The MSM is once again saturated with the latest gun violence-related story (until the next disaster) and offers the same coverage pabulum without ever acknowledging the actual root cause (other than lame references to the NRA). Just like the last shooting, as long as the gun oligarchs can control enough of our public sector decision-make…
The MSM is once again saturated with the latest gun violence-related story (until the next disaster) and offers the same coverage pabulum without ever acknowledging the actual root cause (other than lame references to the NRA). Just like the last shooting, as long as the gun oligarchs can control enough of our public sector decision-makers with their free speech money, they will maintain their status quo. I know that concept isn’t popular nor is it discussed in the media because those that profit from their powers of corporate personhood also control the propaganda that is generated 168 hours/week. If we ever elect a super-majority of competent progressives to office, the second thing they need to do is amend the 2nd Amendment so it makes sense and acknowledges that Congress is responsible for legislation that can help protect our citizens from gun violence, like including the regulations that Thom has in today’s op-ed (license, register and insure guns). The first thing that competent elected officials must do is to amend the Constitution with the nullification of the powers of corporate personhood.
I guess if the 2d A. was tweaked to specify that "militia" signifies National Guard, nowadays, that would be meaningful. But as it stands, it is crystal clear that it does NOT stand for anybody having any kind of gun to protect against lawful government action. Scalia's acid dream I wish I believed in Hell so I could believe in him there.
Rather than having "militia" in the amendment at all, what if it just acknowledged that the possession of guns is legal and that Congress needs to regulate it? For example, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, and Congress shall pass laws so this right does not infringe upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of our citizens.” (At least this wording can be diagrammed.)
The MSM is once again saturated with the latest gun violence-related story (until the next disaster) and offers the same coverage pabulum without ever acknowledging the actual root cause (other than lame references to the NRA). Just like the last shooting, as long as the gun oligarchs can control enough of our public sector decision-makers with their free speech money, they will maintain their status quo. I know that concept isn’t popular nor is it discussed in the media because those that profit from their powers of corporate personhood also control the propaganda that is generated 168 hours/week. If we ever elect a super-majority of competent progressives to office, the second thing they need to do is amend the 2nd Amendment so it makes sense and acknowledges that Congress is responsible for legislation that can help protect our citizens from gun violence, like including the regulations that Thom has in today’s op-ed (license, register and insure guns). The first thing that competent elected officials must do is to amend the Constitution with the nullification of the powers of corporate personhood.
I guess if the 2d A. was tweaked to specify that "militia" signifies National Guard, nowadays, that would be meaningful. But as it stands, it is crystal clear that it does NOT stand for anybody having any kind of gun to protect against lawful government action. Scalia's acid dream I wish I believed in Hell so I could believe in him there.
Rather than having "militia" in the amendment at all, what if it just acknowledged that the possession of guns is legal and that Congress needs to regulate it? For example, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, and Congress shall pass laws so this right does not infringe upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of our citizens.” (At least this wording can be diagrammed.)