Well, I’ll be damned.  You knew it was gonna happen.  The Second Amendment just up and shot the First Amendment with an assault rifle, unprovoked and with what little available forethought there is in North Carolina.

Republican North Carolina state legislators have proposed allowing an official state religion in a measure that would declare the state exempt from the Constitution and court rulings.

The bill, filed Monday by two GOP lawmakers from Rowan County and backed by nine other Republicans, says each state “is sovereign” and courts cannot block a state “from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.”

“I’m Proud To Be An American North Carolinian South Baptist” will now be sung at all Duke University Blue Devils Red Angels basketball games.

Smokey Mountain National Park will become North Carolina Hills of Galilee and Hallelujah Jesus Theme Park.  The historic coastal city of Wilmington will be named The Baptismal Font of Glory and Washing Away of Sins, where genders do not mix because of all those wet tee-shirts after the dunkings.

They will still have bars and dance halls in North Carolina but they will be renamed Holy Water and Rejoicing Centers.

And all them Jesus hatin’ sumbitches who are too chicken to kill someone for stealing a teevee or lookin’ funny at your wife have to move to Virginia.

Them’s the rules, you Yankee First Amendment sumbitches.

Juanita Jean writes at The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon.

Have you ever asked yourself why, whenever we have these battles over reasonable gun safety laws, the gun nuts huddle around the Second Amendment as if it were the Holy Grail? Say the word "militia" today and everyone thinks about those folks up in Idaho building their little fortresses, not anything resembling the "well-regulated militia" defined in the amendment. Thom Hartmann's been doing some research and surprisingly, the reasons behind it are not what everyone thinks:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

[...]

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

So tell me again: Why do we have a bunch of people who practically worship at the altar of a constitutional amendment which was put there to protect slave owners -- when slavery has been outlawed for 150 years?

Oh, I see. Because there was some tension and mistrust between the states and the federal government.

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

Ultimately, it took a bloody war with guns and emancipated slaves to end the slavery in the South. But the Civil War is not quite completely in the past. We may not be fighting on open battleground with muskets, cannons and bayonets, but we are still fighting one, verbally and politically.

DOWNLOADS: (457)

PLAYS: (5568)

Embed

Bill Moyers offers his cogent thoughts on the role of gun-rights outfits like the NRA (and its many, often more rabid, imitators), all of whom in the end are really the well-financed arm of weapons manufacturers, and how they have polluted not just American discourse, but our very way of life itself.

They have done this by several means. One, as Moyers notes, is the legal fraud they have foisted onto the public (and now the courts) with their insistent claim that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own any weapon a person likes. But the other, perhaps more significant, and decidedly more toxic, pollution of American life has been the gun fetishists' violent worldview, manifested in the permeation of guns into all corners of our modern culture -- particularly those where males are involved.

We've written previously about the paranoid fantasizing that is a product of this worldview, and how it translates into cockamamie conspiracy theories that the black President of the USA is secretly plotting to take away all Americans' guns. And we've talked about the deadly consequences of the NRA's incessant weapons-mongering. Obviously, after yesterday's rampage in Aurora, it's even more germane.

One of the more important pieces in this discussion came several months back in the pages of the New Yorker, from Jill Lepore, who explored the history of this gun madness in a piece titled"Battleground America: One nation, under the gun":

In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

The debate narrowed, and degraded. Political candidates who supported gun control faced opponents whose campaigns were funded by the N.R.A. In 1991, a poll found that Americans were more familiar with the Second Amendment than they were with the First: the right to speak and to believe, and to write and to publish, freely.

“If you had asked, in 1968, will we have the right to do with guns in 2012 what we can do now, no one, on either side, would have believed you,” David Keene said.

Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised; gun-control legislation was diluted, defeated, overturned, or allowed to expire; the right to carry a concealed handgun became nearly ubiquitous; Stand Your Ground legislation passed in half the states; and, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the District’s 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Two years later, in another 5–4 ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, the Court extended Heller to the states.

I think Lepore's succinct conclusion is almost irrefutable:

When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.

As Anthony Robinson put it:

Increasingly, it seems that citizenship is defined not by the community we are and which together we build, but by our right to own and carry a gun. To call this an impoverished notion of citizenship is an understatement. It is an outrage.

The Tampa City Council on Thursday said they would ask Florida Gov. Rick Scott to ban firearms outside the Republican National Convention later this year.

The council has already issued a citywide ban on items like pieces of wood, switchblades, slingshots, containers of bodily fluids and even squirt guns. A so-called "Clean Zone" around the convention area would prohibit string longer than six inches, glass containers, light bulbs, portable shields and gas masks. A smaller protest area would prevent demonstrators from having camping gear, bottles, cans and umbrellas. The Secret Service has said that only law enforcement will be able to carry firearms inside of the convention center.

But Tampa now needs Scott's help because state law prevents local governments from regulating guns. City officials believe that Scott has the executive power to temporarily suspend that law.

"We believe it is necessary and prudent to take this reasonable step to prevent a potential tragedy," council member Lisa Montelione wrote in a draft of the letter to the governor.

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn has said that the state law makes the city "look silly."

"The absurdity of banning squirt guns but not being able to do anything about real guns is patently obvious," Buckhorn explained last week. "Given the nature and the potential dynamic of this event, I think it would make sense that you would not want firearms introduced into that environment by people other than law enforcement."

The mayor suggested that Tampa could "become fodder for the late-night comics because of something that has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with our ability to control the situation, and it's elevated by Trayvon Martin, obviously."

Legal experts told the Tampa Bay Times that in the emotionally-charged protest environment, another tragedy could take place that was covered by Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law that allows gun owners to use deadly force in public places without a duty to retreat.

Continue reading »

There was a time, back before the late 1970s, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) represented their members. But not anymore.

Once they fully re-entered the world of politics on the heels of the Cincinnati Revolt, they became corrupted by the very special interest politics from which they claim to protect their members.

With their decision to reject the calculated negotiation of their previous "old guard" board members, who for example, came out publicly in support of a proposed ban on .38 Specials by then-senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, they embarked upon a "no compromise" plan of action for the future.

This, of course, made them natural allies of the gun manufacturers, who like arms dealers everywhere are far less interested in who they are selling weapons to than that they sell as many weapons as possible.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the NRA's mission has nothing to do with its members, but everything to do with protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers who support the organization with big bucks - not to mention pay the million-dollar-plus salary of the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.

After all, those lunches at The Palm aren't going to just pay for themselves.

In the December issue of the American Institute of Philanthropy, its "Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report" showed that when including all categories of "compensation" LaPierre came in fourth on the "charity" list with a healthy $1.281 million per year. Apparently, some non-profits can be profitable for some.

In February of 2006, a blog called Gun Guys run by the Freedom States Alliance, a 501(c)(3) organization working "to reduce gun violence in America" found that LaPierre's then-million dollar package was the equivalent of 35,000 NRA membership renewals.

One wonders whether these members know that not only are the views of LaPierre and the rest of his leadership team way out of touch with its membership - who overwhelmingly support universal background checks for gun buyers and stopping those on terrorist watch lists from enjoying easy access to firearms (see Part I of this series for poll numbers) - but that they are also subsidizing LaPierre's lavish lifestyle.

This might explain the NRA's need for constant crisis marketing (Obama's coming with the Legion of Doom to take your guns!) to misinform the public at large and shake their members' wallets loose - the NRA's very own "We've got trouble! Right here in River City!" routine.

Of, course, the direct influence that gun manufacturers exert over the NRA and their huge windfalls when there are runs on guns and ammunition, also readily explains the NRA's play to paranoia and fringe politics, and their view that no gun sale is a bad gun sale.

In fact, if you're looking for more than circumstantial evidence, the Center For Public Integrity will make your job easy. This past week they sent out a press release that started in the following manner:

Continue reading »

No matter how hard Sharron Angle tries, she can't shake the fact of her radical associations and ideas away so easily.

In her own words:

"If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are going to start looking for second amendment remedies..."

Which she then follows up with this:

"The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

DOWNLOADS: 1432

PLAYS: 521

Embed

In the span of about a minute or so, Angle advocates for armed insurrection, 'taking out' a duly elected Senator of the United States, and curing Congress' problems with a 'Second Amendment solution'.

Would this be before or after she repeals Social Security, ends unemployment insurance, outlaws alcohol and terminates Medicare? I suppose she would say it's just one of those oaths she keeps, right? Because she's not an Oath Keeper, but a 'keeper of oaths'. So that's how they do that.

Also, let's not forget about her long association with the Independent Right Party, a group so far fringe most of us haven't peeked far enough under the covers to look at them, but we probably should, since they seem to have written some of the current right-wing dialogue:

Hansen's brother, the late Daniel Hansen, founded the Independent American Party in 1967 "after realizing that the Republican Party was growing too corrupt and socialistic," according to the party website. The party lost its ballot position in the late 1970s and didn't get back on until a push by Hansen in 1992. That year, Angle signed the petition to get the Independent American Party back on the ballot, according to multiple party members and news reports.

That was a heady time for the reborn party. A 1992 Los Angeles Times article (via Nexis) describes Hansen at a political rally wearing a Stetson hat and bearing a sign that read, "If Guns Are Outlawed, How Can We Shoot the Liberals?" His rhetoric would not be out of place at a 2010 tea party.

"Don't give up your guns, folks," he told a crowd. "That's all we've got to protect us against the advance of socialism. America is in a survival phase." (via TalkingPointsMemo)

I don't think even Frank Luntz can fix this one.

Cartoon Credit: Danziger Cartoons

Meet the graduating Texas senior class of 2020 and beyond. This group of students has some unique identifying characteristics, products of an education based upon textbooks crafted with an agenda. If you were to test them on their knowledge, here's what you'd discover:

• They don't know who Thomas Jefferson is and why he's significant, but they do know who John Calvin is and believe he was instrumental to the formation of our nation.
• They believe the terms church and state are interchangeable.
• They do not believe in evolution as fact, but are inclined to embrace creation theory or intelligent design as the explanation for how the universe came into existence.
• They believe the right to bear arms is a first AND second amendment right granted by the Constitution. (see 11:12 entry)
• They do not understand the term "democracy", but can define "constitutional Republic" and apply it to the American system of government.
• They don't know that the United States Constitution bans placing one religion over others.
• They can name at least three pro-free market factors contributing to European progress in medieval times. (Yes, I'm serious. Read the 6:43 pm entry)
• They cannot define capitalism, but are completely familiar with the idea that taxation and government regulation inhibits free enterprise.
• They ignore Hispanics and their role in various historical events in the United States, such as the Alamo.

Continue reading »

Elections do have consequences. That only matters when a Republican wins by the way, but when it comes to the Supreme Court, electing a Republican president only means more rulings like this.

More gun laws are about to go up in smoke.

The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.

The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.

The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."

The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.

At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.

The right is using four citizens to represent their wishes. By not making the NRA the lead on this one is a smart one, but with this court does chess playing really matter? By allowing so many guns to be sold, which puts more guns into the hands of criminals---it's not surprising that some people want to arm themselves against the criminals who have guns. Only in the end, many more people will get hurt.

DOWNLOADS: (1387)

PLAYS: (2548)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly followed up his interview with Mark Potok about the Oath Keepers with a one-on-one interview with Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' president and founder.

And give O'Reilly credit: He asked good questions and didn't let Rhodes get away with his usual justifications for their armed-to-the-teeth-and-paranoid worldview:

O'Reilly: OK, so full members in the Oath Keepers have to have a military or police background. Or firefighters. Now, I'm gonna read you something from your website. "We will not obey unconstitutional and thus illegal and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or place them under martial law."

Well, who's gonna try to disarm people and place them under martial law. I mean, why would that even be something you would be discussing?

Rhodes: Well, it happened as recently as Katrina. You probably have seen the videos there of the old lady being tackled in her kitchen, and disarmed of her revolver, and there was house-to-house searches for firearms. And you had the police chief declaring that no one would be allowed to have weapons, or he'd take all the guns. And he did.

So they disarmed Americans over some bad weather, as though the bad weather suspended the Second Amendment. So, that's the most recent example.

Sure, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath were just "bad weather" -- such bad weather, in fact, that the levees around New Orleans broke, flooding 80 percent of the city and killing 1,464 people. Some 90 percent of the population of southeast Louisiana was evacuated. Describing this as mere "bad weather" is like describing the Haiti earthquake as "a little shaker."

This pretty much tells you all you need to know about the Oath Keepers and their grip on reality: They're unable to distinguish between "bad weather" and a devastating natural disaster and subsequent state of emergency.

O'Reilly, to his credit, pointed out that government has long been empowered to declare such emergencies in order to preserve lives and protect public safety in dire circumstances. It seems that for Rhodes and the Oath Keepers in general, no circumstances are ever dire enough to warrant such declarations.

What Rhodes didn't say, but which the Oath Keepers have made abundantly clear elsewhere, is that they believe President Obama is planning to declare a national state of emergency after the economy collapses, which they consider a sure thing.

Rhodes -- who is on the planning committee for the big Tea Party rally planned for September 11, an event his outfit is cosponsoring -- was at least forthcoming about his group's close relationship with the Tea Party movement:

Well, I've been to a lot of Tea Party events, we've spoken at quite a few of them, and I'm on the planning committee for the one on 9/11, this next September. So, the MarchOnDC.org. But, uh, we like the Tea Party movement a lot, we think it's great. It's a revitalization of our core Americanism and core constitutionalism.

In general, O'Reilly did reasonably well making clear that the Oath Keepers are a disturbing phenomenon, particularly in their emphasis on recruiting members of the military and police officers -- a fact which should ring some bells among the people who loudly denounced that DHS report for its observation that far-right extremists are working hard to recruit people with military and police backgrounds. (Ahem.)

Too bad he didn't have time to explore the matter of Charles Dyer, the onetime Oath Keepers figure arrested on charges of child rape, and the Oath Keepers's eagerness to disavow him -- in spite of the fact that Dyer had represented the Oath Keepers -- with Rhodes' blessing -- at a Tea Party on July 4 in Oklahoma. Dyer was also active in forming militias in Oklahoma.

Continue reading »

Oh, darn. I was really looking forward to getting on my horse and going cross-country with my trusty six-shooter. Oh well!

Personally, I think the idea was a great one. In a time of constant right-wing hate directed against an African-American president, why wouldn't you want those patriots to take their guns across state lines? Why, a teabagging party, anti-abortion rally or a revolution might break out:

An amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines fell just short of passage Wednesday in a vote that revealed deep divisions among the Senate's Democrats.

Supporters included all but two Republicans and 20 Democrats, but the vote of 58 to 39 in favor fell two short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

Despite its defeat, the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), demonstrated the continuing power of the National Rifle Association and the gun rights issue in Congress. Rather than a setback, those backing the effort consider the vote a sign of strength for the Second Amendment and are planning more gun-related amendments to other legislation throughout the year. Afterward, Thune said he hopes the Senate will "reconsider this important issue" later this year.

It split not only Democrats, many of whom got to the Senate by supporting gun rights, but also the caucus's leadership: Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), campaigning for reelection in 2010, voted yes, while his top lieutenants, Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), led the push by liberal Democrats against the measure.

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence" they "are entitled to do so." It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.