Rob Rogers for February 01, 2023

Yep.

Only in the USA

But according to RWNJs, it’s not all that bad, plenty of other countries have higher murder rates than the USA via beatings, knives, etc.. as well as guns. America should be proud to be the #1 first world country of mass shootings because of freedumb of firearms. /s

I like it…freedumb is THE descriptive.

And let’s not forget all the people killed by the police and that about 30,000 people are killed by guns in the US every year. Not to mention the much higher number of people injured by gin shot wounds.Or the fact that 1 in 100 Americans is in jail; a system that is effectively a legal slave system considering how many products are made by inmate labor at almost no cost. No other country on the planet even comes close to any of these statistics.Great country. Not.

Gun violence advocates celebrate mass shootings.

.

Because they are Pro Life.

Punxsutawney Phil may decide to sleep in this year.

“And the beat goes on” as do the beating’s.

“Don’t drive angry.”

I will vote against guns every time.

And do not forget that the GQP tells you that cherrypicking raw numbers of shootings and killings is far far more important than bothering to adjust the numbers of those shot or killed by the percentage of the population that their race represents. The GQP likes to tell you that just because 1 part of the population makes up less than 15% of the whole does of course not mean that the raw numbers should be weighed any differently than say another group that makes up 60% of the population. ‘Cause we love the under educated and 1/4 obviously equals 1. Or was that too close to the history of 3/5ths of a person for voting rights? Just a couple of days ago a troll posted this source but did not even read the lead paragraph and then tried to state that of course more Whites were shot by police so clearly what are Black’s complaining about?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Yikes. But that is how the GQP works and they sure do obviously like the under educated and would never ever bother to study statistics even when they try to use them to obscure a point on how 15% of the population still has numbers of shot and killed getting close to another segment of the population that is only 4 times that size.

“BANG…I GOT you, Babe!”

“BANG…I GOT you, Babe!”“BANG…I GOT you, Babe!”

“BANG…I GOT you, Babe!”

“BANG…I GOT you, Babe!”

“BANG…I GOT you, Babe!”

The gun lobby doesn’t see a problem because deep down it must think the right people are getting shot, apparently. I mean, shooting are rare at country clubs and fancy private schools, right?

free prison labor pays for their accommodations which they have because they didn’t play by the rules

And yet, there’s not one monument honoring the victims of mass shootings. They made the ultimate sacrifice for our 2nd Amendment, and we do nothing.

Another shooting today, yes. That a mass of people wasn’t killed is a minor miracle.

The republican dream, they can collect big bucks from the NRA.

If the USA could get rid of guns, hate and greed it would be a much better country.

It’s the guns!

“I’m that walking ground hog. I walks around in my den. If I go out and see my shadow, hoo well, I believe I’ll go back in.”—Sonny Boy (John Lee) Williamson.

Good one.

Sadly, I see tribalism heading toward extremes on this issue as on so many others. One side says “Ban all guns” (yeah, come on, you know that’s what you want) while the other says “We must arm absolutely everybody; more guns is the answer to everything.” There’s little room for thotful analysis or nuance. Fortunately, there was still some of that back when Cecil Adams was handing out “The Straight Dope” every week, so I figured it was worth a shot to repeat what he had to say on the subject. (Trigger alert: This is not a sound bite; it wouldn’t fit in a Twitter feed; it assumes that you’ve managed to quell your jerking knee; and it’ll take me multiple posts to go thru it all. Let’s begin.)

Why is it that Cecil Adams [2/24/1995], as well as the NRA, have different copies of the United States Constitution from my own? The Second Amendment in my own library clearly starts out with the words “A well-regulated militia…. “ What is well-regulated about a private citizen with a stash of guns in his basement? The opening words of this amendment seem to clearly indicate that the possession of guns was not meant to be beyond control. —Ed Cohen, Chicago

Let’s put it this way: It was not meant to be beyond regulation. The question is whether the power to regulate encompasses the power to ban. So far as guns are concerned, the courts have held that it does. You may say outlawing guns altogether was not what you had in mind. But it’s certainly what some people have in mind, at least with respect to broad categories of firearms such as handguns, and a few would happily prohibit guns, period. Federal case law currently offers virtually no protection against such draconian measures.

(continued)

Put yourself in a gun owner’s shoes. While the first half of the Second Amendment is no miracle of clarity, the second half is about as plain as it can be. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But gun-control advocates deny this sentence means what it seems perfectly evident it says, and the courts have backed them up. Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence accounts for the apocalyptic tone in which their arguments are often framed.

But let’s get back to “well-regulated”. A number of serious scholars have disputed the idea that this phrase necessarily means “subject to a lot of regulations”. The historian Robert Shalhope, for example, makes a good case that for the framers it meant “duly constituted” — that is, subject to civilian authority. The framers, in other words, did not propose to have armed gangs of self-appointed militiamen roaming the streets. Some take Shalhope’s argument a step further and say that “well-regulated” applies only to the militia and does not constrain an individual’s right; to keep and bear arms in any way. A more reasonable interpretation, however, is that if the government can regulate the militia it can regulate the individuals in it, provided it does so in a way that does not make a shambles of their basic Second Amendment rights. For that reason I think even if the amendment had been interpreted more in line with the framers’ intent, the regulatory landscape would not necessarily look a lot different from the way it does now. But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.

(continued)

However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.

That was then, you may say, and this is now. In the 1990s it may well be foolish, as a matter of public policy, to allow law-abiding private citizens to own guns (although I’m not persuaded this is so). But it seems pretty clear that’s what the founders intended, and it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply wave that right away. No one doubts today that slavery is bad, but the Constitution as written permitted it, and a duly ratified amendment was required to put the matter right. Likewise we should concede that the Second Amendment means what it seems to mean, and that if we want to control guns to the point of prohibition, amending the amendment is the honest thing to do.

(end)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22No_Way_to_Prevent_This%22,_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens

unfortunately, this isn’t a situation, like the movie, where one is reliving groundhog day. this is where everyday is a new day.