Quote of the Day

What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these ‘high capacity’ magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.

Diana DeGette
U.S. Representative to Congress from Colorado
2013

Is it a lie? Or is it profound ignorance? I could go either way on it. I’m certain many people would believe her. And that false belief will increase the likelihood of passing magazine bans.

Just keep in mind that people like her are making the laws you will be prosecuted with.

Prepare and respond appropriately.

Quote of the Day

The right wing bias of corporate media is nuts.

David Hogg
Tweeted on July 26, 2023

Delusions are often functional. Especially for anti-gunners like Hogg.

Others have things to say on this topic as well.

Quote of the Day

Justice Frankfurter warned 80 years ago that the Supreme Court was going down a bad path by getting into the business of ranking constitutional rights, protecting some at the expense of others, and today his dissent illuminates what has gone very wrong with our current Supreme Court. In a string of cases decided by an unchecked conservative super-majority, the court has established a tiering of constitutional rights, elevating rights to religious liberty (for some), free speech, and guns over and above other fundamental rights such as equality, public health and security, and bodily autonomy.

Katherine Franke
James L. Dohr Professor of Law at Columbia University and the founder and faculty director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project.
July 18, 2023
We’ve Entered a New Era of Tiered Constitutional Rights

Is Franke a visitor from an alternate universe and is working from a different U.S. Constitution? In my universe and reading my copy of the U.S. constitution there is no mention of “fundamental rights such as equality, public health and security, and bodily autonomy*.”

I would attribute the addition of these new rights to ignorance or poor schooling. But Franke claims she is a Professor of Law at Columbia University. If true, I find it hare to imagine she is so ignorant or poorly schooled that she did not have an accurate copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and been required to read them on multiple occasions. Hence the I am forced to conclude there must be an alternate explanation.

One could claim this is a deliberate lie intended to deceive the masses. But the lie is so obvious one could not expect it to accomplish, in the best case, a cause for laughter at her expense.

Hence, my leading hypothesis to explain this outrageous misrepresentation of the words and meaning of the constitution is that she is delusional and/or is a visitor from an alternate dimension.

I also find it quite telling there is no means to leave comments on her opinion piece.

* The Fourth Amendment reference to “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” appears to be limited to “searches and seizers” and it would be difficult to stretch it to mean “bodily autonomy.”

Quote of the Day

I think the time and energy it would take to ratify a 28th Amendment could be put to better use.

Instead of taking decades to secure approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, I believe a gun summit at Camp David — with gun-rights advocates, law enforcement and survivors — could hammer out new, commonsense gun safety measures in a matter of days.

Denny Freidenrich
Laguna Beach
June 12, 2023
Letters to the Editor: We need an answer on gun violence now, not Newsom’s 28th Amendment

I find it amazing how ignorant some people are and yet think they know the situation better than the people directly involved.