Picking a nit, but the editor of Science is Holden, not Holder, Thorp. Prior to being in editor of Science, he was the chancellor (chief executive) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
And no, it will not have any traction at all with the NRA.
The NRA have a complete idiot spouting gibberish at them ... yeah, expertly trained teachers with guns will solve the problem when expertly trained police take an hour to find a key for a class room full of kids.
I think we need to avoid this talk about "losers". It feeds the cycle of self-loathing that produces shooters.
Speaking as someone who was consistently told what a loser they were by peers at school.
OK another term; would misunderstood, disengaged or solitary be any better ?
@Anselmina Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" - do we know if this is true?
Do you mean is it true that the Governor said this, or is it true that all people who kill others have mental health problems? I believe, Abbott was speculating that the problem with Ramos was not that he had access to guns, but that he had mental health problems. So far as I know he wasn't diagnosed with any mental illness. I presume Abbott was merely deflecting criticism away from his pro-gun stance. Though it also seemed ironic that for someone who suddenly seems so ready and able to identify and label mental health illness, he should also be so instrumental in retarding its treatment in his own state.
Re "Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" No, I thought you were saying this. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
I was asking if that's true but adding what we know to be true that people like this who commit such atrocities clearly have access to absurdly powerful weapons. Limiting such access will do some good.
No, I think this is probably one of the few instances where even white, he’d have been shot.
Why? ISTM from past instances of shootings perpetrated by white people that they're more likely to be taken alive. Or am I mistaken?
@Piglet, circling back to this question just to note that all the reports I’ve heard yesterday and today have said that the procedural protocols that have been in place since the Columbine shooting are clear that an active shooter is to be killed. That is not the case of the shooter is not active, has barricaded himself or there’s a hostage situation. In those cases, they try to take the shooter alive. But if it’s an active shooter situation, then the prescribed procedure is to stop him asap by killing him.
Of course, it’s now clear that nothing here followed anything close to standard procedure.
I have to say I have real trouble understanding how it is not blindingly obvious even to US Republicans that the only way to deal with the problem is through clamping down on gun ownership. If it needs a further amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the second one, get on with it. They're not trying to repel Brits any more or steal more land from native Americans.
I have to say I have real trouble understanding how it is not blindingly obvious even to US Republicans that the only way to deal with the problem is through clamping down on gun ownership. If it needs a further amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the second one, get on with it. They're not trying to repel Brits any more or steal more land from native Americans.
I think the Native Americans might disagree with you on that.
The GOP have, in any case, long since given up on letting little things like facts or evidence get in the way of ideological masturbation.
I have to say I have real trouble understanding how it is not blindingly obvious even to US Republicans that the only way to deal with the problem is through clamping down on gun ownership. If it needs a further amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the second one, get on with it. They're not trying to repel Brits any more or steal more land from native Americans.
I have to say I have real trouble understanding how it is not blindingly obvious even to US Republicans that the only way to deal with the problem is through clamping down on gun ownership. If it needs a further amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the second one, get on with it. They're not trying to repel Brits any more or steal more land from native Americans.
You have made the grievous error of being rational. The is nothing a gun-owning Republican fears more than a Democrat who might bring more liberalism, or worse, creeping socialism to the land of the free.
Years ago, in the time of the Democratic governor of Texas, Ann Richards, one of her staffers wondered in public how far you would get if you had a bumper sticker on your car saying, "I'm the gay man Ann sent to take away your gun!" You couldn't even laugh about that now.
This video was shown last night on CBS' 60 Minutes. It explains why the Assault Rifle is the weapon of choice for mass shootings. WARNING PRETTY GRAPHIC
For my birthday Mrs RR bought me David Sedaris's latest book of essays, 'Happy go Lucky'. A most enjoyable read.
Do seek it out (if, like me, you like Sedaris's well-written and insightful stuff).
The first essay is, 'Active Shooter'. I wept.
@Gramps49 That link contained embedded mobile phone footage of children sheltering from an active shooter.
I do understand it was a reputable news site covering a serious topic but, I just do not feel it is appropriate for our volunteers to have to view this material. We also have guidance regarding not linking directly to extreme material from our site.
Please do not link material like that again, even in Hell.
There is currently a case pending in the US Supreme Court in which gun lobbyists are suing one of the state governments who actually have some restrictions on gun ownership. The lobbyists are claiming that such laws violate the notorious Second Amendment to the US constitution.
The Supreme Court is rumoured/ reported to be sympathetic to the lobbyist position, and to be in favour of a wide interpretation of the Second Amendment. The current Court is certainly inclined towards a black letter interpretation of the constitution: broadly, the Court is inclined to hold that if something is not written explicitly into the constitution (or subsequent amendments) it is unconstitutional.
Perhaps someone should suggest that the framers of the Second Amendment (passed in the 1780s IIRC) had in mind only the right to bear arms of that vintage. Therefore it is permissible to arm oneself but only with a 1780s- vintage musket but not any gun of more recent design (which obviously includes assault rifles and I think even 6-shooter revolvers).
I’d be content if the conservative SCOTUS justices were willing to return to the understanding of the Second Amendment that prevailed for pretty much the first 200 years of the country. But I’m not the least bit hopeful that will happen.
I think I have recommended before Michael Walkman’s Politico article “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment,” adopted from his book The Second Amendment: A Biography. I recommend it again.
BTW @Tukai, as the article notes, when SCOTUS first held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own a gun (Heller in 2008), the specific firearms they said an individual had the right to own are those in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
BTW @Tukai, as the article notes, when SCOTUS first held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own a gun (Heller in 2008), the specific firearms they said an individual had the right to own are those in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
And the challenge with this statement is the use cases for self-defense (kill several people who might be invading your home, for example) has quite a lot of overlap with the use case for murdering rooms full of people.
You can certainly make the case that if you wanted a gun to defend your home, you could make better choices than an AR-15, but I'm not sure that you can make the case that choosing something built on the AR-15 platform for this purpose would be uncommon or unreasonable.
Sure - we can talk about the probability that the "good guy with the gun" successfully defends his home, but the law doesn't care about that.
While there may be lots of evidence that people [claim they] are purchasing AR-15s for self-defensive purposes, I don’t think there’s much if any evidence that AR-15s are actually commonly used for that purpose.
Of course, for most of US history, it wasn’t a question because there was consensus that there was no such right to start with.
And again, I have no confidence in the current Supreme Court to do anything other than what the NRA wants.
I'm 77. I was born and brought up in a fairly typical US household of the 50s-60s era to two reasonably respectable, fairly typical middle-class Republican parents (in a state where the overwhelming majority of voters leaned Democratic). Here, in my view, is what we're dealing with, at least for people in my age bracket.
TV was always on in the evenings in this household. The TV fare at the time leaned very heavily on a mythologized view of this country's history, especially as this pertained to westward expansion / settlement. There were shows upon shows mythologizing the settlement of the West (by nearly all-white) heroes who settled disputes, conquered hostile ignorant Indians, won hearts of fair ladies, and subdued wrong-headed immigrants with guns. It wasn't all shooting; often the mere threat of armed force was enough to quell the ignorant and wrongheaded who had somehow failed to grasp the inherent Rightness to Rule of armed white men.
It was powerful stuff, and I'm persuaded that a substantial cohort of my countrymen fell for this crap hook, line, and sinker.
I think a lot of the US gun control issue would be mitigated if the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" clause were interpreted along the lines of the Swiss defence forces. Regulate storage, regulate training, regulate ammunition and so on.
AIUI, outwith the wars of independence (which predated the Constitution) and potentially the Civil War the only time militia have been called out have either been the National Guard (which, I would argue, as a reservist organisation is closest to the citizen militia to be called on when needed to defend the nation) or the citizen posse to hunt down outlaws (those who were brought up on Westerns are familiar with that version, but by far the most common was gangs who hunted down run-away slaves - quite often turning into lynching mobs with very little of the "well regulated" about them). I don't think the National Guard are expected to own their own weapons, and will be issued with weapons as needed that are returned when they stand down. And, I don't know if the police call on private individuals to hunt down fugitives (beyond "if you see XXX call the police" ... usually with instructions not to confront the fugitive) with the limited exception of a relatively small number of licenced bounty hunters.
So, the problem is that if the courts take the 2nd Amendment as a complete court that actually means that there is no automatic right for individuals to own a gun. Which the NRA and others who worship their guns (complete with human sacrifice) wouldn't want to be part of the consideration ... so they want the courts to ignore the part of the amendment relating to militia (especially well regulated militia) because they know it's a knock-out blow against their position that they should have a right to their guns regardless of there not being a militia.
How come some American RC bishops are vehemently pro-life when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to forces that shorten life in the born (and unborn.)
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
I thought they were right wing. Why the right is for forced birth - partly misogyny, racism, anti-welfare, etc. Although I remember the story of evangelical Christians not being anti-abortion in the 60s and 70s, but then became pro-life, and recruited Catholics, etc.
How come some American RC bishops are vehemently pro-life when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to forces that shorten life in the born (and unborn.)
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
How come some American RC bishops are vehemently pro-life when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to forces that shorten life in the born (and unborn.)
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
I've often wondered why they don't do anything about the kind of showy devout Catholic politicians who've done so much to drive people in the UK to hunger and food banks because of their policies...
How come some American RC bishops are vehemently pro-life when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to forces that shorten life in the born (and unborn.)
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
How come some American RC bishops are vehemently pro-life when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to forces that shorten life in the born (and unborn.)
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
How come some American RC bishops are vehemently pro-life when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to forces that shorten life in the born (and unborn.)
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
While there may be lots of evidence that people [claim they] are purchasing AR-15s for self-defensive purposes, I don’t think there’s much if any evidence that AR-15s are actually commonly used for that purpose.
Gun rights activists and the gun industry, with all their talk about “defending liberty,” are not only talking about arming oneself to defend against crime, but also arming oneself to protect against one’s government should it become tyrannical.
This might seem impractical given that our government has nuclear weapons. But seeing what happened on Jan. 6 it may not require overpowering the US military in order to overthrow the government.
I was taught in school in a town left-wing enough to be called a “people’s republic” that Jefferson believed that a new violent revolution would be necessary now and then to keep the country free - and that this was normal and good. (Despite the town’s politics, this was not taught in a socialist sense at all. It was pretty much the standard white-bread way of teaching the American Revolution at the time and in line with what I was taught on the other side of the country in a town populated by hedge-fund “politically moderate” millionaires.)
I think US history and especially Jefferson are taught differently now in progressive school districts. However, generations of US kids, especially white male ones, have grown up thinking that the immediate and proper response to our freedoms being taken away is violence. Add that to a gun-owning culture (which was lacking in anywhere I lived growing up, but was nearby if you just drove a half-hour to an hour away), and you get the idea that the second amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said up to now, was intended to keep citizens armed so they can keep their government in check.
Overthrowing governments is, of course, a normal activity. It's why people have a vote and should use it. It doesn't require a gun.
It might if you're in the minority.
Or, more relevantly in the US, in a majority being oppressed by a minority who have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. If violent insurrection were the prescribed constitutional solution to tyranny in the US it would be women and people of colour exercising that "right".
Overthrowing governments is, of course, a normal activity. It's why people have a vote and should use it. It doesn't require a gun.
It might if you're in the minority.
Or, more relevantly in the US, in a majority being oppressed by a minority who have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. If violent insurrection were the prescribed constitutional solution to tyranny in the US it would be women and people of colour exercising that "right".
There's the rub. It's the minority who have rigged the system who have most of the guns.
Overthrowing governments is, of course, a normal activity. It's why people have a vote and should use it. It doesn't require a gun.
It might if you're in the minority.
Or, more relevantly in the US, in a majority being oppressed by a minority who have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. If violent insurrection were the prescribed constitutional solution to tyranny in the US it would be women and people of colour exercising that "right".
Well that's why Reagan brought in gun controls in California - backed by the NRA! - specifically because the Black Panthers armed themselves.
I was taught in school in a town left-wing enough to be called a “people’s republic” that Jefferson believed that a new violent revolution would be necessary now and then to keep the country free - and that this was normal and good.
And George Mason believed that after George Washington left office the House of Representatives would pick the president in 19 out of 20 elections. It's often instructive to note how the Framer's anticipated the Constitution being applied versus the actual way it worked in practice. It should be noted that Jefferson's statement about rebellion comes from a letter to his protégé James Madison in early 1787, as Madison was organizing the Constitutional Convention which would overthrow the existing American system of government.
While there may be lots of evidence that people [claim they] are purchasing AR-15s for self-defensive purposes, I don’t think there’s much if any evidence that AR-15s are actually commonly used for that purpose.
Gun rights activists and the gun industry, with all their talk about “defending liberty,” are not only talking about arming oneself to defend against crime, but also arming oneself to protect against one’s government should it become tyrannical.
Absolutely, this and much of the rest of what you said. That’s a major factor at play here; it’s the raison d’être for groups like the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.
Though for what it’s worth, I went to public schools in the American South in the 60s and 70s, and I was not taught the version of history that you describe—that the Second Amendment was intended so the citizenry could keep the government in check. I didn’t hear that version of history until much later.
Overthrowing governments is, of course, a normal activity. It's why people have a vote and should use it. It doesn't require a gun.
It might if you're in the minority.
Or, more relevantly in the US, in a majority being oppressed by a minority who have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. If violent insurrection were the prescribed constitutional solution to tyranny in the US it would be women and people of colour exercising that "right".
Well that's why Reagan brought in gun controls in California - backed by the NRA! - specifically because the Black Panthers armed themselves.
Yep. For all that Michael Moore's politics (not to mention accuracy of reporting) are all over the place, his thesis in Bowling for Columbine that the history of gun rights in the US is primarily about white people controlling/fearing/hating Black people does have some merit.
Overthrowing governments is, of course, a normal activity. It's why people have a vote and should use it. It doesn't require a gun.
It might if you're in the minority.
Or, more relevantly in the US, in a majority being oppressed by a minority who have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. If violent insurrection were the prescribed constitutional solution to tyranny in the US it would be women and people of colour exercising that "right".
Well that's why Reagan brought in gun controls in California - backed by the NRA! - specifically because the Black Panthers armed themselves.
Yep. For all that Michael Moore's politics (not to mention accuracy of reporting) are all over the place, his thesis in Bowling for Columbine that the history of gun rights in the US is primarily about white people controlling/fearing/hating Black people does have some merit.
Given the history of policing in the US and its link to capturing enslaved people as part of its role in protecting what was considered property...
Yes. And the RCC is officially against capital punishment. I wonder how many legislators who have re-introduced it have been denied communion.
The RCC is officially against capital punishment, but does not declare anyone excommunicate for taking part in it.
I agree. But has Pelosi taken part in abortions?
Of course not, and nor has she been declared excommunicate - she has "just" been told not to present herself for communion. My point is that, whether you like it or not, the canons of the RCC place abortion in a different category from almost everything else that the RCC considers wrong and/or sinful. Abortion is up there alongside desecrating the Most Blessed Sacrament and ordaining women...
Yes. And the RCC is officially against capital punishment. I wonder how many legislators who have re-introduced it have been denied communion.
The RCC is officially against capital punishment, but does not declare anyone excommunicate for taking part in it.
I agree. But has Pelosi taken part in abortions?
Of course not, and nor has she been declared excommunicate - she has "just" been told not to present herself for communion. My point is that, whether you like it or not, the canons of the RCC place abortion in a different category from almost everything else that the RCC considers wrong and/or sinful. Abortion is up there alongside desecrating the Most Blessed Sacrament and ordaining women...
But nobody gets barred from communion (answers on a postcard as to how that differs from excommunication) for thinking those things should be legal, only for doing them.
But nobody gets barred from communion (answers on a postcard as to how that differs from excommunication) for thinking those things should be legal, only for doing them.
Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried are* barred from communion unless and until they take one of the actions that the RCC considers appropriate (either have their first marriage annulled and become properly married in the eyes of the church, or commit to living together as brother and sister, or cease their fornication and separate.) They are not excommunicated.
(AIUI, excommunication bars you from more things than just communion. I think, for example, (although I'm willing to be corrected) that Ms Pelosi would still be able to be appointed godmother to a Catholic child, whereas an excommunicate person would not be.)
In the case of the politicians sanctioned by various bishops, they are doing more than "thinking these things should be legal". They are actively promoting the idea that they should be legal whilst claiming to be Catholic. And it's on these grounds that the bishops in question have claimed the need to act publicly.
*AIUI the current Pope has walked this hard line stance back a little, but also AIUI, most of the US Catholic bishops are conservative sorts who think he's wrong.
And back to guns, the shooter at the hospital in Tulsa is revealed to be an angry middle-aged man who decided to shoot his doctor because he thought the doctor botched his back surgery.
And back to guns, the shooter at the hospital in Tulsa is revealed to be an angry middle-aged man who decided to shoot his doctor because he thought the doctor botched his back surgery.
He apparently purchased the AR-15 style rifle three hours before the incident. No word on if he used the same "buy now pay later" plan that the Uvalde shooter used to "purchase" his weapons and ammunition.
Given that the Tulsa shooter committed suicide, I'm not sure arguments about the deterrence value of armed guards in these cases are accurate. Or sincere.
And Greg Abbott has another great idea on how to secure Texas' schools without resorting to the tyranny of gun control:
Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday instructed state school security and education officials to start conducting “in-person, unannounced, random intruder detection audits on school districts” to find weak access points and see how quickly staff can enter a school building without being stopped.
The mandate was one of several the governor laid out in a letter to school security authorities in an effort to ensure district emergency operations plans are solid and school buildings are protected in the wake of the Uvalde school massacre that left 19 children and two adults dead.
So in addition to making sure even more armed guards good guys with guns are placed in schools Abbott thinks a good way to test the effectiveness is to send anonymous people to break into schools at random times and see if they get shot. If this were a work of fiction most people would dismiss it as horrendously implausible (not to mention implausibly horrendous).
So the likes of Gov. Abbott believe that everyone* should own guns, and be prepared to use those guns to shoot "bad guys". And simultaneously they believe that schools (and presumably hospitals and other places where people are) should be hardened fortresses that don't permit random people with guns to enter. A little inconsistency there, perhaps?
*At least, for the sort of everyone that means white homeowners that vote Republican. It's less clear that they are keen on other people owning guns.
Comments
And no, it will not have any traction at all with the NRA.
Re "Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" No, I thought you were saying this. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
I was asking if that's true but adding what we know to be true that people like this who commit such atrocities clearly have access to absurdly powerful weapons. Limiting such access will do some good.
Of course, it’s now clear that nothing here followed anything close to standard procedure.
I think the Native Americans might disagree with you on that.
The GOP have, in any case, long since given up on letting little things like facts or evidence get in the way of ideological masturbation.
Very well said!
You have made the grievous error of being rational. The is nothing a gun-owning Republican fears more than a Democrat who might bring more liberalism, or worse, creeping socialism to the land of the free.
Years ago, in the time of the Democratic governor of Texas, Ann Richards, one of her staffers wondered in public how far you would get if you had a bumper sticker on your car saying, "I'm the gay man Ann sent to take away your gun!" You couldn't even laugh about that now.
(ETA Link broken, Doublethink, Admin)
Do seek it out (if, like me, you like Sedaris's well-written and insightful stuff).
The first essay is, 'Active Shooter'. I wept.
@Gramps49 That link contained embedded mobile phone footage of children sheltering from an active shooter.
I do understand it was a reputable news site covering a serious topic but, I just do not feel it is appropriate for our volunteers to have to view this material. We also have guidance regarding not linking directly to extreme material from our site.
Please do not link material like that again, even in Hell.
Doublethink
[/Admin]
The Supreme Court is rumoured/ reported to be sympathetic to the lobbyist position, and to be in favour of a wide interpretation of the Second Amendment. The current Court is certainly inclined towards a black letter interpretation of the constitution: broadly, the Court is inclined to hold that if something is not written explicitly into the constitution (or subsequent amendments) it is unconstitutional.
Perhaps someone should suggest that the framers of the Second Amendment (passed in the 1780s IIRC) had in mind only the right to bear arms of that vintage. Therefore it is permissible to arm oneself but only with a 1780s- vintage musket but not any gun of more recent design (which obviously includes assault rifles and I think even 6-shooter revolvers).
I think I have recommended before Michael Walkman’s Politico article “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment,” adopted from his book The Second Amendment: A Biography. I recommend it again.
BTW @Tukai, as the article notes, when SCOTUS first held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own a gun (Heller in 2008), the specific firearms they said an individual had the right to own are those in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
And the challenge with this statement is the use cases for self-defense (kill several people who might be invading your home, for example) has quite a lot of overlap with the use case for murdering rooms full of people.
You can certainly make the case that if you wanted a gun to defend your home, you could make better choices than an AR-15, but I'm not sure that you can make the case that choosing something built on the AR-15 platform for this purpose would be uncommon or unreasonable.
Sure - we can talk about the probability that the "good guy with the gun" successfully defends his home, but the law doesn't care about that.
Of course, for most of US history, it wasn’t a question because there was consensus that there was no such right to start with.
And again, I have no confidence in the current Supreme Court to do anything other than what the NRA wants.
TV was always on in the evenings in this household. The TV fare at the time leaned very heavily on a mythologized view of this country's history, especially as this pertained to westward expansion / settlement. There were shows upon shows mythologizing the settlement of the West (by nearly all-white) heroes who settled disputes, conquered hostile ignorant Indians, won hearts of fair ladies, and subdued wrong-headed immigrants with guns. It wasn't all shooting; often the mere threat of armed force was enough to quell the ignorant and wrongheaded who had somehow failed to grasp the inherent Rightness to Rule of armed white men.
It was powerful stuff, and I'm persuaded that a substantial cohort of my countrymen fell for this crap hook, line, and sinker.
Uvalde: Andy Murray says Texas mass shooting made him 'incredibly upset'
Edited to clean up link. Dafyd Hell Host
So, the problem is that if the courts take the 2nd Amendment as a complete court that actually means that there is no automatic right for individuals to own a gun. Which the NRA and others who worship their guns (complete with human sacrifice) wouldn't want to be part of the consideration ... so they want the courts to ignore the part of the amendment relating to militia (especially well regulated militia) because they know it's a knock-out blow against their position that they should have a right to their guns regardless of there not being a militia.
Guns (in this instance,) access to health care, adequate housing, employment practices etc.
How come?
And women.
I included women in "non-males".
Here is the Roman Catholic Conference of US Bishops position on guns, With the exception of their anti-abortion position, I find the USCCB pro life position on health care, adequate housing and employment practices, even long term care very affirming.
So why are they not refusing communion to legislators who block health care reform?
RC Canon law specifically calls out abortion as being grounds for automatic excommunication. It has no such penalty for being a greedy selfish *&@#$.
Or raping the woman and causing the pregnancy that led to the abortion in the first place.
Yes. And the RCC is officially against capital punishment. I wonder how many legislators who have re-introduced it have been denied communion.
The RCC is officially against capital punishment, but does not declare anyone excommunicate for taking part in it.
I agree. But has Pelosi taken part in abortions?
Gun rights activists and the gun industry, with all their talk about “defending liberty,” are not only talking about arming oneself to defend against crime, but also arming oneself to protect against one’s government should it become tyrannical.
This might seem impractical given that our government has nuclear weapons. But seeing what happened on Jan. 6 it may not require overpowering the US military in order to overthrow the government.
I was taught in school in a town left-wing enough to be called a “people’s republic” that Jefferson believed that a new violent revolution would be necessary now and then to keep the country free - and that this was normal and good. (Despite the town’s politics, this was not taught in a socialist sense at all. It was pretty much the standard white-bread way of teaching the American Revolution at the time and in line with what I was taught on the other side of the country in a town populated by hedge-fund “politically moderate” millionaires.)
I think US history and especially Jefferson are taught differently now in progressive school districts. However, generations of US kids, especially white male ones, have grown up thinking that the immediate and proper response to our freedoms being taken away is violence. Add that to a gun-owning culture (which was lacking in anywhere I lived growing up, but was nearby if you just drove a half-hour to an hour away), and you get the idea that the second amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said up to now, was intended to keep citizens armed so they can keep their government in check.
It might if you're in the minority.
Or, more relevantly in the US, in a majority being oppressed by a minority who have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. If violent insurrection were the prescribed constitutional solution to tyranny in the US it would be women and people of colour exercising that "right".
There's the rub. It's the minority who have rigged the system who have most of the guns.
Well that's why Reagan brought in gun controls in California - backed by the NRA! - specifically because the Black Panthers armed themselves.
And George Mason believed that after George Washington left office the House of Representatives would pick the president in 19 out of 20 elections. It's often instructive to note how the Framer's anticipated the Constitution being applied versus the actual way it worked in practice. It should be noted that Jefferson's statement about rebellion comes from a letter to his protégé James Madison in early 1787, as Madison was organizing the Constitutional Convention which would overthrow the existing American system of government.
Though for what it’s worth, I went to public schools in the American South in the 60s and 70s, and I was not taught the version of history that you describe—that the Second Amendment was intended so the citizenry could keep the government in check. I didn’t hear that version of history until much later.
Yep. For all that Michael Moore's politics (not to mention accuracy of reporting) are all over the place, his thesis in Bowling for Columbine that the history of gun rights in the US is primarily about white people controlling/fearing/hating Black people does have some merit.
Given the history of policing in the US and its link to capturing enslaved people as part of its role in protecting what was considered property...
Of course not, and nor has she been declared excommunicate - she has "just" been told not to present herself for communion. My point is that, whether you like it or not, the canons of the RCC place abortion in a different category from almost everything else that the RCC considers wrong and/or sinful. Abortion is up there alongside desecrating the Most Blessed Sacrament and ordaining women...
But nobody gets barred from communion (answers on a postcard as to how that differs from excommunication) for thinking those things should be legal, only for doing them.
Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried are* barred from communion unless and until they take one of the actions that the RCC considers appropriate (either have their first marriage annulled and become properly married in the eyes of the church, or commit to living together as brother and sister, or cease their fornication and separate.) They are not excommunicated.
(AIUI, excommunication bars you from more things than just communion. I think, for example, (although I'm willing to be corrected) that Ms Pelosi would still be able to be appointed godmother to a Catholic child, whereas an excommunicate person would not be.)
In the case of the politicians sanctioned by various bishops, they are doing more than "thinking these things should be legal". They are actively promoting the idea that they should be legal whilst claiming to be Catholic. And it's on these grounds that the bishops in question have claimed the need to act publicly.
*AIUI the current Pope has walked this hard line stance back a little, but also AIUI, most of the US Catholic bishops are conservative sorts who think he's wrong.
He apparently purchased the AR-15 style rifle three hours before the incident. No word on if he used the same "buy now pay later" plan that the Uvalde shooter used to "purchase" his weapons and ammunition.
Given that the Tulsa shooter committed suicide, I'm not sure arguments about the deterrence value of armed guards in these cases are accurate. Or sincere.
And Greg Abbott has another great idea on how to secure Texas' schools without resorting to the tyranny of gun control:
So in addition to making sure even more armed guards good guys with guns are placed in schools Abbott thinks a good way to test the effectiveness is to send anonymous people to break into schools at random times and see if they get shot. If this were a work of fiction most people would dismiss it as horrendously implausible (not to mention implausibly horrendous).
*At least, for the sort of everyone that means white homeowners that vote Republican. It's less clear that they are keen on other people owning guns.