Some things to note here. The article cited by Old Colonel is not titled as King Brown said it was, and the subject matter is not quite what King was once again alluding to. Nor was it the lead article in the December 2017 issue.
The rhetoric---racial or otherwise in this thread and others---stems in part from different definitions of bigotry, according to lead article in the current (December) The Atlantic.
It's titled "Conservatism Without Bigotry, Republicans must reckon with their policies' racial effects.That would be more likely if liberals stopped carelessly crying racist."
I want to point this out again especially for Old Colonel, because the point I was making is that King was once again massaging the facts to suit his agenda, and once again creating fake news.
It could be considered a harmless mistake if King didn't have such a long history of doing such things with the facts here. I saw the article that Old Colonel provided the link to before I posted last night, and noted it was merely an opinion piece by Peter Beinhart that King obviously cherry-picked to see only the parts he agrees with.
I also got a chuckle from this bullshit line in King's lame reply that neglected to address his gross errors and stretching of the truth:
As good a time as any to add that members have been surpassingly careful, taking everything into account, in protecting the integrity of this great board.
I'm pretty sure this is the same King Brown who has a long history of trolling anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric and support for anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats while at the same time denigrating our NRA and repeatedly posting Socialist dogma. Yes, it's the same King Brown who had numerous posts removed by Dave Weber as King repeatedly tried to torpedo the "Preserve the Second Amendment Thread: Informational" that was pinned to the top of the Forum List. King and Ed Good conspired in a concerted effort to get Dave to give up on that noble cause by repeatedly violating the rules and standards put in place for what was appropriate in that Thread. I keep using the word "repeatedly" because of the habitual nature of those actions.
Here's King's idea of members being "surpassingly careful, taking everything into account, in protecting the integrity of this great board."It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
And here he is with his repeated assertions that the Supreme Court actually changed the original intent and meaning of our 2nd Amendment in 2008. King and anti-gunners never have accepted the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions::
The Court in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller changed the 200-year-old narrowly interpreted Second from serving in the militia to an individual right. Do you favour democratic processes over justice of stacked courts?
The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.
Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country.
I believe what Levin says about the Second was in the the Founders' minds. The pity is they didn't write it down. They wanted to protect the states from federal interference, for sure. But the country is still wrangling with the Second to the point that courts are allowing various levels to regulate from popular vote.
And here is how he tried to justify Obama's attempts to infringe upon the rights of law abiding gun owners:
With respect, you tend to believe the written as something sacrosanct as it appears in the Constitution and other bills. Look at the Oath you posted: It says only that the president will do to "the best of my ability" to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. What he determines "best"---wrongly or rightly.
The only thing worse than a complete fraud... is a complete fraud with an anti-gun sentiment... who pretends to be your friend.
