Here's one for all you historical tradition/trivia buffs, with a special shout out to Justice Clarence "I made up the historical tradition test out of thin air" Thomas:
Q. What is the difference between a slightly drunk gunslinger entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 and a completely sober, but mentally disturbed individual entering a church in Sutherland, Springs, Texas in 2017?
A. The slightly drunk gunslinger entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 would willingly hand over his guns to the sheriff without whining about his second amendment rights.
A2. There were no politicians bending over backwards to please the National Rifle Association in 1881 to claim that the second amendment protected the rights of a slightly drunk gunslinger from entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 and taking their loaded weapons into a bar, into a church, into a school, or wherever they damn well pleased.
A3. There were no justices on the United States Supreme Court in 1881 making up "tests" out of thin air for purposes of determining whether or not "historical traditions", whatever that might be, decided the constitutionality of gun control regulations, simply to please the National Rifle Association.
A4. In 1881, the National Rifle Association was only ten years into its existence, and concentrated on "promoting and encouraging rifle shooting on a scientific basis". In otherwords, it was not out there in 1881 claiming that any law, statute, rule, regulation or mere guidance that protected the public from persons intent on misusing firearms was unconstitutional and a mere attempt by an out of control government to subjugate the people by seizing their lawful firearms.
You know what else was not around in 1881?
There was no claim that guns were needed for private citizens to protect themselves from our own government.
There was no claim that private citizens were entitled to own weapons designed for war. There was no claim that people had the right to automatic weaponry, and that any attempt to prevent citizens from possessing weapons that had not legitimate use other than killing was nothing more than tyranny.
Which brings us back to Clarence "Historical Tradition" Thomas.
In "gunning" down -- ok, groan at the lame wording -- the New York statute limiting the carrying of weapons in public, the good Justice declared that such statutes were only valid if there was a historical tradition that could be traced back limiting the carrying and use of such weapons in public. We will ignore the fact that the weapons used in mass shootings had not been invented until recently. Justice Thomas and his buddies on the Court, aided by NRA funding, found no such tradition. In holding so, they ignored...
1. A 1786 law in Boston prohibiting the storage of loaded firearms in homes.
2. A 1756 law in Maryland confiscating guns from Catholics from owning guns. We can only imagine the outcry if Justice Thomas found that to be part of the historical tradition of this country.
3. An 1838 law in Virginia prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.
4. An 1875 law in Wyoming prohibiting the carrying of any firearm, concealed or otherwise.
5. Presser v. Illinois (1875) and United States v. Cruikshank (1876), two Supreme Court cases that held that the second amendment did not prevent states and localities from enacting their own gun control laws.
This is why elections matter. Too many of you did not vote in the last few presidential elections, which led to the present make up of the Supreme Court, which is squarely in the pocket of the gun manufacturers via their terrorists at the NRA. As a result, we are where we are now. We have a Supreme Court that makes up constitutional tests for gun control out of whole cloth, ignoring the precendents their own test says should have led to the conclusion that the statutes they routinely strike down are constitutional.
It matters not if you have to wonder if your child is going to come home from school.
It matters not if you will be ducking behind a pew in church.
It matters not if attending a music festival will end in a drumroll of automatic weapons fire.
It matters not the number of innocent bodies gunned down going about their every day business.
For crying out loud, it matters not if you are a congressman playing a fucking softball game.
The means is there for protecting ourselves, our loved ones our communities, and I am not talking about arming ourselves.
Guns kill. People with guns kill. Take away the guns and there will be fewer incidents, fewer deaths. It is simple logic. One cannot shoot anyone if one does not have a gun.
Get over the fear mongering from the NRA. The government is not looking to take away law abiding citizens' rights when common sense gun legislation is passed. Slightly drunk gunslingers entering Tombstone in 1881 handed over their guns because the good townsfolk figured out that without their guns, slightly drunk gunslingers could not shoot anybody and the town remained safer.
It was that simpe. It should be that simple.
Instead, cowardly politicians and justices of the Supreme Court make up nonexistent rules to justify gun manufacturers making money, money and more money. It is also that simple.
And for that, this latest one at Apalachee High School is on them as much as it is on the 14 year old kid authorities knew was obsessed with school shootings, but did absolutely nothing about because there was nothing they could do about it due to the NRA, gun manufacturers, judges and politicians who are more interested in the money they get from the sale of weapons and the contributions they get from the NRA and the gun manufacturers than they are in the health and welfare of the rest of us.
Thoughts and prayers my ass.
