Countdown Clocks

Countdown Clocks

Posts tagged "2nd Amendment"

h/t: Alexander Zaitchik at Rolling Stone

A Hobby Lobby supporter who caused a controversy after publishing a photo that many thought resembled a Palestinian suicide bomber told Fox News on Wednesday that she was displaying “America’s founding principles” by posing with an assault-style rifle and a Bible.

In an interview with Fox News, Holly Fischer explained that the idea for her photo came after she posted another photo of herself wearing a shirt opposing abortion rights, holding a Chick-fil-A cup, and standing in front of a Hobby Lobby store.

She said that she posted the Hobby Lobby photo the day that the Supreme Court ruled that some corporations could deny contraception coverage to women, “and a few people were like, ‘The only thing missing is your gun or your Bible or your flag.’”

So on the Fourth of July, Fisher posted a second photo of herself stand in front of an American flag, while holding an AR-15 and a Bible.

“ATTENTION LIBERALS: do NOT look at this picture. Your head will most likely explode,” Fisher wrote in a tweet along with the photo.

It wasn’t long before commenters on Reddit noticed that Fisher’s photo was similar to a photo of a Gaza suicide bomber known as the “White Widow,” who was seen holding an assault rifle and a Koran.

“I expected less backlash with this than I did the first one because the picture is, like, America’s founding principles,” Fischer opined to Fox News on Wednesday. “That’s all that’s in the picture. And I really didn’t think it would cause the uproar that it has.”

Fisher said that she posted the photo because there was a “growing intolerance among the left, and conservatives are becoming more and more afraid to speak up.”

“I know I’m not going to change any minds of liberals,” she admitted. “And I accept that. I understand. Like, I’m not hateful with people who don’t agree with me, but I just want people to know that it’s okay. Like, you’re not alone.”

From the 07.09.2014 edition of FNC’s Fox and Friends

h/t: David Edwards at The Raw Story

h/t: Eric Lach at TPM

thepoliticalfreakshow:

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own , a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. This article has been adapted from his book The Second Amendment: A Biography, published this week by Simon & Schuster. © 2014.

To continue this article, click here.

Yet again, NRA mouthpiece and TheBlaze Dana Loesch is pandering to the fringe gun nuts by posing on the cover for her new book (Hands Off My Gun: Defeating The Plot To Disarm America, originally titled Defenseless) due to be out in October in a very offensive manner by insulting the survivors of the Sandy Hook Shooting.


John Amato at Crooks and Liars:

Dana Loesch, firebreather for Glenn Beck and other low brow conservatives has a new book out and decided to pose on the cover with an AR-15, a weapon that helped massacre so many innocent children in Sandy Hook. Glenn Beck is very excited that the cover will absolutely piss off liberals, but her crassness only proves the point I’ve been making for a long time.

image

Tim Peacock at Peacock Panache:

Dana Loesch is no stranger to controversy. She’s the extreme right conservative that applauded the desecration of enemy bodies overseas (urination on the bodies by American soldiers, in case everyone’s forgotten). She’s the Tea Party conservative that defendedArizona’s SB1062, a piece of legislation that would bring back a new era of Jim Crow public accommodation discrimination (which didn’t come as a surprise since Loesch supports Jim Crow in general). Loesch is the extremist that sided with Cliven Bundy even after he made (and doubled down on) egregiously racist statements in the course of his ‘sovereign citizen’ spiel. In her latest shock-jock stunt to generate publicity (and money), Loesch posed for the cover of her new book “Hands Off My Gun" (due out in October) with the same weapon used in both the Sandy Hook massacre and the Oregon high school shooting this week.  
[…] 
 Furthermore, Loesch’s intentional use of that particular firearm - a firearm now nationally associated with one of the worst school shooting tragedies in modern history - doesn’t just work to incense the gun regulation crowd; rather, it serves as a snub (perhaps even a rude gesture) to those families who lost family members in both Sandy Hook and the Oregon shooting. And Loesch knows this. To say anything otherwise would be disingenuous.
 

 This is typical crass moronic behavior we’ve come to expect from Loesch.

 More on Loesch’s idiocy and falsehoods on Guns and the 2nd Amendment:  


(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Asker cerebralzero Asks:
The real number of school shootings is 15, even CNN posted that. C'mon, if you are going to be dumb at least get your facts straight. This is just sad.
justinspoliticalcorner justinspoliticalcorner Said:

You are just another lying NRA apologist. Everytown’s count of 74 is the correct count. BTW, CNN’s count of 15 is a flat out falsehood

Her book was initially titled Defenseless

H/T: Tim Peacock at Peacock Panache

bulgebull:

Radio Shrieker Dana Loesch Poses With Sandy Hook Gun On New Book Cover

For her new book cover, wingnut radio shrieker Dana Loesch poses with the same style of gun used to murder 20 children in Sandy Hook. Glenn Beck’s The Blaze says the cover “will drive liberals crazy.” 

In the book, the co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party and 2012 winner of Accuracy in Media’s Grassroots Journalism Award — not to mention fearless enemy of progressives — provides readers with a comprehensive guide to why the founders created the Second Amendment, the disastrous consequences of anti-gun legislation — particularly on women — and what citizens can do to protect themselves against a government and complicit media hell-bent on violating such rights. Having gone toe-to-toe with leftists on the issue many times, Loesch’s book further serves as a “how-to” guide for defeating the arguments parroted by the mainstream media and its champions.

The AR-15 was also used this week in Oregon’s school shooting. Dana Loesch: 

“Gun control is the ultimate war on women. Firearms are the equalizer between the sexes. Sam Colt made us equal, indeed. This book explores that, the racist roots of gun control, and debunks the biggest arguments made by anti-gun extremists. The AR is on the cover because it is the most vilified, misunderstood rifle in America, responsible for the fewest crimes. Education is the antidote to ignorance. Consider this book the medicine.”

I’m sure the parents of all those murdered children will appreciate having their misunderstanding corrected by Dana Loesch.

smdxn:

In an unsigned statement published online on Friday, the NRA’s lobbying arm sharply criticized the activists, denouncing their tactics as as “weird” and “scary.” The activists responded by demanding that the NRA retract the statement, and threatening to withdraw its support of the NRA. That’s essentially what happened on Tuesday, when Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, gave an interview in which he blamed Friday’s statement on a lone staff member and apologized for “any confusion” the statement caused.

So much for the NRA looking reasonable; the group is no different than the extremist nutjobs that comprise Open Carry. They all share the same radical agenda.

(via thepoliticalfreakshow)

NRA slams ‘downright scary’ Open Carry Texas gun lovers: They ‘crossed the line’ (via Raw Story )

The nation’s staunchest defender of the Second Amendment has told gun activists in Texas who insist on carrying assault-style rifles in public places to knock it off. In a statement issued late last week, the National Rifle Association (NRA) called…



 

iammyfather:

crooksandliars:

Texas Gun Group Planning To Open Carry Assault Rifles At State GOP Convention

A controversial Texas gun group has called on activists make the Texas Republican Party convention the next front in their battle for the right to openly carry assault-style rifles as many places as possible.

Last week, the gun-rights group Open Carry Tarrant County sued City of Arlington for changing a city ordinance that made it more difficult for its members to approach motorists with pocket-sized copies of the Constitution while they were carrying rifles.

In a recent Facebook posting, the group attempted to call attention to its cause by organizing Republican delegates to bring long guns and black powder revolvers to the Texas Republican Party convention later this week.

“All delegates, I urge you to open-carry the whole time,” Open Carry Tarrant County coordinator Kory Watkins wrote. “I will be a delegate with my AK 47. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.”

City officials, however, pointed out that guns would not be welcome in the Fort Worth Convention Center as long as alcohol was being served.

“With this type of TABC license, the only type of weapon allowed into an establishment is concealed-carry and those on licensed peace officers,” Fort Worth director of public facilities and events Kirk Slaughter told the Star-Telegram. “The license doesn’t allow bringing in guns other than those that are licensed.”

read more

I want every open carry Long Arms person to see just how much is lip service, and how much is true “believer”.

crooksandliars:

If a Republican who aspires to national office can’t understand plain English, should they be allowed to even run, much less be elected? That’s the question I asked when I heard about Iowa’s Senate candidate Joni Ernst calling the UCSB shootings an “unfortunate accident.”

There’s nothing accidental about a rage-filled asshole with a few semi-automatic weapons picking off women standing on a sidewalk. Nothing accidental about that at all. It’s a wanton act of premeditated murder, enabled by the NRA and gun nuts across this nation. Ernst whitewashed it to pander to her bloodthirsty keepers, and now she needs to own it and be disqualified from ever holding national office.

During the debate, a viewer questioned whether she would change her ad which shows Ernst on a firing range promising to unload on Obamacare. TPM:

The moderator then asked Ernst if she would change the ad or its timing in light of the UCSB shooting.

"I would not — no. This unfortunate accident happened after the ad, but it does highlight that I want to get rid of, repeal, and replace Bruce Braley’s Obamacare," Ernst replied, referring to a Democratic Senate candidate. "And it also shows that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That is a fundamental right."

read more

addictinginfo:

Dr. Ben Carson: Right Wing Darling And…Liberal Gun Grabber?

Ben_Carson

Well, I can’t be crazy ALL the time!

Did Dr. Ben Carson, right wing hero (He’s one of their token blacks) just step into the cross-hairs of the NRA? Probably:

During a National Press Club Luncheon, Carson was asked to clarify what limits he thought there should be on the Second Amendment.

“I think there are some weapons that are probably not appropriate, like, you know, tanks,” he explained. “And I’m not sure that people should have a rocket launcher in their bedroom.

Carson then throws out the standard red meat of how Americans need guns to A: help the military beat back a foreign invasion or B: beat back the American military in case the government tries to take over. Both “needs” are the stuff of childish fantasies but, as a conservative, you can’t discuss the Second Amendment without pretending that was it’s original intent.

But then Carson goes into a nuanced stance that would normally have conservatives frothing at the mouth:

…what can we agree on that doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment but that provides some degree of protection for our citizens? Unless we can talk about these kinds of things, we will never succeed with these kinds of things. And one of the things that I have been somewhat critical, particularly with conservatives, is they sometimes have these litmus tests. And they say, “The person has to believe this and I can’t deal with them otherwise I’m taking my marbles and I’m going home.” That is such an infantile attitude.

What Carson is describing here is ammosexuals. These are people utterly consumed with a love of their guns and utterly terrified that someone, somewhere, someday might suggest they don’t need 20 different kinds of semi-automatics and 500,000 rounds of ammunition. To them, any law that says they can’t have any gun they want when they want it or that they can’t carry a sniper rifle into a kindergarten class is a sign that the government is about to swoop in and ban the sale of every gun ever made and steal all 300 million of them already in circulation. To these fearful fanatics, “compromise” is code word for “The impending government holocaust.”

This, of course, is exactly what the NRA wants them to think. A fearful population is a gun buying population. The more fear, the more sales and the more profits for the gun industry that completely controls what was once an independent organization. Carson is treading on thin ice by encouraging a rational debate about gun violence. As far as the NRA is concerned, the only answer to gun violence is to sell more guns. I would not be surprised if Carson suddenly finds himself the target of an aggressive campaign by ammosexuals calling him a “gun-grabber.”

Once he’s forced to apologize or walk back his strangely level-headed comments (Carson is a generally a fundamentalist loon), we’ll know that the NRA has complete and total dominion over the right wing. That will mean the bloodbath of mass shootings will never stop until the GOP is voted out of office and NRA loses its puppets in Congress.

This article was originally posted at proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com

View On WordPress

h/t: Kyle Mantyla at PFAW’s RWW

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Yet another massacre occurred last night at an institution of learning, this time the University of California, Santa Barbara. The price we paid for the National Rifle Association’s “freedom” was seven people murdered and seven injured at nine different crime scenes.

A young man who Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown called “severely mentally disturbed” drove by various student hangouts to commit an act of “premeditated mass murder” apparently—according to videos posted to YouTube and threats made to women on campus—due to his anger at being “rejected” by women on campus.

The NRA wants less information and more Santa Barbaras.

Of course, this is all too familiar: a young aggrieved male, mentally disturbed, threatening others—especially women—but still able to get his hands on a high-capacity magazine of the variety used in so many other mass murders. This doesn’t happen in any other high income country with the regularity it does here; in fact, it almost never happens in any of them.

But here, in the good ole US of A, we’ve allowed a group of rich, entitled thugs who run an operation fronting for arms dealers—guys who represent a minority position on pretty much every issue having to do with reasonable regulation of firearms even among gun owners—to dictate our policies to cowardly, careerist politicians.

I already hear the outrage from the right: how can you blame the NRA? We need good guys to have guns, we have to stop the “haters” and “knockout gamers” and … I can’t even bear to repeat the infantile and inane talking points coming from cynical and callous people like the NRA’s Executive Vice President and foaming mouthpiece Wayne LaPierre.

We know how to stop these incidents, or at least greatly reduce them. We’ve seen other countries do it, such as Australia, which was averaging one of these massacres a year until their infamous Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. After which they completely overhauled their gun laws. Since then, a country with the same frontier history as the United States has not experienced one mass shooting. Not one. Their homicides and suicides have also precipitously dropped.

We, of course, could learn even more about how to stop these mass killings, as well as the everyday homicides, suicides and accidental killings that rob this nation of our youth, and everything they could have ever been. But this past week we’ve had numerous examples of how the NRA does their best to block this from happening, because they will gladly accept mass murder in Santa Barbara and Newtown, as well as an accidental bystander shooting in a neighborhood near you, if it keeps the dollars floating into their pockets from the ultimate blood-drenched 1%ers who own various staples of the gun industry

After attending the NRA’s Convention in Indianapolis, I wrote recently in these pages about all the NRA does to encourage paranoia and hatred while selling the weaponry not of self protection or hunting, but war, to anyone with a stack of bills and a glint in their eye.

But this past week we’ve seen the other side of the coin. How the NRA works to suppress information that would lead to treating a public health catastrophe that claims over 30,000 lives per year and injures over 100,000 as that very thing, while fighting to ensure we have as little access to information as possible that might help save lives.

The simple fact is, much like with their friends on the right from the tobacco industry to the oil industry to the megachurch, science and information are the enemies of the NRA. They have proven they will do whatever it takes to make sure we have less of it, and more Santa Barbaras.

The clearest example, of course, is the NRA’s labeling a bill sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to once again use its considerable expertise to research gun violence prevention, “unethical.” Yes, they actually said that.

Because anyone who does statistically significant research on a public health problem from the angle of helping people and not profiting from misery, and again and again finds obvious truths such as owning guns makes you more likely to get shot, is not someone the NRA and its allies will countenance without smearing. I debated one of these types from the Second Amendment Foundation on NPR recently regarding the CDC. It is amazing how tongue-tied they get when you present them with irrefutable information.

As for the “unethical” attack, mind you, this comes from an organization that promotes the “work” of well-traveled right-wing welfare recipient John Lott, a clown and a fraud who has created studies lacking any statistical validityhas “lost” his research when asked to produce it, and actually got busted for creating a fake online persona—Mary Rosh—to show up in comments sections where he wrote articles to say how swell and dreamy he was as a professor. Unethical (and embarrassing), indeed.

As Rep. Maloney rightly put it, “In America, gun violence kills twice as many children as cancer, and yet political grandstanding has halted funding for public health research to understand this crisis.”

The NRA’s fight to suppress information couldn’t be more apparent than it is in a rather pathetically titled column in Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller this past Friday. (Side note: As the NRA usually shuts up for at least 72 hours after a shooting, lest they remind people of their position as an accessory, having their views aired mere hours before this latest tragedy is enlightening).

The piece, written by chief NRA lobbyist and super-shill Chris Cox, was actually named, “We Love Our Moms and Trust Our Doctors, But We Still Don’t Want Gun Control.” Yes, we’re at the point where one of the top officials in the NRA feels the need to point out he has warm feelings for those who give life and those who save lives.

The reason for this, as he points out in his piece, is that he and his fellow street-war profiteers are fighting to block President Obama’s U.S. Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, from being appointed. What was his crime? He has been honest about guns being a public health problem, and has made the common sense recommendation that civilians not be allowed to own military weaponry.

The NRA is worried that, like with smoking in the past, if we have a Surgeon General who tells the truth, they will see their profits plummet. In fact, they’re not even trying to hide this fact (or doing a really, really bad job), as reported by Politico:

[Murthy’s] strongly backed by several health constituencies, such as public health advocates, research organizations and physician groups. Yet the NRA, as well as some Republicans, say past Murthy statements in support of gun control indicate that he could use the surgeon general job to promote anti-gun policies. Murthy has stated that he would not focus on gun violence in the position.

Cox attacks Moms Demand Action in this piece too, because Shannon Watts and her group have also used available information in the age of social media—in this case photos of lunatics open-carrying long guns in family establishments and intimidating customers—to get Chipotle to tell the gun fondlers they don’t want them bringing their weapons in their stores. And now Chili’s and other eateries are considering taking similar action.

Also this past week, the House’s answer to untreated rabies, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), attempted to force more guns on military institutions that don’t want them. Once again, we were forced to look at the NRA’s enemy: actual information—some of it bravely provided by top military brass both active and retired,standing up to the lies of the NRA and its allies.

Retired Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, M.D., even took the step of authoring a strongly worded letter to Congress, which laid out his thinking as follows:

As someone who has had to make the tough decisions about how best to manage service members under my command, I urge you to oppose Mr. Gohmert’s Amendment. This amendment will only cause more stress, confusion, and danger on military bases.

Later that night, Gohmert went to the House floor, defeated, and pulled his amendment.

Sadly for the NRA, we are in the Information Age, and the truth is starting to regularly get past their efforts to thwart it. But sadly for the rest of us—and at this moment, most tragically, the victims at Santa Barbara—the NRA have been so successful at bullying, threatening and obfuscating for so long, that we likely have too many more UC Santa Barbaras to come.

Source: Cliff Schecter for The Daily Beast