A three judge federal appeals court struck down California’s ban on selling assault weapons to those from 18-21. Two of the three judges were appointed by Trump. Ironic that this decision was issued a week before an 18-year-old used an AR-15 assault weapon to murder 10 people in Buffalo, New York. As of this date, there have been more than 200 multiple killings by firearms since the beginning of the year.
California enacted the law to reduce gun violence and protect the lives of its citizens. The Court’s reasoning was as vapid as the meanderings of the man who appointed them.
A U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday that California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 is unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the law violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and a San Diego judge should have blocked what it called “an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles” for young adults. “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote.
Nelson added: “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”
Trump’s toxic legacy, directed by Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society, lives on in the numerous judges he appointed to the federal bench.

How did “Judge” Nelson get to law school? He clearly doesn’t understand American history and the legacy of the 2nd Amendment, which had nothing to do with the Revolution and the founding of the nation.
LikeLike
Gun control advocates say the Second Amendment grants everyone the right to have a gun. Nope, the Second Amendment is about arming “a well regulated Militia,” not any nutjob who wanted one or two or three or more.
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.
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane. Exactly.
LikeLike
“not any nutjob who wanted one or two or three or more.”
Hey, I resemble that remark but I can’t figure out if I’m a pecan, walnut, acorn or hazelnut.
I own a half a dozen firearms, only have two at home because my son who is the hunter has the others. There is nothing inherently wrong with owning firearms. Target practice/clay bird shooting and hunting are legitimate activities.
The first fundamental to understand about the insanity in our country is that we are a country steeped in legalized death and destruction. We are the most militaristic country in the world. Amurikans luv themselves big, bright shining new weapons systems with which we cause that death and destruction.
Maybe it’s too much to ask that all citizens follow basic ethical gun usage practices, the first being that one doesn’t chamber a round or have a loaded magazine in the weapon until one has Identified the target, evaluated the safety of taking the shot and is ready to pull the trigger whether it is at a firing range or during a hunt. Any other time of having a loaded weapon, carrying it around in society whether concealed or not is unethical usage (and that goes for law enforcement officers). Until we change what we consider to be ethical usage to this standard the absurd numbers of these insanities will continue.
LikeLike
Quiet you are not allowed to teach that legacy.
LikeLike
The grand irony here is that if “originalists” and “constitutionalists” went back to the Framers’ scant debate on this and its early history, the reasoning they use to justify their fetish for the second amendment would go up in a poof of smoke. This is one issue where Supreme Court decisions the accept have absolutely no relationship to its constitutional origins.
LikeLike
Originalism is just a smokescreen for reactionary philosophy.
LikeLike
That’s exactly right. The Founders did not write a static document. The Constitution was intended to be a framework for the future, not an iron cage.
LikeLike
Yes, if they were “originalists”, then they would have overturned the Citizens United decision. I must have missed where the Constitution specified that corporations were people.
LikeLike
Public School Parent “I must have missed where the Constitution specified that corporations were people.”
. . . OR that money equates to free speech. CBK
LikeLike
NYCPSP, I think that’s because they don’t know the difference between corporeal and corporate.
LikeLike
Diane and GregB I have often thought that many in the Court, and especially those who claim “originalism,” don’t understand how interpretation works either.
And before someone charges me with relativism, we and they can have a right and wrong, and a half-right and a half-wrong interpretation. In any case, it’s all still interpretive, which throws a different light on what they mean by “original.”
The relevant difference also is that, as others have already said here, the way the Constitution is written, it ASSUMES a movement of history of persons and events, that then become, and SHOULD become, the Justices’ field of interpretive meaning from which they draw for their opinions, in all of their supposed wisdom, of course. their briefs should be sterling examples of such understanding of self and Constitution.
On the other hand, in my view, “original” if understood as identical with what is, in fact, a different time, place, and historical context, (as is implied in some of their past so-called “originalist” writings) is just so much embarrassingly ignorant philosophical falderal, on so many levels. If there were such a thing, everyone would know it and we wouldn’t have need for justices who have minds. CBK
LikeLike
Warren Burger stated it as simply as one could:
LikeLike
Beautifully argued, CBK! And thanks, Roy, Greg, and Diane. Yes, Originalism is cherry picked. And sometimes made up. What did the founders think of abortion? Well, Ben Franklin added a recipe for inducing an abortion to a home math book he edited, The American Instructor or Young Man’s Best Companion. Contra Alito, abortion was common in the colonies and commonly accepted practice.
LikeLike
I know a woman who has a beautiful contra Alito voice
LikeLike
Ha, Roy! So funny. I know a bunch of these! A bunch of these right here, too!
LikeLike
The New York Times reported this morning:
“By David Leonhardt, The Morning, May 17, 2022
‘Number don’t lie’
Good morning. The Buffalo killings are part of a pattern: Most extremist violence in the U.S. comes from the political right.
Over the past decade, the Anti-Defamation League has counted about 450 U.S. murders committed by political extremists.
Of these 450 killings, right-wing extremists committed about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible for 4 percent.
Nearly half of the murders were specifically tied to white supremacists: …”
NOTE: Since it arrived in an e-mail from the NY Times, I tried to click through to the actual piece on the NY Times site, but couldn’t get through so all I can do is copy and paste without a link. I did manage to reach the NY Times home page but couldn’t find it that way either.
Incidentally, I received a first anonymous hate mail (not an e-mail) postmarked Miami that arrived in my home’s real snail mail box Saturday, May 14 from a Hillary hater who made first contact on Quora asking me for my address, so he could mail me 20 pounds of evidence proving Hillary is guilty.
I refused to provide it so he found my address anyway. It’s very easy online to pay a small fee and find out just about anything about anyone unless they live off grid in a cave without an address and don’t have any credit cards or bank accounts.
I tried to copy and paste a photo of the letter and envelope here, but couldn’t. I reported the anonymous letter to Quora with attached photos of the envelope and letter. Quora advised I contact the police. My daughter sent me a link to report it to the USPS. I plan to publish the letter and envelope on two of my four blogs soon.
There was no return address on the envelope.
Geeze, the right wing extremists must be getting desperate when they start finding people on Quora to harass.
.
LikeLike
If the above statistics were to move in the opposite direction those laws would rapidly change.
LikeLike
The New York State Sullivan law, in place since 1911, “bars from unrestricted licensees because they did not meet New York’s standard of “proper cause,” which requires that a person demonstrate a heightened need to carry a handgun for self-defense,” is likely to be ruled unconstitutional and will allow “unrestricted” access. Imagine New York City, currently plagued by gun violence with illegal guns in which anyone could carry a concealed weapon. Sounds like script for a “B” movie instead of life in the Big Apple.
LikeLike
Right. Frightening. Sounds like a script for mayhem.
LikeLike
Expect more of this.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/girl-11-fighting-for-life-after-being-hit-with-stray-bullet-in-nyc/
LikeLike
The Republican Party has one answer — thoughts and prayers — because the life of an 11 year old girl, or 20+ first graders, or 17 high school students are just the price Republicans say we need to pay for our freedoms. Plus Republicans say that the Constitution requires assault weapons to be easily available to everyone.
The originalists insist that the words of the 2nd amendment are sacred and “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Toddlers and teens are clearly PEOPLE. The originalists – the entire Supreme Court – say there can be no law to prevent PEOPLE from bearing arms, and the “originalists” tell us over and over again that we must adhere to the words written.
Fetuses can also own assault weapons since they are people, too.
And of course, corporations can own assault weapons since they are people.
LikeLike
Corporations are people. Students are not.
LikeLike
^^correction, the Originalists are only the majority of the Supreme Court, not all.
LikeLike
Diane,
Or maybe fetuses are people, but students are not.
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
Let’s see now. Corporations and fetuses are people. Pregnant women and the born, not so much.
LikeLike
In my Army days I did qualify on .45 caliber pistol, on my discharge papers, probably will be good enough…
LikeLike
As tragic as every death is, did the NY Post mention that NYC gun deaths are down 12% year to date. Which would put them right at the next to last year of the Bloombucket administration(2012).
Stop and frisk ended effectively that year as it was substantially cut back with the case in Federal Court. And murders continued to plummet till Covid.
But you are right NYC would become like the S— Hole states where murder rates are far higher. So much for the slave patrol amendment.
LikeLike
Oh, it’s already been done, FLERP!, many times over, at least in Chicago & surrounds (& surely in many other places–I just happen to live in Chicago area: it’s on the news & in the papers EVERY damn day. 7-year-old girl killed in McDonald’s drive-thru shooting; 2 children visiting relatives in a suburb shot through the apartment window (6-yr-old survived, 9-year-old died); 4-yr.-old child having hair braided at home shot (again, stray bullets through the window)–dead, & on & on, ad nauseum.
LikeLike
Guns Don’t Kill People
Hate Doesn’t Kill People
Haters With Guns Kill People
SCOTUS Enables Haters To Get All The Guns They Can Get Their Bloody Hands On
Moral of the Story —
People needs to keep naming SCOTUS as accessories to every
Second Dementment Murder perpetrated in these United States
LikeLike
The National Review has a curious article attempting to disclaim any connection between the Buffalo killer and rightwing rhetoric and policies.
LikeLike
The National Review assures you that the Buffalo killer was not a conservative: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-theyre-not-telling-you-about-the-buffalo-shooter/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in-tag&utm_term=second
LikeLike
Diane: Connections to the Buffalo killer:
Connection Number One: Donald Trump
Connection Number Two: Fox “News” talking heads.
Not necessarily in that order. CBK
LikeLike
It’s obvious those are kindling to hate crimes — but the main force turning murders into mass murders is the Supreme Court and its johnny (get your gun and) come lately mutilation of the 2nd Amendment.
LikeLike
For most of the history of the 2nd amendment, it was not about an individual right to own a gun. It was about owning a gun within the framework of a militia. Unfortunately, the Heller Decision changed all that: from brittanicadotcom: District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939). end quote
It is just so sickening and discouraging that we can’t ban these semi-automatic guns and the high capacity gun magazines in so many states. Thank goodness NJ has tougher gun laws but illegal guns can be brought in from laxer gun law states. We keep doing stupid in this country, thanks to gargoyles like Trump, Boebert, McConnell, Tucker C., Hannity, Majorie Taylor Greene, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A challenge to the gun law in NJ might knock them out in the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
“It is just so sickening and discouraging that we can’t ban these semi-automatic guns and the high capacity gun magazines in so many states.”
Every one of my guns would be banned then. Almost all firearms, with some exceptions-single shot shotguns, muzzle loaders, some simple hand guns, are semi-automatic. Good luck on trying to get my duck gun, deer rifle, squirrel/rabbit guns from me with that ban.
Now, high capacity? What does that mean. My .22 holds 15-16 rounds. Is that “high capacity”. The .243 holds six rounds. Is that high capacity?
Again, I come back to the unethical usage of firearms by far too many, including law enforcement officers. No one should be walking around with a loaded weapon in public. PERIOD!
LikeLike
HELLER SKELTER —
SCOTUS • Putting the Mass in Mass Murder Since 2008
LikeLike
I am so sick and tired of Mealy-Mouthed Mainscam Media Morons
who can’t even point the finger of blame where it clearly belongs —
People in civilized countries must think we’re all Bloody Brain Dead …
LikeLike
Many have thought that for quite a while, even some of us in this uncivilized country.
LikeLike
Touche’
LikeLike
Oh come on, don’t you know that if it isn’t entirely the fault of the Democrats/progressives, then both sides are always equally to blame?
The ever growing right wing media ALWAYS points the finger of blame directly at the Democrats/progressives.
And the mealy-mouthed so-called “liberal” media ALWAYS says that both sides are equally to blame.
The two “acceptable” opinions in the both sides argument that the so-called “liberal” media embraces are:
One side is that the Republicans are always right and the Democrats are wrong.
Other side is that no one has any idea which side is right because both sides are equally valid.
Is anyone surprised that our side has such an impossible time with messaging when it doesn’t matter what message our side uses, it will ALWAYS be amplified by the media as “this message may or may not be true”.
By the way, the message that the Democrats are always wrong is also amplified by some who profess to be on the left and yet if you look closely you will see that they NEVER amplify the message that the Republicans are always wrong. (On the contrary, they usually defend and normalize the most reprehensible Republican actions) Suspicious, right?
LikeLike
I find myself watching more BBC news because the mainstream outlets are too annoying, and there is so much hype and spin. At least the BBC is not in the entertainment division of networks as in our country where every event is portrayed as Armageddon to boost ratings.
LikeLike
These days, the MSM covers two kinds of stories: Armageddon or celebrity news
LikeLike
” …where every event is portrayed as Armageddon to boost ratings.”
Yes!
LikeLike
Unless it is some real breaking news and I happen to be near a television, I don’t watch any American outlets anymore. I read and will occasionally tune into BBC or German news. It’s less the bias of American media than the sheer ignorance that is borne from and nurtures it, from local newsreaders to MSNBC to all networks.
LikeLike
I don’t watch any “news” programs. NONE! Haven’t for decades. No need to pollute my mind.
LikeLike
Doesn’t Nelson’s comment suggest that the purpose of young people’s right to bear arms, including assault rifles is to enable insurrection?
LikeLike
Yes. Arm them for a revolution.
LikeLike
The Oprahfication of arms.
LikeLike
I just wanted to take a moment here to congratulate Roy Turrentine on his “retirement” as of today. Of course, his active mind won’t be retired. I’m hoping that he will spend part of the time he’ll now have distilling some of what he has learned about American and world history from his years of study and teaching into online materials that other history teachers can use. And, ofc, he will continue learning. His students were lucky to have him, as we are on this blog. Blessings to you and yours, Roy, and may this next phase be the best yet!
LikeLike
Correction: “I’m hoping that he will spend part of the time he’ll now have distilling some of that Tennessee Whiskey.”
Felicidades, Roy!
LikeLike
Not much for whiskey, Tennessee or otherwise. They are proud of that stuff. As for guns, I am such a poor shot that I cannot afford the ammo.
LikeLike
Less ammo, more amo
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carlson went on his show to double down, delivering a tirade about how Democrats want to use things like the Buffalo shooting to stifle free speech, while ignoring the “Buffalos” occurring every day in America’s cities. He also laid the blame for the shooting on liberal “Identity Politics” leading to the emergence of White Identity Politics and to people like Peyton Gendron. Laura Ingram went on her show to blame the Buffalo shooting, somehow, on Biden and liberals. She didn’t explain how, exactly, Biden and liberals are supposed to be to blame for this, just that they are.
My take: The former, F. Carlson, is an extremely manipulative and evil guy who knows exactly what he has been doing, much to his financial reward (not that he needs it–he is heir to the Swanson TV dinner fortune, which is breathtakingly appropriate, given the quality of what Carlson serves up each evening; it looks like food for thought, superficially, to ignorant people, but the quality is terrible). The latter, L. Ingram, is simply insane.
LikeLike
“He also laid the blame for the shooting . . . ”
The blame?
In a society that is overwhelmingly hardcore death and destruction militarily oriented as the US why would anyone blame these shootings on anything other than blind nationalistic love of the US Military and the death and destruction machine that it is?
LikeLike
We have more guns than people. It’s nuts.
“Nothing can be done about gun violence” says only country where this is an everyday occurrence.
LikeLike
Good thread here about F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tom Buchanan and White Replacement Theory. Stuff like this is something Twitter is great for.
LikeLike
When I was 16, I read everything by Fitzgerald. I was taken by his style. As I grew older, I came to recognize what a total POS he was. This is a fascinating and horrifying thread, Flerp. Thank you for sharing it.
LikeLike
Another horror in the vein of The Rising Tide of Color: Paul Popenoe’s Applied Eugenics, 1918.
LikeLike
To be clear, Bob, I don’t read Fitzgerald as endorsing that. I read it as a sendup of Buchanan’s cloddishness.
LikeLike
Fitzgerald was at least woke enough, if I can use that anachronism, to put this vicious stuff in the mouth of the villainous Tom Buchanan. My beef with Fitzgerald is how horribly he treated his wife and how fawning he was toward the wealthy and how much he wanted, more than anything, to be rich. He spent his life a little boy with his nose pressed against the glass of the candy shop. There is that famous, possibly apocryphal, interchange between Fitzgerald and Hemingway:
F: The rich are different.
H: Yeah. They have more money.
LikeLike
Yes, Flerp. I knew that you knew that. Buchanan is portrayed as pure evil, and this nonsense is part of that characterization.
LikeLike
Bob and Flerp:
Interesting side conversation here. This is why Diane’s living room is the modern equivalent to the Paris Salon of Madame Von Steele.
LikeLike
Why, thank you. You are a delightful guest.
LikeLike
People like Trump, Carlson, Ingram, and Peyton Gendron can’t stand the fact that our country is becoming more diverse, though diversity has always been one of our great strengths. Here, some numbers:
Percent of U.S. Population, 1980
Whites: almost 80%
Blacks: 11.5%
Latino or Hispanic: 6.5%
Asian: 1.8%
Total Nonwhite: A fraction over 20%
Percent of U.S. Population, 2019
Whites: 60.1%
Blacks: 12.5%
Latino or Hispanic: 18.5%
Asian: 5.9%
Total Nonwhite: 39.9%
So, the white share of the population dropped by 20 percent over the past 39 years. The numbers for people in the U.S. under 16 are even more interesting. Only 49.5% were white in 2019. Some of us think that that’s a beautiful thing. Others, well, . . .
Source: Brookings, using data from the recent Census
LikeLike
According to Pew Research, only 8 percent of blacks voted for Trump. Trump made some small gains with Latino voters in 2020, receiving 34% of the Latino vote, but this is still significantly underwater, and the big story is that far more Latino voters voted in the 2020 Presidential election. So, also a big win for Biden.
LikeLike
These numbers are the source of the Carlson/Gendron Great White Replacement Theory and the reason why Republicans want to do everything they can to restrict voting access.
LikeLike
My own view, which I’ve stated before, is we need to turn down the temperature on the way we talk about race in this country. We need more emphasis on what unites us as Americans, and less emphasis on what divides us. The trend away from “color blindness” as a virtue — an aspiration, a goal, to try to treat everyone equally and fairly — is not healthy for society.
One possible demographic future is an America where both whites and blacks are minorities in the US. That could be a scenario where white “racial” identity is much more sharpened than it has been historically—as a racial group that must explicitly compete with other racial groups, to the extent racial group identity is an even stronger concept than it is today. It would also be a world where blacks remain not much more than 12-13% of the population—a small and vulnerable minority.
There are other possibilities of course. The US could become majority Latino, with other groups—“white,” black, and Asian—occupying second tier status. Some cities and states are already far along that route.
Or intermarriage could have effects that make “white replacement theory” completely irrelevant—Latinos intermarrying with whites could just end up being seen as “white” in the same way that has happened with previous immigrant groups. That could create an even larger white majority, with the same vulnerable black minority, than we have today. Again, I think this is reason to be concerned about going all-in on abandoning color blindness as a goal.
Speaking off the cuff here and typing on a phone, as usual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or intermarriage could have effects that make “white replacement theory” completely irrelevant
This. This is what I saw among the young people I taught, even in red, red Flor-uh-duh They make friends and date across supposed racial lines. Lots of black and white couples. So, not just whites and Hispanics.
LikeLike
That would be a wonderful outcome, Bob.
LikeLike
Bob,
And I find it revealing that it is the older generation — the one that is more tolerant of racists and live more segregated lives — that believes that talking about racism is “divisive”.
I agree with your observation. Young people who date across (supposed) racial lines are the ones who know that not talking about racism doesn’t make it go away. It just makes it more comfortable for white people since it’s easier for them to pretend it has gone away. It just ENABLES the racists to be more racist.
Why is it that young people have friends of various races and date partners of various races and don’t believe the lie that talking about race and acknowledging racism is a bad thing because it stops people from “uniting”?
Why is it that the folks who want us to stop talking about racism are the ones who often seem to be the most racist?
Young people don’t cover up or deny racism and they are less racist.
So I have no idea why anyone believes that not acknowledging racism is the best way to unite us. Denying it means we continue to be divided by those who live in reality and those whose definition of reality seems to be whatever makes them the most comfortable.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
The youth are not passing the anti-CRT laws. They are not banning discussions of racism.
It’s the older generation of white people, who have been racist for years and don’t want anyone to talk about it.
LikeLike
NYC and Bob NYC writes: “Why is it that the folks who want us to stop talking about racism are the ones who often seem to be the most racist?”
If I may, one answer to that question is that such talk almost-immediately reaches into some very deep sets of assumptions that have come down to us over CENTURIES of thinking and its bed of social habits and customs.
In the case of the rise of white nationalism, my thought is that such talk tends to pry up centuries of an ingrained sense of WHITE PRIVILEGE that is so deeply buried and habitual in us that it takes a heap of self-reflection/interrogation, bringing up to our own consciousness, to even recognize its presence in ourselves; and only then can we bring change to ourselves (if we will), and certainly our heads explode when pointed out to us.
So let’s just not talk about it.” If we are not already somewhat reflective, we just don’t know what to do with all those powerful feelings. So, let’s just lynch black people, or gas the Jews, or bomb the Ukrainians, . . . whatever makes that awful overwhelming existential feeling go away.
Now people like Tucker Carlson and Trump, whether they fully understand it or not, actually reach that grown-in responsive feeling with their rhetoric, but TRANSLATE it to an external threat: “They’re replacing us!” So internally, we can feel our long-term sense of existential privilege being threatened, but if, say, a KKK person, feels deeply, but doesn’t know or care to ask what they are feeling, they go with the outer (mis)interpretation of it. It’s the OTHER’s fault.
The name is generalized to “group bias;” and it applies to group (any) relations and so also to the relationship between men and women. “We want you (women) to do well, but not TOO well.” (Is anyone watching Martha Mitchell in “Gaslit” or “First Lady”?) Translated: “Do well, but do not mess with (my idea of) your female roles, and certainly not with my sense of male privilege. It’s so deep, we can even imagine ourselves higher on an imaginary hierarchy, instead of on relatively equal planes with whomever happens to be a member of “that other group.” (Poor, fat, Black or just dark-skinned, Asian, Jewish, female, older, . . . fill in the blank.)
As a white female born in 1946, my background left me with a bias against Black and other “others” for a very long time. I had to CONSCIOUSLY work my habits of thought through, in circumstances as they occurred, for a very long time before my biased feelings finally gave up their power of immediacy over me, even as I was conscious of them.
So I guess I am truly WOKE, and glad of it. CBK
The group bias term is drawn from Bernard Lonergan’s “Insight, A Study of Human Understanding” (2000) see that whole chapter.
LikeLike
Diane,
Are you saying you don’t buy in to the narrative that these older folks passing laws to ban discussions of race are just trying to “turn down the temperature” in order to “unite” us?
I don’t either.
The young people who are the least racist are the ones who were out there marching during BLM gatherings. They KNOW that there is racism and they also know that the adults who profess to be the least racist who want to “tone down discussion” are wrong and have absolutely no evidence to support their view and ignore all the evidence that discredits that view.
Who is it that gets to decide whether a temperature that is barely “warm” is red hot? I guess it is the privileged people who never get burned by it, but blame other people for getting burned because it was supposedly all because they “turned up the temperature” too high. Those attacks were thrown at MLK Jr, too.
Such a double standard — have these same people ever posted and said that the folks who have “turned up the temperature” to explosion levels about the dangers of CRT should dial it down? So that we can be united?
The hypocrisy is stunning. These angry far right white folks are completely empowered and have more than 20 states passing laws against something that only bothered them for 1 year because they did NOT “turn down the temperature”. And we are told that we should pander to their desires because after one year of them “suffering” from CRT, it is up to us to unite with them and understand them.
Such implicit racism in how people view this.
Imagine a world where it was the racists who were constantly being chided to “dial it down” and give the people who are upset about the racism in this society what they want so that this country can be united?
Imagine someone on here posting that those angry anti-CRT folks should “dial it down” instead of posting links to provocative twitter feeds designed to dial up the anger? What hypocrisy. Like the anti-CRT parents have more cause to be angry and dial it up than people who are victimized by our racist society.
LikeLike
This is a personal response to your comment. A member of my very large family wrote to say that the schools in Florida were teaching CRT and Governor DeSantis had to ban it. She assured me that her own grown children have Black friends. Something in her message caused my mind to click. I know that she and her husband have always been racist. She has no idea of what CRT is. None. I suddenly realized that she was hoping that the schools would stop teaching about racism, present or past, because she is a racist and discussion of racism makes her uncomfortable.
LikeLike
CBK,
Such a brilliant comment. Thank you.
I was born a few decades after you, and I still consciously work to think about my own biases. The biases I was certain I did not have until I got “woke”.
Not talking about something doesn’t “unite” us. It “unites” those who don’t want to talk about it because talking about it it makes them feel uncomfortable with those who like it, period.
Republicans are united – and empowered – because they aren’t afraid of talking about things they don’t like and the media celebrates them screaming about things that bother them instead of constantly lecturing them about how they should shut up so the country can be united. Only one side has to shut up so the country can be united.
LikeLike
Diane,
Thanks for sharing that personal story.
It is so Orwellian when it isn’t just racists, but people here, who amplify the false (and pro-racist) narrative in which the definition of being “color-blind’ now means that one cannot acknowledge racism! Therefore people who point out the racism in society are “not being color-blind” and people who want to shut down all talk of racism are exhibiting the VIRTUE of being “color-blind”.
The only virtue is not being racist and doing things to stop racism. Which is what the young people who are the least racist know. Young people who aren’t racist aren’t uncomfortable talking about racism or acknowledging racism. It doesn’t “divide” them to talk about it.
What is reprehensible is pushing a completely dishonest definition of not being racist in which not being racist means pretending racism doesn’t exist and not talking about it and those that are fighting racism are supposedly the “racist” ones. Orwellian.
LikeLike
Our “Heroic Revolutionary Army” had muskets. Idiots.
LikeLike
EXACTLY!!!!
LikeLike
When I hear these idiots say, “You’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands,” I am tempted to answer, “I’m good with that.” But, of course, I’m not, really. I don’t want these gun nuts to die. I want their weapons taken from them.
I am so, so sick of hearing about kids being killed headed to their classes, old people being killed at church or temple or grocery shopping. Jon is right. There is blood on the hands of the Supreme Court every time one of these killings occurs, and on the hands of the Congresspeople who won’t pass sane gun legislation. We can have guns everywhere, or we can have our kids and old people be safe. We can’t have both. There is no other country like this, with so many idiots owning and even carrying around so many guns.
About a year ago, I was at a local theatre company, at a rehearsal. I took a break and walked backstage, where an older, local man was climbing a ladder to hang some lights. As he twisted his body to grab the light, the pistol he had fell out of his pocket or wherever he had it to the floor. WTF was this guy doing? In what other country would this be legal or acceptable?
LikeLike
Not long after that, I went to a local store on my bicycle. On the way back in the dark, I was riding on the sidewalk. When I saw a fellow walking in front of me, I veered off on the street. As I got near him, he pivoted around, drew and leveled a gun at me, and yelled. “Sneak up on me!” This was in a normal, middle-class neighborhood in Flor-uh-duh.
LikeLike
People in France, England, Germany, Denmark, Japan, etc., don’t open the news on their browser and read, on any given day, 12 Elementary School Children Dead in Shooting; Amber Heard Testifies; FBI Questions Synagogue Shooter’s Parents; Inside Kortney Kardashian’s New House: a Sneak Peek!
This is a nation of idiots.
“Nothing can be done about gun violence,” says only country where it’s a daily occurrence.
LikeLike
Gotta have my guns!
Why?
For protection! To go out and kill stuff!
Yeah, that makes me feel really comfortable about sending my grandkids off to school.
Morons. Ours is a nation of morons.
LikeLike
armed morons
LikeLike
Based on this court decision, we may not be able to ban certain types of guns, but we should be able to tax the crap out of them and their manufacturers. I realize that this wouldn’t stop the sale of illegal weapons but it would help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ARmons, from the Unhinged States of ARmonia (Texanistan, DeSantistan, ARkanistan, Wisconistan, etc)
LikeLike
ARmaniacs from ARmania
LikeLike
The ARmanian national anthem
LikeLike
DeSantistan! LMAO!!!
LikeLike
Runner up for ARmanian national anthem
https//youtu.be/wRWCK9zGynA
LikeLike
LikeLike
Second runner up
LikeLike
And then we decided to elect mostly lawyers to rule the country.
Hmmm. How’s that working out for you?
LikeLike
Send lawyers guns and money, the Trump has hit the fan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haaaa! yes
LikeLike
Trump happens.
Trump or get off the pot (or the coke)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adderall
LikeLike
Send Barr and Qanon Shamans, the Trump has hit the fan.
LikeLike
It’s important to note here what Antonin Scalia said in his Heller decision, the one in which he essentially REWROTE the Second Amendment to his liking. Even in Heller, Scalia made it a point to say this:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Scalia went on to say this: “that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
Assault-style rifles like the AR-15 are, in fact, very “dangerous,’ military-grade weapons.
PBS described what the AR-15 is:
“the AR-15 is America’s rifle because it’s what America’s military carries…even those who don’t serve feel that they’re part of that effort when they carry the AR-15… It’s a military rifle. It’s designed to deliver masses of bullets to a very specific target…This is a weapon designed to kill…It’s a military weapon…What’s different on the civilian versions is, it only allows semiautomatic fire…It’s very easy to reload. It’s very easy to get more ammunition in there and continue to shoot at your target…The ammunition for the M-16 or the AR-15 is a 5.56-millimeter bullet. It’s a very small and very fast bullet that does a lot of tissue damage… because it’s so small and moves so fast, it tends to tumble…when it hits a person, and so it tends to create a very large wound and very difficult-to-treat wounds. Again, it’s a military weapon. It’s not designed for hunting…It’s designed to wound or kill soldiers in combat…”
The Trump judges erred, badly, and likely, on purpose.
LikeLike
The current Republican party is so far down the neo-fascist road that both Scalia and Reagan would be rejected by them if they were alive. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are more conservative than Reagan and they are considered too “leftist” and are basically being excommunicated from the Republican party. The policies they support are just as conservative but since they believe in truth and democracy instead of lies, they are no longer welcome in the neo-fascist Republican party.
But that is a great observation about Scalia’s decision. Which means that the media will never bring it up in their attempt to normalize today’s neo-fascist Republicans.
LikeLike
Great point.
LikeLike