Clay Jones for April 16, 2021

Why is the beer so clearly labeled?

The first Supreme court ruling that unleashed on us zillions of weapons designed exclusively for the purpose of killing people happened 13 years ago. Yup, 2008. Before that, gun ownership and possession was restricted by (presumably) sane regulation.

You too can search for supreme court heller washington dc

It’s said that, “You never really buy beer; you merely borrow it.” Years ago, some humor magazine presented the design for an ideal beer bar: Each barstool had its own urinal positioned in front of it.

Eight more shot dead here in Indy. FedEx hub on the west side. At least four shot and injured. Happy 2nd, boys.

Obviously they are NOT familiar with the 21st. Amendment… go ahead… look it up.

One thing for sure, the Supreme Court that we have today will never allow any sort of restrictions. It would take an amendment to the Constitution, and they would fight that, too.

I have actually had Ammosexuals try to tell me that there is NO WAY to change the Constitution…and that the 2nd. Amendment is totally set in stone.

While I agree with those here favoring a sane, non-NRA interpretation of the second amendment, Deities help us if the far-right Republicans ever realize their dream of controlling enough state legislatures to call for a new constitutional convention. The second amendment would be freed from those pesky clauses about well regulated militias, Biblical fundamentalist Christianity would be enshrined as the state religion, women’s reproductive choice would be outlawed, English would be declared the only official language, a vaguely defined or undefined “socialism” would be unconstitutional, states’ rights (also undefined) would be sacrosanct, etc. etc.

Just finished watching Boardwalk Empire

If they could read beyond “See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!” I’d recommend they look up the word “amendment”.

The founding fathers purposely made the Constitution amendable, but alt-rights only believe that changes that they want are Constitutional… no matter what those changes are… and that those changes can be forced despite the majority opinion of the citizens…

It is an interesting point that the second amendment could be modified, and it is not set in stone. My believe is it is particularly important for our way of life in the U.S. Those that govern should fear the general population and it is the right and responsibility of the populace to assure the government does not become too controlling or oppressive. I very much support the responsibility of the people to march into congress. If there had been massive cheating discovered in the last election it would have been the correct thing to do.

There have been a lot of public shootings recently and it is very tragic. I understand the first reaction is generally, if we take away all the guns, then this could not happen. However, this results in only the people intent on harming others owning guns and removes the protections provided by the 2nd amendment discussed above. I would like to suggest that if we took away the freedom of the press, then mass shootings would also stop as a big consequence of mass shootings is that the person who did it gets lots of attention and this is a desired consequence.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, now deceased, and a well known conservative “constitutionalist” wrote the legal opinion that ruled on the 2nd Amendment and is used to this day protecting the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The NRA and other gun lobbies use this for their own purpose, but always leave out the rest of what Scalia wrote:

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Scalia wrote “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

I am a Liberal. I never thought I’d ever agree with Scalia on any subject, including, but not limited to when the sun rises. I see no need to repeal, replace or modify the 2nd Amendment. I believe it should be enforced as written, and regulations made as needed to provide for WE, the People.

Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick! Just one damned time I’d like to see someone dipstick stop and think, “OK then, we’ll change/ammend this to take care of our needs, and not theirs. Now lemme think… What happens if the shoe is on the other foot when we change this rule and somebody uses it against us? And how hard will it be to change it back? And how will loopholes turn around and bite us on our big, fat, dumb asses?” Now, does everybody remember that little Prohibition thing this cartoon is about? Well, guess what, Chuckles, the same mistake can be made with just about every ammendment. Instead of helping a small group’s interests that can easily screw the whole nation, use your head for more than a hatrack. So before people get on the current dumbass bandwagon (and I know this’ll hurt some pointy little wooden heads), for once in yer life stop listening to propaganda and political BS and think about something! And I can smell the steam and burning mechanical oil already as those rusty wheels start to grind after too many years idling.

These six men are all on Senator Tom Cotton’s list as potential U. S. Attorney nominees for Arkansas. Bonne chance!

Clay, you can’t really expect the maga’s to know a thing about actual history?

Take a look at how many protections in the 4th amendment were overridden by the poorly-named Patriot Act and other laws put in after 9/11. Thank you to the librarians that pointed out the level of searches that were being done.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The “Irony” is strong in this one. Great job!

Alcohol, the drug of the unwoke.

There have been over 130 mass shootings in the US so far in 2021. Here’s the full list.

https://www.insider.com/number-of-mass-shootings-in-america-this-year-2021-3

Starting on March 16, when eight people were killed at three Atlanta-area spas, the US has had at least 45 mass shootings, according to CNN reporting and an analysis of data from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), local media, and police reports.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/us/mass-shootings-45-one-month/index.html

The second amendment was ratified in 1791. In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a “Typical Revolutionary-era musket” had a one-round magazine capacity, and it could fire around three effective rounds per minute – in the hands of the most skilled wielder, it took the average gun owner about thirty seconds to load and fire his gun, and it took great skill practice to be able to hit what he was aiming at. Now let’s move forward to the 21st century where a semi-automatic firearm typically has an effective firing rate of 40 rounds per minute. Now, tell me again why this amendment doesn’t need amending to fit the times? Could it be that the original writers of the constitution never had the foresight to recognise that what was possibly right for the time, would not be right fore a future time? The Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by 55 delegates to a Constitutional Convention that was called ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation (1781–89), the country’s first written constitution. So no, the ‘founding fathers’ recognised that the first ‘constitution’ had to be amended to suit the times. Get on with it USA. A U.S. male aged 15–24 is 70 times more likely to be killed with a gun than their counterpart in the eight (G-8) largest industrialized nations in the world (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, Russia) Source: Wikipedia.

I doubt that any of the guys pictured would have the slightest idea how to set anything “in stone”.

Concrete, maybe. But stone? No.

“…set in stone….”

Trump may have pardoned Stone, but that still doesn’t give the man the power to to re-define the Constitution.