
Finally, as my daddy used to tell me when I was but a boy on his knee, with every right comes a corresponding responsibility. We and the so-called liberal media (SCLM) absolutely must do a better job of demanding to know what the NRA and “good guys with guns” believe their responsibilities are and holding them to them. If they feel no responsibilities–that’s a big damn problem and very good for the whole world to know.
I completely agree w/ you; I just don’t see any evidence that this is possible w/ the current pResident.[quote=“stradivarius50t3, post:42, topic:68814”]
I want a justice committed to the Constitution as a living social contract.
[/quote]
1 Like
You have to begin somewhere. Pulse nightclub, Parkland High School are still fresh in the minds of the public. I am sure not going to visit Florida and spend my $$ there.
1 Like
Based on my personal experience w/ my dad’s and my own previous, similarly-scaled political campaigns and keeping in mind the report that there were 100 or so students in attendance today, another–more hopeful–lesson I can pass along is this.
With the solid participation of about a dozen people in a state representative’s race, by which I mean a dozen every Saturday and Sunday, dropping literature, making phone calls, knocking doors, working social media, and such, you can absolutely swing the race your way. That solid dozen does not have to be the same 12 unsustainably knocking themselves out, but could/should be 2-3 dozen people in a good rotation.
My larger point is that just those 100 could be enough to swing 3 FL legislative seats! And I’m very comfortable that those 100 represent hundreds more back at home and around the state who simply couldn’t make the trip this time. At those rates, 1000 people could sway 30 races!
As a friend of mine who served in the Navy once told me, (“Every true story in the Navy started the same way:) This is a no-shitter!”
Understand that repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t equate to banning all guns. Far from it.
But what it does do is remove the major argument against any and all gun control regulations. Sure, guns can be regulated, but every time any regulation is brought up, the argument quickly devolves into “that would violate our Constitutional right to bear arms”.
Just this morning, I saw a debate about the “red flags” this guy in Florida was exhibiting. And sure enough, the guy from the right trotted out, “Well, there has to be vigorous Due Process before we deprive anyone of their Constitutional right”.
So don’t make it a Constitutional right. And that particular argument falls apart like waves crashing on the rocks. Consider how much easier it is to deprive people of their driver’s license, which dramatically more impacts a person’s life, ability to make a livihood and acquire basic necessities. But that can’t be done because…Constitutional Right.
1 Like
I personally don’t have any problem with repealing or altering the 2nd Amendment. I just don’t see how it’ll ever happen. I also think it plays right into the NRA narrative that the Democrats are coming for your guns. It puts them on their best footing.
Arguing against war weapons, bump stocks, large magazines or even something as simple as purchasing age are things that people outside the gun community look at as common sense. They all seem winnable to me.
1 Like
They seem winnable…but they haven’t been won. Indeed, since Newton, gun laws have probably become laxer in this country, not more stringent. And everyone of this suggestions has always been met as an infringement upon the right to bear arms.
I agree, that no Constitutional right is without boundaries. But the 2nd in today’s political environment, gets pretty damn close.
As far as putting the NRA on their best footing…I question that. But before I go there, what exactly in today’s environment isn’t favorable to the NRA? Polling of their own members that support background checks? Hell, that was over 90% after Newton, but still nothing was done. Because they control the politicians with an iron grip. They are largely immune to public opinion arguments, because they can always trace it back to…defending 2nd Amendment.
So make them actually defend the 2nd Amendment.
1 Like
The NRA frames any and all legislation as an attack on the 2nd. So actually attacking it puts the debate right in their wheelhouse, and shifts the debate away from the common ground things a consensus of voters agree on. It’s going to take a long game approach to get real reform done. I don’t expect any of the things I mentioned to happen short term. We may get a ban on bump stocks. We may get a rise in the purchasing age. As long as Republicans hold the White House, major change won’t happen even if Democrats somehow win both chambers in November. We need to frame the debate to appeal to the broadest swath of voters possible.
On that note, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone asking what law enforcement people think. What do cops think about everyone being able to own an AR-15? Armor piercing bullets? Bump Stocks? Large capacity magazines? I’m willing to bet they don’t look too favorably on them. Why don’t we make the argument about protecting them? That’s the kind of footing I’d like to get the NRA and Republicans on. Make them try and pretend that they care about ‘first responders’ while arming the populous with every means necessary to kill them. Need more people like the Sheriff from Florida last night. It robs them completely of their voice.
They don’t. Police Associations are almost always supporting bans of these things. And rightly so, it makes their jobs significantly more dangerous. As individuals though, it doesn’t necessary break down that way.
I would advocate that that isn’t precisely correct. They don’t argue why we need to have a 2nd Amendment (and the few arguments they have, have atrophied significantly like resisting tyrants), instead they just take it as a given and drive every other argument back to “2nd Amendment, Constitution. King’s X, we win”
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to get behind this idea. But I think its a worthy discussion to start having. And quite frankly, the more people I discuss it with, the more I am warming to it as a strategy.
So do I, and I appreciate the challenge to my point of view. Thanks for that.
1 Like