From my previous post
You however continue to post lies and propaganda from the far right wing blogs.. Please post a link to your lies. Thank You we will be waiting..
Yet still no link and only more lies and propaganda. View Comment
Like I saidy you clearly can't read. My proof is in this very article cl. You however continue to post lies and propaganda from the far right wing blogs.. Please post a link to your lies. Thank You we will be waiting.. View Comment
@ NRA4ever (.)
install Positive Train Control, a life-saving technology used to slow down trains in order to help prevent crashes and collisions.
You clearly did not understand what you attempted to read. This would have 100 percent have prevented this tragic event. Also this would have been done years ago had the Republicans in Washington not diverted the funds to pay for the big oil tax breaks. View Comment
No what you are posting is called inciting violence , which is against the TOS and against the law. If I remember correctly this is what you were banned for on the Hour. I know I will now be your next victim of stalking, however do not expect a reply as I will not playing your trolling games. View Comment
robdny excellent post.. Please allow me to repost.
58 Murders a year by Firearms in Britain, 8,775 in US
Some 9,960 people were murdered with a firearm in the USA in 2010, a rate of 3.2 per 100,000 people.
On a global scale, this rate puts the US 26th in the world, behind Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica, according to UN data
How Conservatives “Reinvented” the Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
While conventional wisdom suggests that an individual’s right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, it is, in fact, a relatively recent interpretation, according to New Yorker writer and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
As politicians weigh new gun-control legislation in the wake of Friday’s brutal shooting in Newtown, Conn., FRONTLINE spoke with Toobin, author of The Oath, about what he describes as “the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment” and whether potential new gun control laws could conflict with it.
Describe early understandings of the Second Amendment. Was there uncertainty or ambiguity about what it meant?
The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights. … The words of the Second Amendment are ungrammatical and difficult to understand in the best of circumstances. But if you look at the history and context of the amendment, including other references to state militias in the Constitution, it suggests that the amendment only applied to state militias.
Now what makes this subject so difficult in the modern world is that state militias don’t exist anymore, so we have no familiarity with what a state militia is. But it was simply taken as a given in constitutional law that the Second Amendment did not give individuals a right to bear arms
When and how did that understanding begin to change to reflect an individual’s right?
It really started to change with the rise of the modern conservative movement in the ’70s and ’80s. You had Ronald Reagan, Edwin Meese, who was his attorney general, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in the Senate, really making a very sustained argument that the courts had misunderstood the Second Amendment for hundreds of years, and the NRA was an indispensable partner in this moment. And it became the conservative conventional wisdom that the Second Amendment gave an individual the right to bear arms.
1977 is really a key moment here, because that’s when the National Rifle Association went from being a largely apolitical gun-safety organization to a mobilized political operation that was dedicated to fighting gun control. … It both reflected and reinforced the growing conservatism of the Republican Party generally.
You had Orrin Hatch, when he was chairman of the judiciary subcommittee, putting forth a major report [PDF] that said all the courts were wrong about the Second Amendment. You have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court starting to advocate a renewed understanding of the Second Amendment. The country appears to have gotten more sympathetic to the argument that guns make people safer, not more dangerous.
The idea that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to bear arms was advocated so forcefully, so broadly and so persuasively that Democrats gave up on fighting the issue.
In your book The Oath, you explore how even then-Sen. Barack Obama took on this individual rights understanding and walked back some of his earlier views on gun control. What does that convey?
I think Obama personally illustrates how much the individual rights view has evolved into the conventional wisdom even for Democrats.
Now, I think Obama and at least some Republicans would differ about the extent of what the Second Amendment represents, but I think Obama’s embrace of the individual rights theory illustrates how pervasive that theory has become.
Submitted on December 24, 2014 - 1:10pm. View Comment
At first I figured you for just another mental run of the mill Republican kook. However I think I was wrong. It seems you are way beyond that as you come of as a libertarian nut job. Am I correct? View Comment