2nd Amendment Violation? Selective Reasoning? Morons On Parade?

Uncategorized, ,
Spread the love

Gun nuts are usually inconsistent in their positions. Stoned people are sometimes confused. I can’t wait until the SCOTUS gets this one!

 

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

47 thoughts on “2nd Amendment Violation? Selective Reasoning? Morons On Parade?”

  1. So the argument might become: You can’t buy a gun, because you are legally allowed to buy something that might impair your judgement.

    I don’t think that the NRA really wants to get behind that, but it would be interesting if they did.

    Reply

  3. I wonder how hard it would be to attach a breathalyzer to a gun lock, a la an ignition lock for motor vehicles.

    Reply

  4. Anon, I have this image of two drunk guys in a country bar getting mad at each other, going out to their Ford F800s to get their 6 shooters, then standing there facing each other and checking their breath every 20 seconds waiting for permission to open fire, while everyone gathers around … but not too close … to watch.

    Reply

  5. Anyone who picks up a gun while using alcohol or drugs is a freakin’ moron and should immediately lose the right to bear arms. I own guns and shoot for fun – but my guns are locked up in a gun safe with trigger locks on each one. Owning a deadly weapon brings heavy responsibility and the thought of a stoner carrying one scares the crap out of me.

    Reply

    1. Obviously we need a better SCOTUS

      Indeed.

      A SCOTUS populated by those who think rationally, have an understanding of science built on reason and analytical though, have a deep sense of honesty and of not being there to suit their own nefarious ends. Unlikely to find those amongst the ranks of the GOP and their fanbase.

    2. Also note that long-time vile person Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, says the Supreme Court should reconsider rulings that protect access to contraception and same-sex marriage. Attacking those things next hasn’t exactly been a secret for the bigots and racists who control the right at this time — they are right up there with their goal of destroying democracy.

    3. dean:

      If abortion is not a Federal issue because it is not in the constitution, doesn’t it make sense that marriage and birth control are also not Federal issues? Where does the constitution speak to either issue?

      Those issues belong to the states – just as abortion does.

    1. It has been an interesting week. First the FINA decision protecting women from having to compete with men in swimming; than the 2nd amendment supreme court decision, then finishing today with the Dobbs abortion decision.

      Pretty historic.

      I look forward to the discussions to come. Thank goodness for the 1st amendment. I hope people talk and do not riot, assault or commit arson (or break any other laws).

    2. Yup. This is what you get when a president with a history of sexual assault nominates four justices, and when you have on the court

      – an older justice who, despite having strong evidence of his history of sexual harassment, was put in place
      – a more recent justice, with a history of sexual assault, put in place
      – a female justice who lied about her views on roe in order to get on

      In short, when several justices are just as morality free and dishonest as rickA, things go badly for women and minorities

  9. First the FINA decision protecting women from having to compete with men in swimming;

    Not about “women having to compete with men” at all you ignorant POS. We know you deny anything about science that disagrees with your uneducated and bigoted view, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong.

    Reply

    2. The decision was not about men you moron: FINA simply demonstrated that they are as uninformed and bigoted about transgender people as you are. The decision is based on bigotry and ignorance, not science. That’s why you and other morons support it.

    3. How is banning men from competing in women’s sports unscientific? I think it is those who do not understand the difference between men and women who are unscientific. Biological sex does exist – the science has spoken. It doesn’t change just because you wear a woman’s swim suit.

    4. I think it is those who do not understand the difference between men and women who are unscientific. Biological sex does exist – the science has spoken.

      If you hadn’t been demonstrating it for years I’d have to say that it is un-fucking believable how stupid you are.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

      https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/

      There’s more available but

      a) There’s over a 99% chance you wouldn’t read them
      b) There’s a 100% chance you’d lie about them if you did read them

    5. dean:

      From your Yale cite:

      ****
      The committee advised that scientists use these definitions in the following ways:

      In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
      ****

      This cite is not inconsistent with preventing males from competing in female sports. Neither is the other cite. It is my understanding that Lia Thomas is both an XY male and has male reproductive organs (still). Please do explain further how I am wrong.

  10. Yeah, the shit-stains who think carrying a gun makes them “safe” will be out in force. It’s not a thrilling thing to think about, being around low IQ clowns with their guns out. This will not end well (although the people who really need to be concerned about this are people who aren’t lilly white and so are not viewed by the modern right as important, or even people.)

    Reply

    2. The 2nd amendment applies to militias, actually, government militias. And despite your ignorance (or is it again dishonesty?) right wing a-holes like you who think carrying makes them safe don’t tend to look kindly on non-whites in general (we’ve seen that in your comments since you’ve been here): seeing non-whites with guns isn’t going to help that at all.

    3. Sorry you cannot read. The 2nd amendment applies to “the people”. The Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion about its meaning. Arms don’t make you safe or unsafe – they are just a tool. You still have to know how to use them (and when). See Uvalde.

  11. 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.

    rickA, were born to be dishonest, were you raised to be dishonest, or did you teach yourself to be dishonest?

    Reply

  12. If abortion is not a Federal issue because it is not in the constitution, doesn’t it make sense that marriage and birth control are also not Federal issues? Where does the constitution speak to either issue?

    Those issues belong to the states – just as abortion does.

    You cannot overstate how evil folks like rickA (who is a “lawyer”) are: bigoted, racist, scientifically illiterate, and afraid of anything that would allow people they deem “inferior” to be given rights and treated as equals. The comment above boils down to the foolishness that says the Constitution only protects rights that explicitly enumerated.

    Don’t let your kids grow up to be conservatives — let them get educated and expand their knowledge (two more things that the modern right hates).

    Reply

    1. Yes – the Federal government has limited powers – only those enumerated. All the others rights not ceded to the Federal government are retained by the people (9th amendment) or “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10th amendment).

      Here is an example of how this works. The Federal government cannot pass a valid law requiring you to wear a mask in your house. Your state might be able to pass such as law and it might even be valid. Why the difference. States have the police power, which includes medical stuff like keeping you safe in a pandemic. The Feds can make you wear a mask on a plane flying between states or a train crossing more than one state (why – interstate commerce). But the Feds couldn’t make you wear a mask driving to work in a car by yourself, unless your had to travel between states to get to work.

      Hopefully you can now understand that rights cannot be taken from the people (or the states) and given to the Federal government unless they are enumerated in the Constitution. The Federal government cannot create new rights or take away rights not expressly given up in the constitution. The Feds can raise armies, so they can draft you – you gave them that right. You did not give the Feds the right to tell you what to do in your house (i.e. wear a mask), so they cannot tell you to wear a mask in your house. You did not give up that right. New York state does have the right to quarantine typhoid Mary – but not the Feds.

      The unborn human being did not give up their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – so the Federal government doesn’t have the right to take it away. At least at the Federal level. Each state will have to work out how this plays out at the state level.

      That is how it works.

      My guess is that post viability every state will eventually recognize the right to life of the unborn human being – absent a danger to the life of the mother. So a cesarean will protect both the rights of the mother and the right to life of the viable fetus. Just a guess on where this will all go – I could be wrong.

      And viability will keep pushing backwards to conception as science advances. Eventually artificial wombs will preclude the argument for intentional killing of the fetus because the mother doesn’t want to carry it anymore.

  13. “Yes – the Federal government has limited powers – only those enumerated.”

    So inter-racial marriage is gone too? The right of women and minorities to vote?

    Your asinine interpretations are disgusting — but again, being both dishonest and vile are what you do.

    Reply

    1. Dean, I note that RickA has totally blanked your link to Scientific American, but that is lawyers for you, selective citation.

      Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

      A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby’s chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine—but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother’s womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That’s kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.

      Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

      In the Uvalde thread (where he blanked many valid points) RickA offered this:

      Sorry. Until then, nobody (human) can change their biological sex.

      which total ignores the known incidence of those born with ambiguous sexuality as seen from the first quote above. Furthermore there is such a thing as gender dysphoria, look it up RickA

      RickA could (note not ‘would’, which implies he may actually understand and learn from the experience) benefit from studying:

      Y: The Descent of Men

      RickA may struggle with the concepts brought out in that book having such a black & white, binary thinking palaeolithic republican brain. What else can explain his desire to see the USA regress as a nation ruled by something akin to the Taliban, which is what the fundamentalist religiosity that has captured the GOPis pulling back towards. Sad really, the failure of a promising experiment in democracy.

    2. The 14th amendment required the states to equally apply their laws to their citizens. In 1967 the Supreme Court found that a state anti-miscegenation law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

      So while marriage law is a state issue – for issues such as age or degree of relatedness, or requirements of a blood test, the states cannot have different laws for different races or national origins. So any state bans on inter-racial marriage ended in 1967 because of the 14th amendment to the constitution and the Supreme Court.

      As for women voting – that was taken are of by the 19th amendment. Minority voting was taken care of by the 15th amendment.

      So bottom line – your examples are enumerated and are dealt with by the US constitution.

  14. Lionel wrote

    RickA has totally blanked your link to Scientific American, but that is lawyers for you, selective citation.

    As usual for rickA, he lies about the science he thinks he can and ignores that for which he can’t generate lies.

    As for his general bigotry, racism, and homophobia — he stopped pretending he didn’t have those traits a long time ago.

    Reply

    1. “Supreme Court Votes 5-4 to Reclassify Women as Service Animals”

      And you would think that women would have more sense than to rejoice at this decision, but being republican scrambles the brain it would appear.

      Illinois Republican Mary Miller told a crowd at a rally held alongside former president Donald Trump that the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade was a “victory for white life”.

      Illinois Republican tells Trump rally that Roe verdict a ‘victory for white life’

      The racism could not be made clearer. Trump’s smug face is repulsive, another ‘slug’ (J Kimmel re Ted Cruz) of a man. What about ‘orange’ life Mary?

  17. Republican rules, heads we win tails you lose.

    Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett: appointed by Republican Donald Trump in 2017 and 2020. Voted to overturn Roe.

    Two more Trump appointees, two more votes to overturn Roe.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed in the early days of the Trump administration, with Barack Obama’s pick Merrick Garland having been denied a hearing on the rationale that it was an election year.

    That did not stop Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment – Mr Trump’s third – in October 2020, just weeks before the US election, however.

    Roe v Wade: Who are the US Supreme Court justices and what did they say about abortion and other civil rights?

    Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are such weasels.

    Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would not overturn landmark abortion ruling, Susan Collins and Joe Manchin say

    Roe v Wade: senators say Trump supreme court nominees misled them

    “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

    The epitaph for republican lawyers.

    Fairness isn’t in the Republican lexicon.

    Did you hear about Brett Kavanaugh’s debts? Mother Jones has some guff.

    Reply

  18. On a completely unrelated note, trying to lighten the mood: a DJ on a local station just said

    “Now for ‘Sweet City Woman’, a song from the 60s supergroup the Stampeders”

    I’m not sure I agree with that rating of the Stampeders.

    Reply

  19. I hope people talk and do not riot, assault or commit arson (or break any other laws).

    You mean such as attacking the Capitol and killing those doing their duty to defend same, this at the request of an out of control POTUS loser with questionable sanity.

    RickA rejoicing at regressive legislation whilst not recognising that a constitution is a living document which should be amended to reflect changes in society and the scientific knowledge base reveals his inner palaeolithic man.

    Reply

  20. The disgrace that is the current SCOTUS.

    What’s shocking is the actualization of the scary Handmaid’s Tale scenario: our growing suspicion that Margaret Atwood’s fictional dystopia – a society in which women are forced to bear children and brutally punished for disobedience – is nearer to becoming a reality than we might have imagined. What’s shocking is this proof of the court’s desire and ability to control and punish women, to deprive us of our constitutional rights. What’s shocking is the justices’ reckless disregard for the additional suffering that this ruling will cause poor women, women of color and those living in rural areas. What’s shocking is the memory of three of the current justices swearing, under oath, to preserve the precedent established by Roe v Wade.

    The greatest shock of all would be to wake up and find that while we were driving the kids to soccer practice and enjoying cocktails, autocracy took hold

    To rejoice that such can come to pass is a sign of ignorant barbarity. So much for swearing under oath, doing so and reneging on it should be grounds for dismissal from positions of authority. We recognised Kavanaugh’s duplicitous nature at the time.

    Reply

    1. Sheesh dean, what a can of worms, that Scott Dejarlais is another rotten slug of a man, not a real man though.

      Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v Wade, was decided by an illegitimate court whose appointees were nominated and confirmed by politicians who lost the popular election. The illegitimate Supremes are the apex of a vast cohort of federal judges who were likewise appointed by politicians who lost the popular vote:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/02/minoritarian-third-supreme-court/

      These judges have emitted a steady stream of unhinged and cruel decisions on culture-war issues, and these have real, human consequences. But it’s a mistake to assume that the reason that billionaires put so much energy into getting these judges appointed was to strike down New York’s concealed carry law. That was — again — a means to an end, a way to get turkeys to vote for Christmas (there are a lot of musket-fucking single-issue ammosexual voters who will vote for anyone who makes it easier to get guns).

      These are RickA’s people for sure. Now I know what that ‘A’ Stands for.

  22. Since we’re talking about dishonest members of the Supreme Court, let’s remember how three of them lied through their teeth about Roe. (We knew they were lying at the time, but they were allowed to get away with it, as the right expects to be able to do.)

    Kavanaugh:

    “It’s settled as precedent of the Supreme Court,” Kavanaugh said. “One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe vs. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times.??

    Gorsuch

    “Row vs. Wade is the law of the land.” [Gorsuch continued] “I accept the law of the land senator, yes.”

    Amy Coney Barrett

    “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say ‘I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion’ — and walk in like a royal queen impose their will on the world it’s not the law of Amy, its the law of the American people.”

    Reply

  23. And in more dishonesty by the right-wing justices, we learn that Gorsuch repeatedly lied about the actions of the high school judge at the heart of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, specifically when wrote that the coach was fired after trying to offer “a quiet personal prayer”, saying that “the coach simply wanted to participate in “a short, private, personal prayer.”

    Pictures of, and records for, the coach’s behavior showed he routinely had his team around him, and repeatedly led prayers inside the school locker room requiring students to attend.

    As the latest round of decisions show, the right wing justices have routinely lied in the justifications of their decisions. As rickA shows, the authoritarian a-holes on the street will repeatedly lie to defend those decisions. Again — these people are a clear threat to democracy.

    Reply

  24. Trump’s volatile and violent nature nature is portrayed via testimony.

    He lunged at a Secret Service agent’s throat. He threw dishes during temper tantrums. And he wanted metal detectors taken away so his fans could march with guns and knives.

    An astonishing portrait of Donald Trump as an unhinged and personally violent president emerged at Tuesday’s hearing of the congressional committee investigating last year’s attack on the US Capitol.

    …

    “Never before in American history have we ever seen credible testimony this shocking against a president of the United States before Congress,” Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian, told the MSNBC network. “This is a day that is going to loom very large in American history.”

    …

    Hutchinson recalled seeing a shattered porcelain plate and ketchup on the wall of a dining room at the White House. “The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general’s AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall.”

    Angry, violent, reckless: testimony paints shocking portrait of Trump

    Reply

  25. SCOTUS strikes another blow against a safer and liveable future.

    Limiting the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when fossil fuel emissions need to be curbed is ‘devastating’”

    “At this point, for those in positions of high power to deny the urgency and the stakes of the climate crisis is to condemn everyone alive today and generations to come to life in a sick and impoverished world,” said Ginger Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network.

    The court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 in favor of leading coal producer West Virginia, in a lawsuit with challenges originally brought by 20 other Republican attorneys general, who sued for the EPA to have less regulatory power over existing power plants without express authorization from Congress under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the court’s conservative supermajority determined that the Clean Air Act does not authorize anything other than direct regulation of power plants.

    Reply

    1. Yup, very scary — and very bad when you understand the issues. People like rickA will dream up imaginary reasons about how this was a good decisions, just as the justices themselves have done on this and their other decisions.

  26. SCOTUS – enemies of the people – globally.

    In a major environmental case, the court has made clear that it would rather represent the interests of corporations and the super-rich than the needs and desires of the vast majority of Americans – or people on Earth

    The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s future

    But the slugs of Republican bent (and often bent they appear to be) only care about their financial security and propping up extravagant lifestyles.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *