As I wrote earlier, a 2-year-old in North Carolina picked up a gun and pulled the trigger, killing his pregnant mother.
A reader sent me a story from an Ohio newspaper: the same thing happened in Ohio in January. A 2-year-old killed his pregnant mother in Norwalk, Ohio.
“Nothing can be done about limiting access to guns,” says only country where gun violence is the leading cause of death among children and teenagers. “Nothing can be done about limiting access to guns,” says only country where gun massacres have become part of the daily news cycle.
Some countries require gun owners to have safety training before buying a gun. Sone require gun owners to have a locked storage box for their deadly weapons.
Not us! We’re special! If toddlers kill their mothers, tough luck!
Ohio is very pro-life and very pro-gun. Are they?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
It was in Ohio where, two summers ago, at a small town July 4th celebration, I came upon the tent of a vendor selling plates with pictures on them of white Jesus holding an AR-15-style rifle.
LikeLike
A bit of inventive theology there. I cannot recall Jesus being violent. He did say he was takin names, but it was mostly the rich folks mostly.
LikeLike
Haaaa!
Though there was the throwing money changers out of the temple bit.
LikeLike
Arma Christi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
haaa
LikeLike
Common sense laws around gun safety and training and how to store guns at home, along with background checks, would do a lot to diminish these horrible tragedies. We know most people agree, law-abiding gun owners agree. Who pays the politicians to work against people and public health snd the common good?!?!?
LikeLike
Exactly. It’s all about the bucks.
LikeLike
We are ABSOLUTELY NOT PRO-LIFE in any shape or form!!!!
LikeLike
Vella, so you think Ohio is a pro-death state? Any state represented by Jim Jordan has problems.
LikeLike
I don’t think we are pro-death but not being pro-choice does not make us pro-life either! Absolutely, we have lots of problems with our legislators, both national and at a state level! We were just talking about states that are slipping downhill and named Florida, Texas and our own state of Ohio because of being associated with that man.
LikeLike
As I mentioned earlier today, I’ve never owned a gun. But I know numerous people who do, and ALL of them practice the safety measures described in this posting. They don’t need laws to tell them to do so, and gun classes stress safety precautions. Pass all the laws you want, but actual gun safety results when conscientious people – the vast majority of gun owners – practice what they’ve been taught to do.
LikeLike
And we don’t need criminal laws of any kind because no one I know would ever do anything wrong!
LikeLike
Two-year-olds should enroll in gun safety classes. They have anger management issues.
LikeLike
Pass all the food safety regulations you want, the vast majority of businesses and people involved in the food industry are conscientious and practice what they’ve been taught to do.
Pass all the building regulations you want, the vast majority of architects, contractors, builders, regulators, etc, are conscientious and practice what they’ve been taught to do.
Pass all the highway safety regulations you want, the vast majority of manufacturers and drivers are conscientious and practice what they’ve been taught to do.
And let all my wonderful law-abiding (code for lily white or anything not smelling of ethnicity or deviance) neighbors do what they want. To a person, they are all conscientious and practice what they’ve been taught to do: shoot and ask questions later.
LikeLike
The analogies make clear the absurdity of arguments supporting no restraints on guns in the modern world.
LikeLike
There will, always be, these, tragedies, gun-related, “accidents”, because, there will, NEVER be, a gun-control law, as, the Congress is, funded by the ,NRA, and, those in that, ivory tower of the, Capitol Hill, simply, don’t care. What mattered most to them, is the money that, keeps on, coming in, for their, election, campaigns, and, a, huge chunk of the cash is from the NRA, passing a gun control law for them, would basically be, political career, suicide, and, they want to, stay in office, as long as possible, and, there’s, no limit to the number of terms you can have, so long as yulou, continue to get, elected. So, no gun control laws, anyyime, soon.
LikeLike
That fetid stench is the rotting corpse of Antonin Scalia, his laughter gurgling from the grave.
The Second Amendment is one area of constitutional law where I can claim expertise. The (un)constitutional trump card Scalia unleashed in D.C. v. Heller is the curse that guaranteed the unceasing carnage we have been experiencing since 2008. And it’s all a lie.
The statistical evidence is quite clear that firearms in the home are more likely to kill the homeowner (or his wife, or his kids) than any “intruder”.
LikeLike
jsrtheta,
Do you favor changing gun laws and then having police raid people’s homes to confiscate the guns that they legally own under current laws?
LikeLike
I certainly favor registration and licensing of firearms, and forfeiture of firearms from owners who fail to follow those laws.
LikeLike
Interesting that no one can drive a car without getting a license and passing a test. And that license must be periodically renewed. But any psychopath can buy a deadly weapon. In Florida and Texas, without a permit or any safeguard.
LikeLike
People also don’t realize that the states and the federal government conducted gun censuses. They knew who had what firearms and where they lived. It was also understood that the states had the right to appropriate private arms for use by the militia.
Does that sound like the understandings of today’s gun owners? If the sheriff showed up on their doorsteps demanding they surrender their guns for use by the militia, would they patriotically comply?
Knowledge of history is not exactly their strong point.
LikeLike
It’s sad that so many people in this country have strong opinions about subjects on which they are uninformed. This opens up a great space for demagoguery. Like CRT (they say, “I’m against CRT, I’m against Woke.”) If you ask them to be more specific, they actually don’t know what they are against.
LikeLike
How damaged must you be to jump to the conclusion that the first step to sensible legislation is “having police raid people’s home to confiscate”? How paranoid are you?
LikeLike
Speaking of the Scalia wing of the Court, Politico reported about the non-disclosure of the funders backing the No Labels political group. One of the speculated funders is Harlan Crow (Clarence Thomas).
Other potential donors possibly include Paul Singer (Alito), Peter Thiel, Home Depot’s right wing founder, etc.
No doubt, in addition to owning the Court, there
are 0.1%’ers who’d like to own the President.
LikeLike
I think the idea of court expansion AND impeachment of Alito and Thomas should be seriously discussed, quite publicly and loudly. Unleash Senator Whitehouse!
It seems to me that Alito’s case is the plainest one for impeachment. The conflict of interest is so patent, so gross. Any municipal court judge knows you don’t pull that sort of nonsense.
.
Few believe it, but judges and lawyers take ethics very seriously. You don’t hear them rushing to Alito’s defense. Because they’re pissed. The arrogance is beyond belief. He has to go.
LikeLike
Jrs: what specific thing has Alito done recently? I have been out and off the grid for the most part for better than a month.
LikeLike
If the decision is made to revoke John Eastman’s law license, it would be a watershed moment for the U.S. in the prevention of future coups. Project 65 is doing commendable work. Eastman’s presidency of the Robert P George-founded National Organization for Marriage should be widely reported as should Cleta Mitchell’s role as NOM’s lawyer and her links to Koch.
IMO, the Alito victory lap in Rome, shortly after Roe’s overturn, courtesy of the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Initiative (funded by John Templeton) is worse than the relationship between Thomas and Harlan Crow. The threat against separation of church and state is more dangerous to democracy than one man/one judge’s financial grift. Jefferson warned, in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the despot.
The protection that the right wing politicking of the Catholic Church receives will be the consternation of future historians.
Two recent examples, IMO, include, first, the new movie, 1946, which attributes a Bible mistranslation by Yale scholars in 1946 to the current Christian antagonism directed at LGBTQ. In contrast, where’s the movie about what led up to the Catholic politicking and financing of anti-gay legal efforts? The 2nd example is the Paul Blumenthal article about the Comstock Act which is the legal argument underlying the next anti-abortion case (Huffpo). Blumenthal’s entire review is of Anglo-Saxon protestant steering, which if he focused solely on that narrow history, would be explainable. But, he references the current SCOTUS while never once in all of the paragraphs, introducing the word Catholic. He chooses to quote a liberal professor at Notre Dame, while ignoring that Amy Comey Barrett had her training and promotion through Notre Dame.
Based on media and influencers, the public would conclude, there is no Catholic Church steering of anti-gay, anti-abortion and school choice campaigns. The notion that the Catholic Church has, unfortunately, found itself with a politically active right wing outlier group within, is a dangerous and false narrative. Before the Hispanic vote shifts to Republican, Democrats should understand the threat. The Church has been right wing in the US for some time and heavily involved in supporting the GOP agenda, particularly in the central states which are rich in electoral college votes.
LikeLike
Well we agree. However the failure to confront the truth about the “fugitive slave amendment”,the true origins of the 2nd Amendment. extends far beyond the Republican Right. Democrats frame their arguments in terms of making the possession of fire arms safer for the General Public. Few are willing to question the assertion that the Framers of the Constitution had no intention on giving Citizens an absolute right to individually poses fire arms.
“In Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to keep and bear firearms for purposes unrelated to an organized militia. That 2008 holding was the culmination of decades of effort by gun rights advocates to transform the personal purposes interpretation of the Second Amendment from a “fraud” — in the words of (then retired) Chief Justice Warren Burger — into the law of the land. ”
“So I think that interpreting the Second Amendment to protect the individual right to own firearms is really just absurd, and it’s also terribly important. It happens over and over and over again. I think I should have been more forceful in making that point in my Heller dissent.” His autobiography, published just weeks before his death, called Heller “the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court’s history.”
J.P. Stevens
No one was taking away your firearms except Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral. And of Course every other Law Man who asked you to hand over a firearm while in town. Of course that does not mean that the possession of fire arms for defense against animals and humans or for hunting was banned. Except of Course if you happened to be Black even after the 14th Amendment in States that did so . “United States v. Cruikshank”
Yet at the same time no one was seriously questioning a States right to restrict that possession. The reversal of past precedent culminating in 2008 in Heller.
But how many Democrats are willing to outright challenge the assertion that the 2nd Amendment calls for individual rights to own fire arms. How many Democrats have the B—s to stand up and call at a minimum for the banning and collection of assault weapons. Instead they call for background checks and other half measures .
If you feel the need to own a weapon of war you are by definition mentally unstable.
LikeLike
I understand that some want to interpret the 2d as a purely racist amendment. The “historical” support for that view is facile revisionism. It’s certainly true that the militia was used to hunt and retrieve slaves. In the slave states. But the militia was a STATE institution. The New England states and Pennsylvania were not slave states in 1789. There was no reason for the Second in New England. Yet they ratified the Bill of Rights, including the Second.
The “racist” theory of the Second is very easy to make if you ignore history and what was happening in the country under the Articles of Confederation. Specifically, you have to look to why Madison addressed the militia so strongly in the Constitution. The answer to THAT is Shays’ Rebellion. And Shays’ had nothing to do with slaves, and everything to do with the virtual federalization of the militia in the Constitution. In fact, Shays’ Rebellion is why George Washington changed his mind and attended the Constitutional Convention.
The militia at the time was common to every state except the Quaker state. We have it still, except we call it the National Guard. The Constitution radically changed how the militia could be used, and who ran it. It took most power over the militia from the states and gave it to the federal government. And it was the slave states who howled about this, not the non-slave states. So the idea that the Second Amendment was a ruse to equip the slave states with a ready-made fugitive slave squad ignores the fact, that Madison had already enshrined in the militia in Article I. And he also took ultimate control from the states where it counted.
LikeLike
Is that why the courts now say that the 2nd Amendment gives every citizen “the right to bear arms,” not just the militia?
LikeLike
The new interpretation of an “individual right” is the result of handing the Heller decision to Antonin Scalia who LOVED him some guns.
Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is not founded the language of the Constitution or the Framers, nor on accurate history. What he wrote is generally referred to as “law office history”, the practice of searching the historical record for quotations to repeat out of context and the steadfast ignoring of context or the interpretations of expert historians. The case overruled every major prior Second Amendment opinion in the federal courts. And there were a lot of them.
Basically, the Federalist Society and Wayne LaPierre wrote the opinion. We’ve been paying for it ever since.
LikeLike
It’s a half-baked argument that people like to repeat because it implies that the things they don’t like are fruit of a poisonous tree, like the idea that policing is inherently racist because it supposedly originated with “slave patrols” (it didn’t) or that standardized testing is inherently evil because it supposedly originated as a eugenics practice (it didn’t).
LikeLike
jsrtheta
I understand that some want to ignore actual history but Slavery in NY was not abolished totally till 1827. Not totally abolished in NJ till 1865-6. Did not end totally in Conn. till 1848. N.H. not officially till 1857 . Even if several of these States passed laws that limited or gradually ended Slavery earlier than those dates.
You must know more than Chief Justice Burger and Justice Stevens.
Certainly Slavery was more important to Economy the Southern States. The Constitution was not the Ten Commandments delivered by a higher entity to be obeyed. It was a series of compromises orchestrated by Washington at the Convention even more so than Madison who put it all to paper.
But it is useful to view the Constitution in terms of what the participants said at the time.
Patric Henry and George Mason in Particular who expressed the reservations of the Anti Federalists.Fearing the power of a Central Government over States / Individuals .
“By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.”. Patric Henry
“The [slave patrol] militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretenses, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution].”
Mason
“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.” Patric Henry
Did Virginia not have the largest population in 1789. And the largest slave population. The second amendment was added to alleviate those fears. Especially in Virginia. The position of Madison and more so Washington who had the most influence at the Convention was; they had no intention of doing what Mason and Henry feared (abolish slavery) and it cost them nothing to appease them. To get the majority of other Virginia delegates on Board.
“I was struck with surprise,” Madison said, “when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.”
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/slave-patrols-and-the-second-amendment-how-fears-of-abolition-empowered-an-armed-militia/
LikeLike
Before claiming others’ ideas are half-baked, you may want to check your own oven. First, a half-baked semantic ruse leading to an even less-baked premise. Nowhere, I mean nowhere, will you find is the comprehensive idea of “policing” connected to having their origins in slave patrols. To make such a claim exposes the utter absurdity of the claim. What is very true, read any sentence of the many volumes devoted to this, is that slave patrols very much influenced the historical behavior of many Southern (and northern and midwestern, and western) police practices that were tolerated and encouraged from Jim Crow through the Civil Rights Movement and well into today. But don’t go with the stupidity of claiming them as the source of the idea of policing.
As for the why you don’t know the facts of the origins of standardized testing, can’t explain that. We’ve had dozens of articles posted here as well as a number of histories that document every part of its story.
LikeLike
Nor is it the source of the Second Amendment.
LikeLike
Again, the American Disease of absolutes. No one thing was the source of the second amendment. No. One. Thing.
The second amendment was inspired by a number of sources: national survival without a standing army, ability of militias to be armed, empowerment of restrictions against enslaved people from exercising any of their natural rights — the one reserved for white folks and would even be preserved with violence or the threat of it. There is relatively constitutional law regarding the second amendment. The first Supreme Court decision about it was in late 1930s, the second in this century. Everything else is just noise, mostly funded and created by the NRA since the early 1970s.
The trick of attributing one absolute reason as the cause of anything is something to be treated with suspicion without a detailed explanation to justify it.
LikeLike
GregB you write: *” . . . the American Disease of absolutes. No one thing was the source of the second amendment. No. One. Thing.**
Nice way to put that. The same *”absolutist” thinking disease also lurks in the background of the “either/or” kind of thinking that is all too common, or “cherry picked” critique, deliberate mis-characterizations, etc., etc., etc.
A case in point is the fact that, though many (most?) on this site advocate for public schools as I do, I think we are afraid to criticize public schools or teachers for very real problems, especially in today’s poisonous atmosphere, for fear of drawing down absolutist, either/or, cherry-picked, throw the baby out with the bathwater, extremely biased critique.
For instance, how many American citizens are presently in prison who went to public school, or are responsible for the “waste, fraud, and abuse” of government programs; or for running scams, or who fit the description of “scumbags” and “lowlifes”? And yet, we still (rightly) support public education and know there is a huge across-the-board benefit from keeping well-funded educational institutions open to the public–all of us.
The more nuanced fact for all education (from K-12-college and beyond) is that no matter what kind of education is offered to the public or to any other group, some public schools (and all kinds of school) really do have “pockets” of problems; and some students, no matter what, are just not going to “get it.”
(It’s the same in families where, with moral or social concerns, polar opposites can exist.)
But we (rightly, and at least some of us) keep working to make public schools and our teachers better. “Black and White” or absolutist thinking just doesn’t cut it, especially when its purveyors pretend that the criticism is absolutely right while in fact being so selective in is application as to be distorted, like a carnival glass, e.g., most of the right-wingers I have experienced, MJG and so many others (pun intended with B&W). CBK
LikeLike
It’s obvious that you are enamored of the somewhat novel theory of the Second Amendment’s origins put forth by Carl T. Bogus in his law review article. I was at the Second Amendment symposium held at the Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2000 where it was first publicly discussed. Perhaps you were as well?
Most credible Second Amendment scholars appreciate Professor Bogus’ insights. They add to the understanding of the amendment, but it was not exactly a lightning bolt of inspiration.
Strangely, you cite for authority of this interpretation the Antifederalists George Mason and Patrick Henry. Mason refused to sign the Constitution, while Henry didn’t even attend the Convention. Why two people who opposed the Constitution qualify as experts on its meaning is beyond me. It’s a bit like citing the Republican National Committee on the meaning of the Democratic Party platform.
The debates in the House of Representatives survive, and they do not include “slave patrols” as a goal of the amendment. Instead, the debates concerned militia service.
The militia was a state institution that functioned as a general defense force and Republican ideal until you get to the reality, that it was an ill-armed rabble known to bug out at the first sign of danger. Washington had little use for them during the Revolution.
The militia’s origins are not in racists from the slave South. They are in England and the Glorious Revolution, which also gave us the fear of standing armies. The local militia were called on to round up runaway slaves in the South, which was why Mason and Henry loathed the Constitution’s grant of authority over it. The northern states did not share this fear because the economy of the North did not depend on slavery.
Oh, by the way, New York is not part of New England.
LikeLike
jsrtheta
First the Constitution does in article 1 call for a Standing Army controlled by the President and funded by Congress every two years. Ratified in 1788. So if Shays Rebellion drove him to attend the Convention. He got what he wanted as the President and unifier of the convention.
What the original document did not call for was militias. Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment submitted after the main body of the Constitution was voted on .
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,”
In his vision control was vested in the Country / Nation not the States. The change was an appeasement to the Anti Federalists vesting that power to the States. But Washington had found untrained Militias near useless thus a well trained Militia. The issue was under whose control .
Clearly the change was granting that power to the States.
LikeLike
Have you read Article I of the Constitution? Apparently not, because it defines the federal government’s authority over the militias, and the states’ authority.
The militia was also covered in the Articles of Confederation. The lack of federal authority in the Articles is one of the main reasons for the Constitution.
LikeLike
Also, the Constitution stripped almost all authority over the militia from the states.
LikeLike
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your boundless confidence in it.
Article I granted expansive control of the militia to Congress. Prior to that, the militias were under the control of the states. The militia had always been state institutions (and colonial ones before that). The Articles of Confederation (have you even read them?) did not federalize them. The Articles left the militia in the control of the states.
The Constitution took all that from the states, leaving very limited power to them. The states were allowed only to choose the captains.
Next you claim the federal government, by taking control of the arming and training of the militia, which it had never before had, is somehow CEDING control to the states, who, of course, always controlled them under the Articles. How a government gives away authority it never had is a neat trick, and one that is accomplished only in your bizarre reality.
By your inverted reality, Mason and Henry should have been dancing jigs over this, yet they weren’t, because, unlike you, they knew they had LOST authority.
Do you say “goodbye” when you arrive and “hello” when you leave, too?
LikeLike
Joel, is it just me or did this maroon basically support our arguments in his next-to-last paragraph, the only difference being that he traced it back to the Glorious Revolution?
And the Framers’ distrust of standing armies was not rooted in the 17th century British history, but because they just faced one a few years earlier. You may have heard about that one. The quartering clause was not in there because of something in England a century ago, it was in there because a lot of them and most everyone they knew had to provide compulsory room and board to their enemies. And I didn’t have to waste time in law school to figure that out!
LikeLike
And still you have no clue as to the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.
Pathetic.
LikeLike
Thousands of lawyers and organizations have been doing it every day since Heller was handed down.
LikeLike
GregB
He is arguing with himself. Proving himself a buffoon. Always be leery when people feel the need to tell you how smart they are. While they sling ad hominem arguments to do so.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .
Seriously is that not exactly what Mason and Henry complained about.
I will repeat for the two ambulance chasers enamored by their own egos.
“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.” Patric Henry
I don’t chose to forward the argument of the anti federalists. Without the anti Federalists there is no debate to be had.
Why did Madison alter his first draft of the second amendment if not to appease the Anti Federalists. In fact why have a second amendment in 1789 if article 1 section 8 already delegates the power to call up militias to the Congress.
They were so insignificant that 70 years later the Nation was embroiled in a Civil war over the issue of States Rights. Or to rephrase that the right of States to determine the issue of slavery.
But it was not 70 years. Before Madison had died John C Calhoun in 1832 was obstructing the Senate pushing for states rights and nullification. Arguably the father of the future confederacy.
Of course by jsrtheta’s logic the North prevailed so the South had an insignificant role in US history. As insignificant as Mason and Henry when Washington and the Federalists prevailed at the Convention.
I suspect you and I may question if that legacy shapes the Country today.
In fact who needs an assault weapon except to protect oneself from former slaves and the big bad GUBERMENT sending them to get you (or take from you) .
LikeLike
Well, now that you have your ludicrous theory of everything, why don’t you publish? Let the historians and Madisonians have at it?
You know, people who do it for a living. Or are you just another internet tough guy?
LikeLike
jsrtheta
Another snarky remark. I did not see you cite any historians. Except Bogus a lawyer who made the case for Slavery being the motive behind the Second Amendment. Several other Historians have signed on to that opinion. From Anderson to Kermit Roosevelt 111 in “The Nation That Never Was” and others…
“Robin Lindley: Can constitutional provisions such as establishment of the Electoral College and the Second Amendment right to bear arms (in a well-regulated militia) be seen as efforts to protect slavery and exclude Black people from government protection and rights?
“Professor Kermit Roosevelt III: Absolutely. The Electoral College is a structural feature that tilts the national government in favor of slavery, because the states’ electors are determined in part by their number of representatives, and the three-fifths compromise gives slave states more representatives than they should have. States are supposed to have more representatives when there are more people that they represent. But the extra slave state representatives didn’t represent enslaved people; they represented enslavers. And the Second Amendment is supposed to protect state militias so that they can, among other things, suppress slave rebellions.”
My education was in a different field than history but one that examined the History of Man. (Anthropology ). What one learns when they are not so self consumed to think that only they have the answers. Is that our interpretation of events differs as new perspectives explain events better from Galileo being placed on trial for the heresy of asserting the Earth and Planets rotate around the sun, to cataclysmic events explaining the major evolutionary periods. In the early 60s that theory was first proposed. The previous consensus was that Natural Selection alone explained the disappearance of Dinosaurs that had survived 100s of millions of years. Yet disappeared in a very short geological time span. In the late 70s early 80s the Chicxulub impact was cited as the event.
“In March 2010, an international panel of scientists endorsed the asteroid hypothesis, specifically the Chicxulub impact, as being the cause of the extinction.” That is 60 years of debate.
Interpretations of the Historical record are not static. Until you can bring the Founders into the room for a discussion, you might want to consider that as new evidence is presented including the written record that has sometimes been dismissed. Our interpretation of history changes.
But I doubt you can.
LikeLike
These are from my bookshelf:
https://www.bunkhistory.org/exhibits/guns-in-america/47/3259
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/
A Necessary Evil, Gary Wills, Simon & Schuster (1999)
Shays’ Rebellion, David P. Szatmary, University of Massachusetts Press (1980)
The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas P. Slaughter, Oxford University Press (1986)
The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, Simon & Schuster (2014)
Gun Fight, Adam Winkler, W.W. Norton (2011)
Original Meanings, Jack N. Rakove, Knopf (1996)
Declaring Rights: A Brief History with Documents, Jack N. Rakove, Bedford/St. Martin’s (1998)
LikeLike
Greg, just because you heard something about standardized testing having its “roots in eugenics” and have gleefully cut and pasted it ever since while snidely insulting the intelligence of people who disagree you doesn’t mean you’re right. Before 20th century uses of standardized testing came “common exams,” which exams made up of standardized (or “common”) questions that students from wide-ranging rural locations within one jurisdiction were required to take. There also were civil service exams from the 19th century, and imperial exams that go back centuries further, designed to identify “merit” and blunt systems of patronage that were correctly criticized as unfair and as producing incompetent bureaucratic classes. But by all means, continue cutting and pasting your way to where you already are.
LikeLike
And I’ll leave this comment untouched because I don’t understand what it’s trying to say:
” First, a half-baked semantic ruse leading to an even less-baked premise. Nowhere, I mean nowhere, will you find is the comprehensive idea of ‘policing’ connected to having their origins in slave patrols. To make such a claim exposes the utter absurdity of the claim.”
LikeLike
Ohio replaces Arkansas in rankings as a red state- “Jesus, guns, babies”
The University of Arkansas department of education reform would fit the state, like a glove, similar to Mike Petrilli’s Fordham.
LikeLike
Letter to editor of Cleveland Plain Dealer as published on July 7, 2013 (the original joke included Arkansas to make it a three-way contest):
While growing up in Louisiana, we would joke, “Thank goodness for Mississippi, because at least there is one state with lower standards than ours.” Mississippians told a variation of the same joke, thanking goodness for Louisiana.
Under the newly approved budget, Gov. John Kasich and the Ohio legislature have started to shift the state’s tax burden toward poor Ohioans and continued to reward political supporters with public funds.
Combined with their attacks on public education, unions and women’s health, pretty soon these decisions will give the people of Louisiana and Mississippi reason to thank goodness for Ohio.
LikeLike
I think it was Margaret Raymond, the Walton-funded leader of CREDO at Stanford, who said that when it comes to the worst charter schools, think of Ohio.
LikeLike
Ohioans are going to see their energy bills go up by 28-32%. The Guardian reported the energy companies spent $215 mil. nationally, in dark money to get favorable political results. With the price increase implemented, the deregulated market in Ohio will cost consumers more than the amount charged by the municipally-owned Celina utility. The trial of Republican Batchelder, the biggest case of bribery (energy firm) in the state’s history, just occurred.
Meanwhile Ohio’s voters pretend false religious excuses and male posturing (guns) cause them to cast ballots for the GOP.
If those deplorables want to support their huge families (birth control eliminated by the religious right), they should look into jobs as Republican politicians and take the graft that they are known for.
LikeLike
In the old days we had he B&O railroad. Now we’ll soon have the Texas & Ohio power grid. The grids for gated communities will be separate and secure.
LikeLike
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527
LikeLike
Thanks, Bob, for the Onion quote about guns. I could not remember where I saw that. I thought of it every time I read a comment saying that easy access to guns has nothing to do with gun deaths.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Millions in the United States worship a Jesus Christ that does not exist in the New Testament. They also worship the 2nd Amendment, at least their biased, twisted misinterpretation of it, and they worship wealth and the few that have it while looking down on everyone that isn’t wealth as losers, except for them who get a pass because they worship a false god, death except for the unborn, and wealth they don’t have.
LikeLike
“With our adoration of guns over children policy, we’re going to run out of kids before we run out of D.I.S.T.R.A.C.T.I.O.N.S.”
–Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian
LikeLike
Thanks for the graphic.
LikeLike
Ed,
Thank you for the graphic by Mrs. Betty Bowers, “the world’s best Christian.” She’s amazing.
LikeLike
Brave New Films (in partnership w/ Newtown Action Alliance & #SONGSTRONG: the Ethan Miller Song Foundation) has a free premier doc (“Save a Child/Secure Your Gun”/panel discussion–virtual) this Monday night, 6/28, @ 4 PM PT/ 6 PM CT/ 7 PM ET. Go to BRAVENEWFILMS.ORG/RSVP to sign up. (I hope this works!)
LikeLike
I am personally about as far from a “pro gun” person as one can get. However, these incidents are 100% on the parents & not on politics. These folks are just as likely to keep kitchen knives in a bottom drawer or leave a toddler in a running car.
You just can’t fix stupid.
LikeLike
But, ownership of a killing machine like an AK-47 can be fixed.
Unfortunately, you and the US majority lost their influence after Leonard Leo took over SCOTUS.
LikeLike
This is a symptom of the nations’ longstanding divide between city and country, expertise and amateurism, and rural versus cosmopolitan.
LikeLike
Not that it makes much difference, but for accuracy’s sake, the NC news article that was previously linked to was actually about the Ohio shooting.
LikeLike