To anyone who wonders if there is a difference between the two parties, here’s a big one: gun control. A Trump-appointed federal judge in Kansas struck down a ban on machine guns. He was following the advice of Justice Thomas, who made the wacky argument that if something was okay when the Constitution was written, then it’s okay now. The Founding Fathers did not ban machine guns: why should we?
Up next in the arms of school shooters: fully automatic machine guns. Trump appointee U.S. District Judge John Broomes (Kansas) ruled that the ban on owning fully-automatic machine guns that’s been part of American law since the 1930s is unconstitutional. Citing Clarence Thomas’ argument that if something wasn’t illegal at the time the Constitution was written it shouldn’t be illegal now, Broomes has set up a new case that’ll almost certainly end up before the six rightwing cranks on the US Supreme Court.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Imagine if the Minute Men had Tommy guns.
LikeLike
There is a great urge to wish the consequences of such stupidity on the judge who okays such idiocy, but chances are it would be some innocent victim who pays the consequences. There is something in me that can’t quite hope that the judge is made to suffer personally for his brain dead decision.
LikeLike
The world did not have machine guns in the late 1790s. True to form, MAGA means angry and dumber than dumb, even for judges.
LikeLike
Of course, machine guns didn’t exist when the Constitution was written but hey, more guns, the better, right?
LikeLike
Interesting. So if “menstrual regulation” was OK at the time the Constitution was written, it’s OK now. If the Founding Fathers did not ban abortion, why should we? They also did not ban personal nuclear weapons.
LikeLike
HAAAA! There you go using logic. Unfair. Republicans don’t have any.
LikeLike
I can only say all the Trump supporters must be very happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like this you mean?
LikeLike
More proof that a) the current Republican Party is made up of insane people and that b) it is the part of death, not of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some songs just do not get old, do they….
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vote Trump because
Male control of women’s bodies!
Machine guns for incels!
Tax breaks for Musk and Bezos!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clarence Thomas an african american makes a very interesting point .”that if something wasn’t illegal at the time the Constitution was written it shouldn’t be illegal now”…. Correct me a mere Brit, but the Constitution didn’t specify that slavery was illegal, did it?
LikeLike
It was not, but it was later banned by amendment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that.
I’ll find something else to embarrass ‘them’ with
LikeLike
The Framers recognized slavery in a number of ways in the Constitution.
Many of the Framers were slaveholders themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I noticed that.
Expect today’s Extremist Republicans will try and re-write that too.
Just like I, from a British mischievous biased perspective can view the Boston Tea Party as a mere dodge to :
1. Rabble rousing to reduce the tax bill of the wealthy thereabouts.
2. Ingratitude and unwillingness to help will the bill for the defence of the colonies from being taken over by the French- absolute monarchy.
(‘They want to re-write ‘Slavery’ I can re-write the Revolution and War of Independence for them 😏)
LikeLike
The GOP should have Al Capone as their symbol instead of the elephant. He loved machine guns, and he was a tax evader.
LikeLike
haaaa!!!
LikeLike
Was Thomas kidding? He’s a judge on the SCOTUS. He HAD to be kidding. TELL ME HE WAS KIDDING.
Otherwise, nobody’s home . . . and the light’s not even on. CBK
LikeLike
Thomas’ stance is more proof that he has no idea how to analyze the Constitution, and how vital accurate history is.
American historians, who generally are not lawyers, were astonished at the arguments of modern judges made. (And continue to make.)
Had the Court really studied history, instead of inventing its partisan shadow, we would not be where we are today. We now have a majority on the Court that creates “history” from whole cloth.
LikeLike
jsrtheta: One wonders how they made it through law school. My guess is at least some of those professors and departments are wincing as much as we are. Time to re-do the curriculum. CBK
LikeLike
“We now have a majority on the Court that creates “history” from whole cloth.”
That’s the modus operandi of the xtian fundie right. Have you looked into the ABEKA curriculum or David Barton’s “history” of the founding of the USA? For an example see: https://www.christianbook.com/page/homeschool/a-beka/a-beka-grade-1?utm_source=bing&kw=page%20&mt=b&dv=c&event=PPCSRC&p=1215904&cb_src=bing&cb_typ=search&cb_cmp=313107482&cb_adg=1234751899095913&cb_kyw=page%20&snav=BSEARCH&msclkid=4e8ffab97d3f184ac4c89c75959a3727&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Dynamic%20Search%20Ads&utm_term=page%20&utm_content=DSA%20cp%20pages
LikeLike
I learned the skinny on Barton from the incomparable Warren Throckmorton, who exposed The Jefferson Lies, Barton’s mendacious book that sought to portray Jefferson as devout Christian. Barton’s publisher withdrew the book from publication.
Barton, unrepentant, continues to lie about Jefferson and the Founders, and pushes the lie that America was established as a Christian nation. Despite the fact that Barton is not a trained historian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is, truly, very, awful, if the, machine guns are, legal to own, can you imagine, how many more, EXTRA shootings that can cause, and the, MASSIVE amounts of damages there will be? And, there will be, DEAD BODIES, lying, all over the streets of America!
LikeLike
It’s exactly what the reich wing xtian nutjobs want to have to enforce their “dominionist”, seven mountains plans. They can kill us atheists all the easier.
LikeLike
Maybe it will take another sick Republican like Thomas Crooks to use a machine gun next time & more effectively shoot at tRump for his poorly educated Republican crazies to realize that the cost of being ignorant of history and cause and effect means just about everyone, from politicians to school children, is at high-risk of being very easily mowed down, due to rulings like this from GOP appointed judges. If only they could appreciate that the USA is the result of the Age of Enlightenment and value being awakened, instead of using the pejorative term “woke” for virtually anything they dislike –especially if it involves thinking, learning and growing.
Wishful thinking…
LikeLike
THE CONSERVATIVE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS INVITED LAWMAKERS TO MAKE SPECIFIC GUN REGULATIONS — on pages 54-55 of its Heller decision, the Court gave Congress and state lawmakers the outline and rationale to follow to create gun control laws that the Court will approve as constitutional: First, the conservative Court flatly declared in Heller that limits CAN be put on guns and on gun ownership, stating: “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.” Those are the words of the CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY of the U.S. Supreme Court justices in their Heller ruling. “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [an earlier case decided by the Supreme Court] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’ [when the 2nd Amendment was written]. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.” The Second Amendment became part of the Constitution more than 230 years ago in 1791. The very first semi-automatic gun was not invented until nearly a 100 years after that, in 1885. Most guns in use at the time that the Second Amendment was written were single-shot muzzle loaders. The conservative Court went on: “Nothing in our [Heller] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or on 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.” The CONSERVATIVE majority DID NOT HAVE TO write these things into their ruling — but they did because they were INVITING Congress and state lawmakers to craft laws that fit the Court’s stated outlines to control the sale of guns in general and especially control and limit the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity magazine cases. But Congress doesn’t have the moral integrity or the decency to do that, even in the face of repeated slaughter of school children. So, why aren’t legislatures in Blue States crafting gun control laws that fit the standards provided by the Supreme Court? Tell lawmakers at every level right now that they have been given clearance by the Supreme Court to craft effective gun control laws — and hold lawmakers accountable at the ballot box if they fail to act. You can read the Court’s Heller ruling at: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf
LikeLike
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of state legislatures understands that they do not necessarily spring into action because the Supreme Court suggests they do so.
Further, the Court has shown little restraint in Second Amendment cases, though in the Rahimi case they may have realized they had perhaps gone. The defendant in Rahimi was a poster boy for forbidding guns to domestic violence defendants.
They seem no closer, though, to admitting that the historical analysis, reasoning, and foundation of Heller are spurious, indeed laughable. They are the dog that caught the car. A dog could be forgiven for not knowing any better. The Court has no such excuse.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link! Can anyone spot the loophole?
“Nothing in our [Heller] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or on 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.”
LikeLike
“…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Certainly not the NRA and gun nuts position.
Far too many gun nuts believe that it is their god given (usually the xtian one) right to walk around with loaded weapons in public. The idiotic gun nuts give ethical gun owners a bad name.
LikeLike
It certainly was not a constitutional right.
LikeLike
With Justice Thomas’ argument, both slavery and child labor are now legal.
LikeLike
Exactly so!
LikeLike
With Justice Thomas’ argument, his marriage is invalid. Interracial marriage was illegal when the Constitution was written.
LikeLike