How New York Ended the Gun-Show Loophole June 2, 2016May 31, 2016 Paul Lonac: “In your post About That Well-Regulated Militia last year, you wrote ‘…as one tries to divine the intent of the Framers...’ Regarding that intent, see this piece of scholarship. The short version: ‘James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South as a whole, that the federal government could not disarm the state militia, which were the prime instruments for slave control in the South.’ He did this because slave-state votes were needed to get to the nine votes needed to ratify the Constitution. Borrowing from your post: ‘Did you know this? I didn’t!’” Russell Bell: “The untapped promise of the 2nd amendment is the defense of the country not by means of a standing army but citizen-soldiers. Every gun-owner is a member of his/her state’s ‘well-regulated militia’. The Militia Acts of 1792 (passed by our first Congress! signed by our first president!) provided: That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) . . . shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. “Note also the lie this puts to the argument against the Affordable Care Act that the government had never before required citizens to buy something.” ☞ Clearly, it had: muskets. Neither Bernie nor Hillary — or pretty much any other prominent Democrat alive today — has ever called for a federal law banning or confiscating guns. (Assault weapons, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles — yes. Some have called for that. Maybe even armor-piercing bullets, as so few elk — or home invaders — wear armor.) But Democrats — and 85% of NRA members, by the way, though not the NRA itself anymore — do favor universal background checks. Indeed, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman met with actual upstate New York musket owners (they enjoy historical reenactment), earning trust with the NRA . . . and leading to agreements by which New York State gun shows voluntarily adopted a system under which anyone attempting to leave with more guns than she arrived with must show paperwork confirming a proper background check was completed for the new ones. The world did not end for New York State gun owners; but it did get at least a tiny bit safer for them — and for the rest of us. Most Americans would favor additional common sense safety measures as well. And as I read the Second Amendment, the Founders would have been fine with that.
Zika Preparedness: Another G-NO-P Casualty June 1, 2016June 1, 2016 IRRATIONAL FEAR From Onion TV: Millions Irrationally Feared Dead In Minor Train Accident! In the decade following 9/11, there were 33 deaths in the US at the hands of Muslim terrorists; 150,000 murders generally. It may not be rational to buy guns to protect your family against terrorists. Not to say we needn’t explore every sensible means to keep those numbers infinitesimally small. But, per Think Progress: . . . a small band of so-called “experts” speak at conferences, appear on TV and radio, and write on various websites to “rail against Islam and cast suspicion on American Muslims,” all with the intention of hyping the threats emanating from the Muslim American community. Reacting to the agenda of the Islamophobia network, Kurzman told us: “I think that our goal should be to increase cooperation with non-radical Muslims — in other words to increase a sense of inclusion, collaboration — rather than to blow up our fears of this small group into suspicion of a much wider group that isn’t involved at all.” A RATIONAL FEAR: ZIKA Did you see Paul Abrams’ Huffington post? Reminder: The Right-Wing Owes Us $25 Billion . . . With the havoc that could be wreaked by the Zika virus, the right-wing feel they must “find” money in the budget to offset the research and development necessary to be ready for it. . . . Republicans owe the country $25 billion from a shutdown so absurd that their own Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH) lashed out at it, and the architects said they they knew in advance it would fail. $25 billion. U.S. taxpayers will, thank you very much, take the first $1.9 billion of that back to protect unborn children and mothers from the Zika virus. (Unborn children? Who, pray tell, pontificates their love for them?) . . . Abrams faults Democrats for not shouting loudly and concertedly to force the Republicans to get this done — and, while they’re at it, highlight the contrast between our approach to government (make it work) and theirs (shut it down). Given adequate support, government can often be effective in protecting us — whether from disease (the U.S., death toll from Ebola contracted here remains zero), unsafe food, air, and water, consumer fraud (the CFPB has already returned billions to 15 million consumers), environmental hazards (we’re restoring the ozone layer that protects us from skin cancer and cataracts) . . . and more. (When was the last time you lost someone in a U.S. commercial plane crash?) Republicans are fond of saying government is the problem. Bad government is a problem, but Zika is problem, too. Maybe the Republican Congress should allow government to minimize it. ANOTHER RATIONAL FEAR: TRUMP Did you see Bob Garfield’s post? It mainly condemns the media for not putting Trump into sharper focus. . . . He is racist. He is misogynistic. He is a xenophobe in the nation of immigrants. He has repeatedly incited violence. He shows neither understanding nor respect for the balance of powers, or any other aspect of the Constitution. To protect his personally thin skin, he has promised to weaken the First Amendment. He shows no appreciation for the role of government, but embraces a dictatorial vision of executive power, threatening to unilaterally scuttle international agreements, repeal legislation and default on the national debt. He supports torture and war crimes against civilians. He has played footsie with and failed to disown some of his most extreme supporters, including avowed racists and anti-Semites. He has ridiculed the disabled. He has disparaged the heroism of POW John McCain. He has defended the size of his junk on national television. Oh, and he’s a pathological liar. . . . AND YET ONE MORE And now that I have you (or at least me) entirely frazzled, here’s one more. Did you know we not so long ago came within a week of a modern-day Carrington Event? Or what a Carrington Event is? (There’s been just one: in 1859.) I didn’t either. Just to keep you on your toes.