Monday, June 18, 2018

No helping some people understand.

OK, if the fact that Hillary Clinton had one of the highest margins of the popular vote EVER, yet still lost in the electoral college.

And the fact that the campaign neglected Wisconsin.

And a lot of people wouldn't have voted if there hadn't been alternatives. I'm not sure what I would have done, but the only way I would have even considered voting for Hillary Clinton would have been if ranked choice voting existed. And then I would have voted for her somewhere AFTER Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Roque de La Fuentes, and a write in for Bozo the Clown (not necessarily in that order).

And you still want to find blame in everything except Clinton being a lousy candidate (still more on that one to come, but look at the results of the NJ presidential election for a clue) and the electoral college.

There isn't too much I can do to help you understand that it wasn't the voters, it was the shitty, duopoly system that gave you Trump.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Maine Passes Ranked Choice Voting

One of the many reforms I would like to see in the US system of elections is Ranked Choice Voting. Maine just passed a referendum to make this the method for choosing candidates. I hope other jurisdictions adopt this system.

How does Ranked Choice Voting work? 
(from the Committed for Ranked Choice Voting)

RANKING YOUR CHOICES: Rank as many or as few candidates as you like from your favorite to your least favorite.

DECLARING A WINNER: Ballots are counted in rounds where the last-place candidates lose until one candidate reaches a majority and wins. If your first choice can’t win, your vote automatically counts for your second choice, so you never feel like your vote is wasted.

With Ranked Choice Voting, you have the freedom to vote for the candidate you like the best without worrying that you will help the candidate you like the least.
June 12, 2018 Sample Ballot for the Maine Gubernatorial Primaries
A video on how Ranked Choice Voting works:

This is just one of Many changes that need to be made to the system, but it's an important one.

As I said before: The only way I would have even considered voting for Hillary Clinton would have been if ranked choice voting existed. And then I would have voted for her somewhere AFTER Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Roque de La Fuentes, and a write in for Bozo the Clown (not necessarily in that order).

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Bill Clinton is full of shit

Not that it is news. The dude was impeached for lying before congress, which pretty much means he has been convicted for a crime of falsehood.

So, why the fuck should I pay attention to anything him or his scummy wife has to say?
A couple of times by the General election.

It's because I am pissed off he has the balls to try and hint that the Green Party has something to do with a Russian Conspiracy. This ties into my last post. Ajamu Baraka discusses this shit here.

Hey, Bubba, the only way I would have even considered voting for your wife would have been if ranked choice voting existed. And then I would have voted for her somewhere AFTER Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Roque de La Fuentes, and a write in for Bozo the Clown (not necessarily in that order).

Sorry, but Jill Stein actually challenged the election results and I supported her doing that. Did you wife even think about that?

No, she lost Wisconsin to Bernie Sanders in the primary and neglected the state in the General.

Who needs the Russians with a coke addled fuckwit like you running around, Bubba? Your wife's campaign lost the election which you would know if your brain still worked.

My vote was my vote, it doesn't belong to any party and it sure as fuck didn't belong to Hillary Clinton.
A second opinion. She wasn't popular.

I know you have a problem understanding that  "no means no", Bubba, but I said "no" twice to voting for your wife being president.  The third time wasn't going to be different.  I'm sick of voting for evil: lesser or otherwise.

Let's toss in that this election has shown that the process of voting for President is a sham. So, I am going to vote for the candidate of my choice from now on.

Now, why don't you, your wife, and the rest of your family piss off.

See also:

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Clinton was a loser and a bad choice

This explains what happened--and the Russians weren't responsible

I was curious since the popular vote doesn't really matter in Presidential Elections (after all Clinton won that with one of the largest percentages in a US election). The Electoral College is the real decider with only 270 electoral votes needed to win. So, I went to 270toWin to play with their interactive Electoral Vote map.

First off, there are 2,250,000,000,000,000 possible outcomes with the Electoral College system! (Long explanation on that), but it didn't take too many states to flip for Trump to have won. That means it was a real gamble to run a candidate as unpopular as Clinton since there were no guarantees that New Hampshire, Nevada or Virginia wouldn't have voted for Trump. Or that Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin would vote for Clinton.

There were four states, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which were all decided by less than 1% in 2016, with Michigan the closest. That state was won by about .23% - that’s only 2,300 votes per one million votes cast. Donald Trump won three of these four states, none of which had been won by a Republican in a generation. Those 46 electoral votes put him across the 270 he needed to win. Interestingly, despite a fairly competitive election, only four states were decided by 5% or less in 2012; that number grew to 11 in 2016

The thing is that winning any of one of those four states would mean Trump would be President. Or that Trump's electoral college win could have been much higher!  Remember the popular vote has no relation to the Electoral College numbers. All one needs is to get the largest number of votes to get ALL the Electoral College votes in most states.

There would still be a possibility that Trump could have been president even if all four of those states have voted for Clinton (and Delaware and Nevada had voted for Trump). That is because the Electoral College result would have been a tie (269-269). That means the election would be sent to the House of Representatives with each state delegation getting one vote (a similar activity takes place on the Senate side to pick the Vice-President). In the case of a tie, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote. A majority of Senators (51) is needed to win.

It would have been highly likely in the case of a tie that the election would remain undecided after the Electors voted. That means Congress would meet in joint session on the first day in January to count the electoral votes (this count happens whether the election is close or not). If no candidate has reached 270 Electoral Votes, then the House and Senate take over and elect the President and Vice-President, respectively.

It seems likely Trump would have been president given the current US legislature is solidly Republican had there been a tie.

Toss in it is possible to win the Electoral College with only 11 States (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey). However, nobody has been elected President since 1900 by winning fewer than 23 states. (Take the quiz at 270towin to see where I got these figures)

Anyway, While the democratic party is responsible for picking a loser like Clinton, it seems to be more that the anti-democratic nature of the US elections needs to be addressed.  After all, the only way the Russians could have influenced the US presidential election would be to have somehow created the Electoral College since that is what really put Trump in office.

See also:
Why Trump Had an Edge in the Electoral College
Five myths about the electoral college

Stop talking Russians--Start listening to the dissatisfied voting public

I am not a fan of Libertarian Politics, but I find myself siding with Gary Johnson in seeing a need to change the current us political landscape.

Maybe the debates aren't the best place to start, but the radical overhaul of the US system of elections has to start some place. Getting other voices back into the debates is needed.

Climate change was hardly mentioned in the 2016 presidential debates. which is something that needs to be addressed.

Anyway, please watch these if you are dissatisfied with the result 2016 election and start looking at the independent voter groups to change the system.

Sunday, June 3, 2018

Ta-Nehisi Coates once again shows his ignorance

It would be "whitesplainin'" if I went too harsh on Ta-Nehisi Coates: especially since there are people like Darryl Pinckney, Cornell West, and Adolph Reed who do the job much better than I can.  I am not sure how Coates would explain how someone like me with a JD from University of Maryland and an LLM from the University of Exeter ended up with the shitty law career I had.

Seriously, I applied for a job that was advertised in the ABA journal for someone with pretty much all my credentials, yet I never had so much as an interview. I found out later that a large law firm had placed the ad. It was something called a job cert ad to try and prove there were no US citizens who had the qualifications the firm's candidate had for an H1B visa.

I threw a spanner in the works of that process.

That is a digression into immigration law though, but the point is that there are more than enough jobs which aren't filled for a lot of reasons. That is despite what one person pointed out: that he, as a US Citizen, taught the people who received the H1B visas. His point was that there was likely to be someone in the US who had the qualifications to do the jobs that the H1Bs were being issued for.

The real issue is that Coates frames everything in terms of race, but that should make him even more aware of the fact the Electoral College was created to preserve slavery: why else would smaller states be afraid of larger states having too much power?

But what has me going is We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy. Coates neglects two events which could have clued him in to the possibility of a Trump presidency. The first being the 2000 election, where the popular vote loser became president. This was with more shenanigans than happened in 2016 as the disputed Florida election ended up being decided by the US Supreme Court.

Obama's reign was another bellwether event. How could he miss that there was some sort of deal between Obama and Clinton which would result in Clinton being the 2016 Democratic Party nominee? It was obvious that the democrats preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.  And Obama somehow "defeating" Clinton should have gotten Coates' racial radar tingling.

But it wasn't really that Clinton was unpopular since she won the popular vote by one heck of a margin. She lost in the racist Electoral College. But that is something everybody is ignoring: especially Coates. So, while white people are upset about Russians, Coates is hyper-aware of the "racial divide".  But do either really exist? Is there another explanation which isn't Russians or race?

One the other hand, Clinton lost to a black man and would have lost to a Jew had the system not been rigged in 2016. If that wasn't a big warning sign that Trump stood a chance: I don't know what would be!

I am not sure what part my ancestors played in Bacon's Rebellion, but I know there were some who were in Virginia at the time. That was the real watershed event where the powers that be learned that using race was good for keeping the people down. Sort of like using fear of immigration to stir up the masses (I would wager the person who got the job I mentioned earlier was a white, European).

Anyway, the divide has always been class in the US, but it was easier to keep the classes down when they looked on another  group as somehow inferior.

Anyway, the warning signs were out there, Mr. Coates, you were too busy being distracted by race to see it coming.

See also:
The Afro-Pessimist Temptation

"Gun rights"--you are being had to the point you are dying from it.

Did you realise that the entire concept of "gun rights" is bullshit meant to get you to vote against your self interests? We already know that the facts are on the side of gun regulation which is why there has been a ban on research on this topic.

Now the WaPo has come out with a study that shows "One of the biggest paradoxes — or, at least, potential paradoxes — about gun violence in America is that more gun violence occurs in Republican areas than Democratic areas."

Simply put, gun nuts are literally killing themselves off because red state gun violence usually tends to be suicide. And we know how unsympathetic gun nuts are to suicides.

Let's toss this in with the report that caused the federal "gun violence" research freeze was one that showed that guns in the home were more of a danger to the homeowners and their families than a potential criminal.  Not to mention the ones which show that Lott and Kleck are a pile of horseshit.

Are you people feeling like chumps yet?

No, you're buying more guns because you are gullible.

I sort of feel sorry that your gullibility is killing you, but it's hard when you people are having so much trouble understanding what is happening.


Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Yes, the Electoral College is a Constitutional Creation, but the Constitution has been amended.

I think the real issue isn't can the Electoral College be changed or abolished, but WHY hasn't it been abolished.  It has already been changed by the 12th Amendment, which means that change is indeed possible.
In case you need to have proof for how this really happened.

The process of states appointing senators was replaced by direct election by the 17th Amendment.

On the other hand, there is more talk about spurious "Russian influence" leading to Trump being president than actual discussion of the electoral college and how it distorts the results of the vote.

On the other hand, the reason the 17th Amendment was adopted was that there was media outcry about the corruption surrounding the appointment of Senators, especially after William A. Clark's bribing of the Montana State legislature came to light.

On the other hand, any discussion of the failures of the electoral college seem to be arcane or on blogs like this one. It is not the stuff the media feeds upon.

It is better to portray the US populace as being fools who would have elected Trump than to point out his victory was not from the democratic process. Instead it came from an arcane institution which few people understand.

The real issue isn't can it be changed, since it has been changed in the past. No, the real issue is can popular opinion be swayed in such a way that the system IS changed.

See Also:

Monday, May 14, 2018

What exactly IS a wasted vote

If someone loses with nearly 3 million more popular votes than her opponent, would one more vote really have made a difference?

Despite what the mass, mainstream media would like to have people believe: my decision to vote for Jill Stein was not totally based on Hillary Clinton being the "Democratic party" nominee.

First off, Bernie Sanders' running in the primary showed that process to be a sham. Not that I couldn't have guessed since the primaries were pretty much settled by the time I could vote in them. My critique of that system would be another post in and of itself.

There are other issues in the system of US elections which show it is neither a democracy or a republic. And threatening to overthrow the government shows one doesn't believe in either system. Again, a whole different post.

Now I see people like Chuck Schumer and Joe Liberman applauding Trump's decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem: Can I support the Democratic party if it wants to prop up the REAL rogue Middle Eastern State?

I support the Palestinian right of return, which is sanctioned by international law. Yet, the two US parties have failed to do anything about this issue.

Voting for Clinton based solely on the fact that she was a woman and not Trump would have been a protest vote. Instead, I saw the possibility of Clinton having a landslide victory against Trump as a reason to vote for a party I truly supported.

And she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, which is not an insignificant number. The fact that was the case, but is buried behind "Russian interference" in the US election makes me sad. That is the only drawback to having voted the way I did.

The two party system has a lock on the US political climate to the point that those of us with alternative opinions are shut out of the debate.

No, my one vote was not wasted, but I believe it would have really been wasted had I voted for one of the duopoly candidates.

See Also

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Direct Election of U.S. Senators, The Electoral College, and republicanism.

For those of you who still keep harping on "republic, not a democracy" despite both systems having the characteristic of choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

 The Constitution not only provided for what would become the electoral college; it also made it so that senators were elected by state legislatures, not popularly elected. Getting rid of that provision was unlike the electoral college in that it went away quickly with the 17th Amendment, which brought about the direct election of senators.

Maybe that was because the appointment system was much more obvious in its abuse.

William A. Clark was an American politician and entrepreneur, involved with mining, banking, and railroads. Although one could argue that calling him a politician was a bit of a stretch. That's because Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes.

Clark handed out envelopes with anywhere from $1,000-$3,000 dollars to the state legislators during the legislative session where he was appointed senator. According to the US Senate report on the investigation into this matter:
On April 23, 1900, after hearing extensive testimony from ninety-six witnesses, the committee returned a report unanimously concluding that William Clark was not entitled to his seat. The testimony detailed a dazzling list of bribes ranging from $240 to $100,000. In a high-pressure, well-organized scheme coordinated by Clark's son, Clark's agents had paid mortgages, purchased ranches, paid debts, financed banks, and blatantly presented envelopes of cash to legislators.
Clark's response in regard to his bribery of the Montana legislature is supposed to have been, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."

Bottom line was that there was a sense that senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favours and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption, a number that included the investigation of Clark.

The Electoral college is much more problematic in that most people don't understand it and how it distorts the electoral process. Distortion of the elections from being free and fair means that one can't really argue that  the electoral college is somehow a "republican institution". If anything, republicanism would require its abolition.

And it can be done since senators are no longer appointed by the states. The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution changed that and established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.

The Constitution can be amended and changed to go with the times. It's time the electoral college went the way of legislators choosing senators.

See Also

Thursday, May 10, 2018

The right to vote in the US

It would seem odd that a country which is so proud of its democratic process and wants to impose that on "dictatorial" nations that it has no affirmative right to vote. I want to remind you of the characteristics of both a republic and a democracy before you start on the "republic not a democracy" bullshit:
  1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;
  2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;
  3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and
  4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
There is NO difference between the two in modern political thought: well short of republics not having aristocracy.

Anyway, there is no affirmative right to vote. There are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), but that's kind of meaningless if everybody is excluded.

On the other hand, a right to vote is a cornerstone in international law, Significant international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and regional agreements such as the American Convention on Human Rights, enshrine citizens' claim to universal and equal suffrage. The most important of these documents is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. It recognises the integral role that transparent and open elections play in ensuring the fundamental right to participatory government. Article 21 states that:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedures.
The problem here is that US law hasn't caught up with the rest of the world, despite the US having been signatory to some of these agreements, which means they would be constitutional law under Article VI.

Perhaps the situation would be different in the US if there was recognition for this right.

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

You think when you vote, you get to pick your leaders… right?

There is also the Gerrymander to thwart election choice.

Stop with the "republic not a democracy" shit since that is pretty much meaningless.

Especially when some elections don't have ANY candidate choice. That is the elections have no candidates from parties that can't win.

A recap for people who want to parrot the "republic not a democracy" bullshit. There is NO difference between the two in modern political thought: well short of republics not having aristocracy. Here are the characteristics of both systems.
  1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;
  2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;
  3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and
  4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
The French Revolution pretty much proved the founders WRONG about the benefits of a republic over a democracy.

Can you say "the Terror"?

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Why I cited "Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin is meaningless in every way (except pithy tweets)"

There are a bunch of good reasons to have mentioned that in my last post.

First off, it doesn't really contradict any of my argument. In fact, it pretty much makes my point: the electoral college is undemocratic. Toss in that Hillary Clinton ran a campaign that was better for first past the post than one where the result will be determined by an undemocratic institution unique to US politics.

The folks who want to tell me I somehow wasted my vote by voting for Jill Stein don't understand the plethora of reasons WHY I voted the way I did. One of the major factors was that the US system of elections needs to change.

I would have been far more pissed off had I voted for Clinton to have her lost in the manner she lost to Trump. Adding to her large margin of the popular vote only to see her lose would have been a wasted vote. Instead I voted for someone I believed in.

And, no, I probably wouldn't have held my nose and voted for another Clinton.

Too many things need to change in the US system of elections and blaming everybody and everything except for the real issues that led to Clinton losing only turns me off the discussion.

Unfortunately, the person who wrote the post doesn't really understand how the electoral college skews the vote so that a minority of states actually determine who will be president.[1]  That is true to the extent that it is theoretically possible for 11 States to determine who will be president. Take this quiz for an eye opener on how undemocratic the electoral college happens to be.

So much for the big states not being able to overrule the smaller ones.  That is one of the most bullshit reasons to keep the electoral college. Seriously, anyone who makes that argument needs to take the quiz to see how wrong they are. The only thing the electoral college does is distort the results of the presidential election.

In the all-or-none Electoral College system, the importance of each individual vote is magnified in closely-contended states. That's why, as the election approaches, some states get far more attention from the candidates, both in terms of visits and local advertising dollars spent. If we had a popular vote election, the candidates would likely spend most of their time and energy in the most populous states, supplemented by national advertising. We'll leave it to others - and there is no shortage of opinions - to debate which system is best.

So, no, the electoral college does not result in a "national" election. If anything, it results in states being totally neglected for the states that are considered "battlegrounds". Clinton took Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin for granted to the point that she totally ignored Wisconsin. I heard anecdotally that Democratic Get out the Vote volunteers in Pennsylvania actually made calls to Trump supporters!

“It’s is nothing short of malpractice that her campaign didn’t look at the electoral college and put substantial resources in states like Michigan and Wisconsin,” says Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. Naw, they preferred to blame the people who voted green for their fuck ups.

Oh, and the blog where the post about Clinton's margin being insignificant (and how great the electoral college is) was made is called "excess of democracy". I personally do not see a difference of nearly three million popular votes to be insignificant.

But the learned professor seems to ignore that the electoral college has been modified in the past to try and fix it. I would also add that it is unique to the United States, which makes one question its utility. It has demonstrated it does none of the things its proponents claim it does. In fact it pretty much places the election of the president in the votes a few states, increases the regionalism, and has led to deeply polarized electorate.

Bottom line, the US system of elections needs a serious overhaul: not finger pointing and trying to find blame.

  1. John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election, despite winning the popular vote (and thus the electoral votes) of only 23 of the 50 states. Jimmy Carter won 23 states in 1976, but he also won DC, which by then was participating with 3 electoral votes. George W. Bush won 30 states in 2000, despite the closeness of the electoral vote. 

See Also

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Trump was not popularly elected.

I get really annoyed when I see people saying that Donald trump "won" the US election and try to make it sound as if he won the popular vote.

He didn't win the popular vote: he won in the electoral college.

The popular vote is the small print in the picture above. It's also the small print in the debate about Trump being US President.

The people are distracted to nebulous "Russian interference" Instead of addressing the glaring problems in US "democracy", which this is a glaring example. Yet no one seems to be willing to address the fact that the electoral college distorts the vote even when it isn't creating a mess like this one.

Elite media outlets do not, for the most part, have an interest in vote counts and what they mean. Coverage of the 2016 election campaign confirmed the extent to which major media are more interested in personalities than facts on the ground. The television networks like to declare a “winner” and then get focused on the palace intrigues surrounding a transition of power. Those intrigues are worth covering. But perspective on the will of the people get lost. Election-night numbers get locked in, and that’s that.

On the other hand, Clinton's margin  of victory in the popular vote was larger than John Kennedy's and Richard Nixon's, I've seen a statistic that her popular vote margin was the third largest in US elections!

Multiple candidates in American history have been elected president with far smaller margins than Clinton's in the popular vote. According to figures from the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections—and as alluded to by one Atlantic reader—they include:
James Garfield in 1880: 0.09 percentage points
John F. Kennedy in 1960: 0.17 percentage points
Grover Cleveland in 1884: 0.57 percentage points
Richard Nixon in 1968: 0.7 percentage points
James Polk in 1844: 1.45 percentage points
Since the final vote count did, indeed, put her well above 2 percentage points ahead of Trump, her margin went beyond those of winning presidential nominees Jimmy Carter in 1976 (2.07 percentage points) and George W. Bush in 2004 (2.47 percentage points). And all this is not to mention the presidents who’ve been elected without winning the popular vote at all. That’s a list that includes Bush in 2000, and Trump.

Yet she lost. Trump lost the popular vote by more than any successfully elected president ever. And Clinton lost the election with a pretty hefty amount of popular votes.

So, no Hillary's margin of the popular vote is highly important since it demonstrates how fucked US "democracy" happens to be. There is a reason that the elections take forever: it's that it raises the cost of running for office. Again, the get the money out of politics crowd isn't talking about that aspect of the issue.

I agree with Donald Trump, who in 2012 described the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy.” Trump told CBS’s 60 Minutes after the 2016 election was over that he still agrees with himself—even if he is not prepared to defer to the will of the people in this instance. “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes,” Trump explained. “You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

Stop trying to pin the 2016 election on the Russians since the problems are 100% home grown.

See Also

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Windrush the Musical

I've written about Big Life before, but now that Windrush is in the news I have to talk about it in the hope someone sees this and decides to produce it.Big LifeYou can hear the play here at the BBC. The script is available it's ISBN 978-1840024418.

I never saw this on stage, but there is an archived version of the radio production of the musical. It combines Shakespeare's Love's Labours Lost with the story of the Windrush immigrants, which is now something in the news. I heard that this was a popular musical, yet it didn't have the long run of something by Cameron Mackintosh or Andrew Lloyd Weber. Maybe because it's about Windrush.

It opened in 2004 at the Theatre Royal Stratford East and then moved to West End's Apollo Theatre in 2005.
Anyway, I hope someone sees this copy of the script (the book is a copy of the script) and decides to publicise this play. It is a play which should have had more exposure. I think it really needs the exposure now that Windrush is in the news.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Jill Stein makes a statement on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

Today, Jill Stein handed documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and is cooperating with their investigation.  Stein pointed out that:
Concerns about foreign interference should not distract us from interference in plain sight originating from within our own borders. That includes the actions of the Democratic National Committee, which biased its party’s own primaries, effectively disenfranchising millions of Bernie Sanders’ voters; corporate media that gave Donald Trump billions in extra free airtime because he was “damn good” for network profits, in the words of CBS’ CEO; or voter suppression schemes like voter ID laws, Interstate Crosscheck and felon disenfranchisement that systematically deny millions of Americans their constitutional right to vote. 
While there is no "constitutional right to vote" in the US despite it being the foundation of a democratic (or republican) society, I agree with the sentiments expressed by her.[1]

She points out that the internal meddling of Cambridge Analytica was far more egregious than the Russians, which is something that isn't really new. However, it is something which needs to be reiterated:
The cutting-edge tactics of the Cambridge Analytica scandal make alleged Russian social media meddling look primitive and insignificant by comparison. Cambridge Analytica is accused of using without permission the private information of up to 87 million people, assembling thousands of data points on individuals to craft micro-targeted messages in a campaign of mass manipulation with the scale and sophistication of military-style psy-ops. The actions of the Russian Internet Research Agency, on the other hand, appear to be the opposite of sophisticated and strategic. The lack of targeting, timing and relevance of the vast majority of their Facebook ads underscores the doubts expressed by investigative reporters who’ve suggested the Internet Research Agency may in fact be a “click-bait” factory intended to generate advertising revenue, and not an election meddling operation. The insignificant numbers of the Internet Research Agency’s social media posts - compared to the vastness of the social media universe -  further diminishes the claim that it had significant impact on the election outcome. Facebook posts from the Internet Research Agency amounted to a mere 0.0004% of total Facebook content; Russian-associated tweets accounted for 0.02% of election related tweets, and Russian-linked Youtube videos had hit totals only in the hundreds, hardly the stuff of viral transmission.
I agree with her that the internal US meddling and obstruction of democracy is far more of a problem than "Russian interference".

You can read her statement here.

See also her interview with the Real News Network.

  1. The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

Sorry, Dems and Pundits, but Hillary was only a small part of my decision in 2016

I am looking at the Guardian and seeing headlines such as:

Hopes of mild climate change dashed by new research 

Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter 

'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention

Despite headlines like these, this topic was pretty much absent from the Presidential debates. Hillary Clinton put up a statement about this issue on her website, but that was negated by this exchange between her and a Greenpeace volunteer:
Quite frankly, the only candidate who was addressing the issues that concerned me (the environment, election reform, etc) was Jill Stein.

Hillary seemed to be running on the fact that she was a woman and wasn't Donald Trump. Let's toss in that the primary election and selection of the Democratic candidate has been shown to be a farce.

The US political system is broken, but it won't get fixed by supporting the two party system. Also, it won't get fixed as long as people are in denial (RUSSSIANS!). Two of the worst presidents have gained office through the electoral college. Do we need to end up with a real idiot as president for people to see change is necessary?

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Windrush is not the same as the "dreamers"

First off, the "dreamers" are unlawfully present. They are fully aware that they are not legal immigrants.

Secondly, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (and DAPA is Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) aren't really amnesties. Neither do they change the status from being unlawfully present to lawfully present.  They merely "defer" any deportation.

DACA and DAPA recipients are still unlawfully present and would need to leave the country for the required period of deportation to even consider getting legal residency under current law.

On the other hand, Windrush refers to people who were citizens of colonies or commonwealth countries. The picture of the British Empire Passports gives you a clue to the problem.  These people were under the impression that they were British Citizens, which they were up until 1971.

Wouldn't you think you were British if your passport said "British Passport"? Or said you were a "British Subject"?

First part of the changes were some of the places Windrush immigrants came from gained independence.  The Second part was The The Immigration Act 1971, which ironically was also partly passed to legally clarify the rights of Commonwealth citizens within the United Kingdom in preparation for future membership of the European Communities which the UK became a member state on 1 January 1973 which gave new automatic rights to EC member state citizens.

So, it's amusing this is coming in tandem with Brexit which is now removing the right of residency for EU member state citizens.  Anyway...

A closer analogy for people in the US would be an overzealous ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) going after people who were from Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands since those are territories, not states. The Philippines, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau are former territories which gained independence from the US. People from American Samoa can visit the US without a visa, but they need to go through the naturalisation process to become citizens.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Windrush vs. the "Dreamers".

OK, we are told about a group of people who came to a country for a better life, but are having problems with their immigration status.

Who do you feel sorry for: the people who didn't do it legally?


The people who were legal immigrants, who were actually invited to build a war torn nation, yet now find the legality of their immigration status in question?

Personally, I go with the second group, which is a discussion of the Windrush Generation. Given the Windrush crowd is pretty much black and from the Caribbean (although I do know of people from the Subcontinent who were invited under similar circumstances). Windrush refers to:
Those arriving in the UK between 1948 and 1971 from Caribbean countries have been labelled the Windrush generation.
This is a reference to the ship MV Empire Windrush, which arrived at Tilbury Docks, Essex, on 22 June 1948, bringing workers from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and other islands, as a response to post-war labour shortages in the UK.
The ship carried 492 passengers - many of them children.
Since they were Commonwealth Citizens, they had a right of residency in the UK. The Windrush generation were legal, even if they were the subjects of racism. That is a big difference from the DAPA/DACA crowd who arrived illegally and have been looking over their shoulder from the start.
Get the picture?

Although, there is some debate about their legality, but they were colonial citizens. This is a summary of the problem:
The Home Office did not keep a record of those granted leave to remain or issue any paperwork confirming it - meaning it is difficult for Windrush arrivals to prove they are in the UK legally.
And in 2010, landing cards belonging to Windrush migrants were destroyed by the Home Office.
Because they came from British colonies that had not achieved independence, they believed they were British citizens.
Add into this mess the fact that many Windrush migrants who have had their legal status called into question have been in the UK for decades, often paying taxes and making pension contributions. Windrush migrants must prove they have been in the UK continually since 1 January 1973, when they were granted the right to stay in the country permanently. Anyone who has left the country for more than two years loses their right to remain. The Home Office did not keep records of the people to whom it granted indefinite leave to remain in the 1970s. Some stayed but did not apply for British citizenship meaning there is no official record of their legal status. People must apply for an official stamp known as No Time Limit (NTL), at a cost of £229 to have this official recognition for their right of abode in the UK.

I see a few differences here between people who are called "Dreamers" and the Windrush crowd. First off, Windrush had a legal status and were invited to live in the UK. Second off, the Windrush crowd was living as legal citizens. Thirdly, their situation is primarily one of bureaucratic malfeasance, which isn't just attributable to the Tories since it was a Labour government that destroyed the landing cards.

That is quite a difference between the "dreamers" whose entry was not legal and their status is that of being unlawfully present in the US. The dreamers have had the threat of deportation hanging over their head from the start based upon their being unlawfully present. There are legal remedies for the "dreamers", but they entail leaving the United States and going to the back of the line.

Tough shit, they should have paid an immigration lawyer less than they paid their coyote to get them into the US. Toss in we are talking human trafficking if there were indeed coyotes involved.

Bottom line, I am not a fan of amnesties. People can work to make the laws more favourable toward immigration if they have an issue with unlawfully present people getting proper immigration status. On the other hand, I have much more sympathies for people like the Windrush Generation, or the people whose residency will be put in the air by Brexit than I do with people who try to skirt immigration law sas the "dreamers" have done.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

See also:

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Why DC v Heller (and McDonald v Chicago) is wrong

OK, I would shut up about this if my only complaint was related to the ability to regulate firearms. I have pointed out that these decisions do not act as a block to regulating firearms. In fact, they are highly regulation friendly. That is something I have talked about ad nauseum in the past.

Since that has been previously addressed, I will deal with the actual reasons these decisions were bad law.

First, they are historically inaccurate. I am not really going to cover this here since that would be a whole post in and of itself. The bottom line of that one is that the Amendment relates to the distrust for a standing army and bloated military establishment.  More than enough evidence for that in Anglo-American political history which is something that would have shown up if Scalia and Alito had bothered to have done their research.

Second, it removes the Second Amendment from the Constitutional Context and makes it a non-sequitur.  Not enough attention is paid to the preamble of the US Constitution here. That is important since it gives a hint what the intent of the founders happened to be when they drafted the Constitution.

The founders make it clear that the Constitution is supposed to address matters of the common defence. No where in the constitution is the concept of self-defence or personal defence addressed. It is a well known legal principle that if a text is silent on something one cannot infer that it is addressed by the law.

Furthermore, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 gives Congress, and Congress alone, the power to:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It was the power to arm the militia that concerned the founders given the distrust of standing armies. Again, there is Constitutional history here in that the Federal Government had a professional army, while the states had their militias.  It was a fear that the militias would be frustrated by Congress not funding them.

Instead, the militias died from lack of interest. But I've covered that elsewhere as well.

Since the Second Amendment relates to Federal power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, it cannot apply to the States. That makes the McDonald decision a legal absurdity.

Third, The Heller decision acted as if it was a case of first impression, which it was not. That means the Heller and McDonald decisions were a violation of stare decisis.

While, Marbury v Madison did not relate to the Second Amendment, it did address Constitutional language and said that no clause in the Constitution was without meaning.  Of course, given Marbury's significance, perhaps we can ignore these examples of poor judicial decisions (Heller and McDonald).

Which gets to the two 19th Century Second Amendment decisions: US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).

Cruikshank is short, but not really helpful because of that:
The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
It shows that the 19th Century lawyers were more aware of the relationship of the Second Amendment to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. Which takes us to Presser. That is a decision I've mentioned before. It is one which is probably the best for deciphering US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Presser addresses he "unorganised militia" argument, and it made clear that the Second Amendment related to only the organised militias, which is now the National Guard (see Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 [1990]).

Miller is problematic in that its style runs counter to how most people read judicial decisions. Its holding was most likely this paragraph:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.[1]
However it is unclear without the words "we hold" that this would be the holding, but it would logically be the holding. Secondly, the decision goes through the reasoning it came to this conclusion. The Miller decision then goes on to discuss Congress power to arm the militia. it then states that:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[2]
That sentence directly contradicts the Heller and McDonald cases. That is because it makes clear that both clauses are necessary for interpretation of the Amendment. Even more importantly, it makes it clear that the Amendment only applies to the organised (active) militia.

Finally, since these decision would amend the constitution by neglecting an important part the text and change the meaning of the amendment. That would make the decisions ultra vires, or outside the power of the court. Unfortunately, the US Constitution does not provide for a cure for one of the branches acting outside their powers or failing to act.

So, that leaves us with bad law on the books. Fortunately, one doesn't have a problem with regulating firearms. In fact, I would suggest ignoring the two risible decisions and going toward strict regulation of firearms. After all, the two unconstitutional decisions only apply to a ban on handguns in the home.  That means firearms regulation is wide open otherwise. And both Heller and McDonald made it clear that regulations were acceptable.

Which is why there hasn't been too much complaint about these decisions from the "anti-gunners".

[1] Aymette said: " To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive."

[2] See Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972). Douglas was a member of the US Supreme Court when Miller was decided and glosses that case in the dissent.

See also:

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Handguns v. Assault Rifles

This is a biggie if we are going to propose arming teachers with handguns to combat mass shooters: especially if the teacher has a handgun and the shooter has a rifle.

Let's get some bullshit out of the conversation here since the term assault rifle was a creation of the gun manufacturers. There's more than enough documentation for this with things like this copy of Guns & Ammo. Toss in that the StG-44 is the accepted grandadddy of these guns. StG-44 means Sturmgewehr 44, or Assault Rifle 44.

But, I don't need to go too far to see the pro-gun side shoot themselves in the foot, literally, in this argument. Since they will try to show these weapons are "hunting" rifles, or "modern sporting weapons". Take this comment from Gun Control Myth: The AR-15 is Not Actually a Hunting Rifle:

The AR-15 platform is known for its accuracy, especially over longer distances. For some types of hunting, this characteristic is particularly useful for successful hunts. Each bullet type has varying effective ranges. The .223 is effective from 400-600 meters. An AR-15 chambered in .308 has an effective range to about 800 meters; .338 Lapua's effective range is about 1500 meters; and .50 BMG has the range of about one mile..
While the author is trying to show the round is effective at long ranges, making it a good gun for hunting. He is actually shooting down the argument for arming teachers. Now, this is where gun crazies get a little outrageous and try and argue that a bullet can kill at a range up to two miles.

But effective range to me means can you accurately hit a target, which takes the range way down. This comment from a gun forum is pretty typical for what effective range is like:
Fifty yards sounds about right. Unless they have good training, most people can't shoot a 4" barrel accurately enough to target a dump truck beyond about 50 yards.
Yards and metres are about 3 inches in similarity, with metres being about 39 inches. Giving the 50 yard accuracy as being the max for a handgun, that would mean the person armed with the assault rifle would have the advantage by more than 350 metres.

Let's toss in the training needed so that people don't get killed in the cross-fire: especially if the teacher is firing off wildly inaccurate rounds while the shooter is laying down effective fire at a high rate of accuracy.

Again, this is another issue where accurate information would be needed, but the information is solidly "anti-gun" from what little is out there. The fact that the Columbine Shooters were engaged by a Jefferson County Sheriff's deputy seems to be lost in the debate.  Toss in the times that armed people, whether civilian or professional, failed to stop, let alone ameliorate the situation is next to non-existent.

it's pretty easy to see the fallacy of someone armed with a handgun stopping someone with a rifle by just looking at the difference in effective range between those two weapons. The problem is that this argument is being pushed by people who should know better, but think "anti-gunners" don't know anything about firearms.

Some of us know quite a bit about guns, which is why we believe they should be regulated.

Anyway, this is the final argument to the people who want to call these things "hunting rifles" or "modern sporting rifles":
"Nothing like a good clean kill."

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Crisis Actors and gun violence

Not sure why this one needs to be debunked, but it does.

Crisis Actors are people who are somehow hired to "fake" shooting incidents for those who are even more removed from reality than the people who push this theory.

Like any good lie, there is a bit of truth here. The first thing to understand is that the “crisis actor” conspiracy theory has a slender tie to reality. Crisis actors do exist, though there is nothing underhanded about them: they are simply performers hired to play disaster victims in emergency drills or wounded combatants in military exercises. They provide a degree of realism for people practising for real emergencies further down the line.

This term has been hijacked where the gun plague is concerned to somehow say these incidents "didn't happen".  Despite there being obvious victims and proof of the shootings having happened. That is what makes this bullshit so hard to fight.

I used to agree with Michael Moore that the crime scene photos would stop this shit from being mentioned. I even had an online argument with Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung's daughter about this. I used to believe that facts could be used to counter bullshit, yet this crisis actor shit still keeps coming up.

Now, I have to agree with the daughter: no amount of sanity can fight this insanity.

We can provide documentation, but that is all "faked" by an all powerful "deep state".  Hell, we could exhume the graves and show these people the bodies, yet the deniers would say that was somehow "faked".

There are a lot of problems with denying mass shootings and gun violence: one of which is that it re-traumatises the victims and their families.

The other one is the biggie: if the whole point of these false flags is to bring about gun confiscation, then why the fuck hasn't it happened?

The US has had mass shootings at least since Howard Unruh went crazy and killed 13 people in Camden, NJ. Probably even before that happened. There was the 1966 University of Texas mass shooting where you can still see the bullet holes. While there was a trend to "strengthen" gun laws in the 60s-70s, that has been weakened from the 80s on.

Instead of confiscating guns, the US is awash with guns in the hands of who knows since there is no registry. Short of the authorities going after the rabid people who post on the Internet (which happens to be a USDoD creation). I would even bet that a "deep state" capable of creating realistic "mass shootings" can probably even read your minds.

Problem number two with this theory is why don't people like Alex Jones meet fatal "accidents" perpetrated by a "deep state" which has these capabilities?  Or are these people just useful idiots?

Anyway, the signs are pretty obvious that the "crisis actor" thing is bullshit as is the likelihood of any "mass confiscation" of guns. To be honest, a mass confiscation would cost far more than an Aussie style gun buyback ever would.

Toss in an all powerful, deep state capable of doing such a convincing job in producing these "mass shootings" could probably also take your guns without anyone knowing about it.  For all we know, the mass confiscations are occurring right now and the "truth" is being silenced. So beware of the shadows in your bedroom at night: they are probably agents of the New World Order.

See also:

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Does the United States Have a Lower Death Rate From Mass Shootings Than European Countries?

Wow, what a stupid question.

But ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer: especially from right wing media and Fox News.
The source of all this is John Lott.

Again, Seriously? I can't believe that the right still trots this dude out after what they did to Michael Bellesiles. I guess John Lott is OK since his bullshit is what backs up the "pro-gun" arguments, but you might want to read this before citing  Lott.

Can you say Mary Rosh?

As per usual, Mary's, Er, John Lott's statistical method leaves a lot to be desired, but the pro-gun side has never been one to let facts get in the way of their arguments. And like pretty much ever one of the pro-gun arguments, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

After all, the last mass shooting in Norway was in 2011.  I was SOL when I tried to find a mass shooting in Belgium, and Belgium is pretty gun crazy. I did: there was one in 2011 where three (3) people were killed in Liege. That shooting doesn't count as a mass shooting under some of the US definitions for them (some require 4 dead to be a mass shooting). So, talk about being desperate to make the US situation look somewhat acceptable.

The last one in the US? Oh, About a minute or so ago.

Really now. Please don't try to say other countries have the US problem of mass shootings: that one just does not stand up.

Seriously!  The US has a problem with mass shootings, but like any addicted person refuses to face the facts until it's one of their family members who is a victim of gun violence.

And sometimes not even then.

So, the gun nuts work on the popular ignorance of other cultures, but the US is the only country not at war that has regular mass shootings (any one where there are 3 more more victims).

So, try not to be silly and get some REAL facts into this debate. Remember the pro-gun side banned gun research because it tended to be "anti-gun".

That's the only reason somebody like John Lott is called to be an "expert" since most people who know his reputation don't take him too seriously.

See also:

Saturday, March 31, 2018

Just thinking

One of the 1 Aug 1966 University of Texas victims was an unborn child. 

How many more Gun Violence victims have been unborn children? By the pro-life way of thinking, these "unborn children" are innocent no matter what their parents are like.

Usual question: where are the pro-lifers on this one?

Sorry, but you can't say you are pro-life and go with the gun lobby's pushing the envelope on self-defence to make it easier to kill people. Traditional common law makes self-defence (1) a mitigation, not a complete defence, (2) places the decision on whether force was necessary to the finder of fact (usually the jury), and (3) makes excessive force, even deadly force, a hard hurdle to get past.

But even more importantly if you are going to be against "killing babies", then you should be firmly against guns.

Sorry, but you can't be pro-life and pro-gun without being in serious denial.

Footnote: the University of Texas shooting pretty much put the pro-gun arguments to rest: especially armed civilians stopping the incident. According to people who were there, there were armed civilians, but they made the situation much worse.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Gun Control isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue it's one of public safety.

I am really sick of people who try to make this into anything other than the public safety issue that it actually is. Worse, they twist the Second Amendment to try and create a "right" which didn't exist until fairly recently.

Fortunately, even though Heller and McDonald removed the Second Amendment from its relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution: it made it clear that any "gun right" was subject to regulation.

In case you missed it all. From Heller.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

So, let's forget the Second Amendment shit since even those "gun friendly" cases aren't on your side. Toss in how you harmonise them with the prior case law which made it clear the Second Amendment only applied to the Active (Organised) Militia (Presser and Miller).

You should feel really stupid if you find your Conservative cred is somehow tied to support for repealing the gun laws. You have been played since it was once a bi-partisan issue, but the powers that be figured out it was a good way to get you to vote against your interest (and sell some guns).

Richard Nixon is on record as saying:

     “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth....why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
    “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”
That's not the only anti-gun statement Nixon made.

Next, let's go to Conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Despite how he has been reformed, Reagan was a strong gun control advocate.
“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

“It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

“Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. ‘I support the Brady Bill,’ he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, ‘and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.’" SOURCE
Brady, as in "Brady Bill" and"the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence", is a reference to James Brady. James Brady was a victim of the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life.

Paul Helmke who was the head of the Brady Campaign, was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and a Goldwater Republican. In fact, a lot of the Brady people would call themselves conservative (that is a whole other post there).

Chief Justice Warren Burger, another Conservative, said this about the Second Amendment "scholarship" which is polluting this issue. In case the above clip gets yanked:

JUSTICE BURGER: That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This 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. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun.

Next, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004 started out as an executive order by President George H.W. Bush. Somehow that got lost in all the polemic of this being a conservative v. liberal issue amongst all the other conservatives who backed gun control.

Let's put it this way, there is a reason that Gun Violence research has been banned: it's that it kills the "conservative" talking points on this issue.

Personally, you aren't conservative by any stretch if you can be conned into somehow supporting an issue which is harmful to yourself. 

Nor are you intelligent.