What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed?"

 What don't you get about taking shit out of context?????????

Seriously! If you are only going to look at a part of the Second Amendment, then why not just use the bit about domestic violence to make it a federal issue?

The Second Amendment was obsolete before the ink was dry on the Constitution,which if you clowns would know if you would actually do some serious research and look into the issue instead of taking shit out of context. Gun fetishists like to quote George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

Now, if you read the entire statement from the transcript you see:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."  3 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 425-426. (J. Elliot ed., 1836).

Actually, people were getting out of serving in the militia during the War for Independence and it was a burden for the average person to have to serve. Look up the Morristown Rebellion by the Pennsylvania Line.

Anyway, Mason had a drastically different view of what exactly the Second Amendment was supposed to do and it wasn't to make sure that any dickhead who wanted to could walk down the street carrying a concealed weapon (BTW, carrying concealed weapons was considered something done by criminals, not respectable people in them days). Here is his proposal for the "right" from the above convention:

That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

So, do me a favour, and unless you are actively suggesting a drastic reorganisation of the US military to be what Switzerland once had, please don't say you support the Second Amendment. Or as Joseph Story pointed out:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. ( Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Section 1890)

The Second Amendment fell victim to desuetude long ago.

OK, Feminists, now's your time!!!

 The word of the day is once again desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete.

And it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make that admission.  Here is Judge Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:

“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced). They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”

The Second Amendment relates to a framework of national defence which died out probably before the ink was dry on the Constitution, which is something I've gone into ad nauseum.

 But if the game of the day is to take obsolete sections of the US Constitution, I say let's take the domestic violence clause out and let it run havoc! Full text of Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Scalia demonstrated ignorance of the law when he said:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Actually, you dumbfuck, that is precisely what you should have done if you didn't want to make the US system of justice into a blatant joke (it already was a joke).

On the other hand, there are loads of domestic violence victims who could benefit by the reinterpretation of the Domestic violence clause.

And it's not even an amendment!

Let havoc reign in the halls of "justice"!

Domestic violence, Gun Regulation, and yet another reason that "Gun rights" is a fallacious concept.

 One of the many reasons I don't identify with people in the US who like to claim they are "conservative" is that they aren't. There are a lot of issues with Kyle Rittenhouse's actions that a true conservative would have problems with: the primary one being that he took a deadly weapon into that situation. He is quite lucky that his legal problems were the only fallout from his idiocy.

That said we have a lot of fun with constitutional interpretation if we include the “domestic violence clause” (Article IV, Section 4) for a couple of reasons. First off, the trend is to use popular meanings of terms such as “bear arms”. In this case “domestic violence” means something drastically different today from what the founders intended, which is a bunch of people deciding to overthrow the government.

Kyle Rittenhouse's unilateral action of going to Kenosha with an intent of exercising "self-defence" is not the intent of the US Constitution, which makes it clear that only an official band, the militia, are supposed to do that. Please don't comment until after you have read Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) and understood it. Also, look at US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, which are the miltia clauses and understand their relationship to other clauses in  the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-14, Article II, section ii, and Article III, Section iii. But back to Article IV, Section iv:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This doesn't deal with spouse battering. Instead it is discussing the people who for whatever reason have decided that the US is a tyranny and wish to use violence to overthrow it. The Constitution makes it clear that it was created to:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 Unfortunately, most people can't get past the first three words, which is amusing since anyone familiar with the Constitution's drafting and adoption know it was anything but a popularly written document.

Anyway, like calling an unauthorised gathering of armed people a militia, the US Constitution is pretty clear that having a gun for the purpose of "fighting tyrannical government" isn't intended in any way. As the US constitution says in Article III, Section iii:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You can't make it any clearer than that.

Conservatives: Inaccuracy, Hypocrisy, Vulgarity and Lack of Accountability – part 2 / Palin

It appears that in the course of endorsing Donald “turnip-top” Trump, the tea party bimbo Sarah Palin has attempted to blame President Obama for her son’s PTSD, and his domestic violence charge.  Palin claims that Obama’s failure to respect the troops is responsible for her idjit son Track’s violence towards women and chronic abuse of alcohol.

Instead, Palin appears to either be hoping very much that this claim will slide by the crazy, ignorant base who doesn’t give a tinker’s damn if Trump (and his supporters) are factually accurate or even vaguely truthful.  If not, her endorsement might quickly prove to be more of a liability than a benefit to the eccentric right winger leader.  False claims about military service are one of the few things that might antagonize Trump’s ignorant followers.

Here are the apparent problems with Palin’s claim:

1. there appears to be no credible diagnosis of PTSD from a health professional re Track, and there is a huge questionmark over Track Palin having been in combat;

2. there is no credible evidence that how a president feels or doesn’t feel affects anyone having PTSD, re the subjective perception of respect for the military;

3. Track enlisted in 2007, served for a year in 2008, BEFORE Obama became president.  If anyone is responsible for problems resulting from Iraq, it would be Dubya, not Obama; and

4. the entire Palin clan is prone to drunken violence, without the rest having served anywhere in our armed forces.  It is a ‘Palin’ family thing, not a PTSD problem.  The family appears to be a bunch of armed alcohol abusing louts, such that a more plausible explanation for Track’s behavior is that he learned it at home.

From Politicalgates.blogspot.com we see that it appears that Track Palin served a little over a week of active service under the Obama administration’s first term of office; further that his prior year of active service does NOT appear to have been in combat, from the available description on his discharge papers.  There have been vets who have been in theaters of conflict in other countries WITHOUT having themselves been in combat.  I would further underline that nowhere (so far) have I found Track Palin himself making the claim he was a combat veteran, OR that he suffers from PTSD.

From Politicalgates.blogspot.com on how one checks combat service records, which indicates Track Palin is NOT a combat veteran, via the Veterans Disability blog:

That was the case today when speaking with a Veteran about combat. His question was: “What exactly makes anyone a combat Veteran?” Some may be quick to say that serving in combat makes you a combat Veteran, but there is more to it than that.
The VA lists several different ways in which a Veteran can prove he or she was in combat.
· If you received a combat service medal, then you are considered a combat Veteran
· If you received hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay or tax benefits
· If you received military service documentation that documents combat theater
So, does serving in a foreign country automatically qualify me as combat Veteran? Not necessarily. Even if you served in Iraq or Afghanistan during the past ten years, it does not guarantee that you are a combat Veteran.
How can you find out? Well, your DD-214 is a great place to start. Your Discharge won’t automatically say that you were a combat Veteran though…that would be too easy. Box 13 on more modern DD-214’s is where they list medals, awards and ribbons. The VA does recognize certain medals etc. as a qualifier for combat service. (That list will appear in an upcoming blog.)
Also listed on your DD-214 is the type of pay you received. Box 18 would be the place to find out if you received Hostile Fire Pay, or the Imminent Danger Pay. It is important to note that this can appear in box 13, though it is rare for it to appear there.

And a vet who has served in combat, and who has served with Track Palin, is quite adamant he is not a victim of PTSD, nor have I found anyone who served with him who substantiates that Track Palin was a combat veteran or was symptomatic for PTSD.



From Salon:

…if this wasn’t about a 26 year-old grown man currently charged with fourth-degree assault, fourth-degree misconduct involving a weapon and interfering with a report of domestic violence.
Earlier this week, Track, who divorced his first wife in 2012, was arrested over an incident at the Wasilla home he shares with his parents. Police noted his current girlfriend had “bruising and swelling around her left eye” and described Track as “uncooperative, belligerent, and evasive with my initial line of questions.” A breath sample registered his blood alcohol level at 0.189. In her conversation with the police, Track’s girlfriend claimed he had threatened to kill himself, and an unloaded AR-15 was found near the scene. Palin denied using a weapon but told police “that they were spread throughout both residences on the property.”
Track Palin was serving in Iraq as an air guard in the “Arctic Wolves,” the Army’s 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, during his mother’s 2008 bid for vice president. He is routinely described in the press as a combat veteran, though some within the veteran community, based on Palin’s discharge paperwork, dispute his actual combat duty.

Unless, perhaps, we want to redefine the acronym PTSD to mean (Sarah) Palin’s Totally Stupid Dypsomania (alcohol abuse)?

Here is a review of the charges against Track Palin.

This entire family of Alaskan hicks (the adults anyway) act more like trailer trash than pious folks demonstrating those wholesome family values they give such annoying lip service.  For example, we have anything-but-chaste Bristol Palin, who took a ton of $$$$ to espouse abstinence having yet another child out of wed lock, and brother Track, who is dad to a daughter born 3 months after his wedding, (a fitting repeat of his parents behavior – Track was also conceived before his own parents’ engagement and elopement) and we have this past example of Palin family drunken brawling from less than a year and a half ago.

These are NOT ‘law abiding people’, these are not ‘family values people’ who present a clear understanding or example of how people behave morally and ethically in a civil society.  These are over-privileged cretins with too little judgement and too much money, and a mind-boggling capacity for ignorance and bad behavior, and a grotesque degree of hypocrisy and a false sense of entitlement apparently.

What they are NOT is personally accountable — but apparently, on the right, that’s just a requirement for OTHER PEOPLE.  Another example of right wing do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do morality, the kind that holds other people to a higher standard than they hold themselves.  How apt that Palin endorses the oh-so-vulgar Trump; they are noisy, garish birds of a feather in a  gold paint gilded cage, hip deep in their own guano baggage, a ‘yoooge’ ‘classy’ gilded cage.

As noted by multiple other individuals who are far better entitled to address the topics of the US military and PTSD:

‘Palin is using PTSD as an excuse to shift blame away from her son’s domestic violence,’ Brandon Friedman, the former digital media director for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said in an interview with Huffington Post.

‘She never mentioned the actual victim. She portrayed her son as the victim, but never talked about his girlfriend, apparently crying and hiding under a bed because he beat her.’

Friedman also said; ‘The fact is, veterans who have PTSD are far, far more likely to harm themselves than they are to harm others.’

As for Palin’s comment about President Obama, Friedman said; ‘It’s ironic that people like Sarah Palin are in the party of “personal responsibility” but as soon as someone in her family is arrested for domestic violence, it’s Obama’s fault.’

Paul Rieckhoff, who heads Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, seemed to reiterate this statement, telling NBC News; ‘It’s not President Obama’s fault that Sarah Palin’s son has PTSD.

‘PTSD is a very serious problem, a complicated mental health injury, and I would be extremely reluctant to blame any one person in particular.’

He also said that he hopes Palin does not turn this into ‘a political chew toy in a political campaign’.

The Costs of Domestic Violence

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

DVA symbol

Something to keep in mind as we post here examples of domestic violence using firearms.

To better acquaint our readers with Domestic Violence Awareness Month, here is some information from the Domestic Violence Awareness Project:

The Domestic Violence Awareness Project...

In 1995, the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) convened several national domestic violence organizations – the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and later the National Network to End Domestic Violence – to launch a new effort to support domestic violence programs’ awareness and education efforts for Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM), observed annually in October. The collaborative effort became the Domestic Violence Awareness Project (DVAP). Today, the DVAP is a diverse and unique partnership of local, tribal, state, and national domestic violence organizations and networks. The DVAP collaborates to collect, develop, and distribute resources and ideas relevant to advocates’ ongoing public and prevention awareness and education efforts not only in preparation for DVAM, but also throughout the year.
The work of the DVAP strives to creatively bring to life its statement of purpose:
The Domestic Violence Awareness Project (DVAP) supports the rights of all individuals, especially women and girls, to live in peace and dignity.  Violence and all other forms of oppression against all communities and families must be eliminated.  The purpose of the DVAP is to support and promote the national, tribal, territorial, state, and local advocacy networks in their ongoing public education efforts through public awareness, strategies, materials, resources, capacity-building, and technical assistance.
These strategies include campaigns that address the victimization of women throughout their lifespan.  The voices, leadership, and expertise of women who have been battered are acknowledged as critical and necessary components of these campaigns.  To change belief systems and practices that support violence and abuse that disproportionately affects women, and other marginalized people, the DVAP recognizes and promotes the participation of the entire community in building social intolerance towards domestic violence.  We will use our diverse and collective voice to promote safe, respectful, and equitable relationships; increase survivor’s access to support systems that are culturally and linguistically appropriate; and foster programming that is responsive to the needs of the LGBTQ community, as well as survivors of abuse in later life. 

©2009 Domestic Violence Awareness Project

3605 Vartan Way, Suite 101 - Harrisburg, PA 17110

800-537-2238 ext. 5

717-545-9456 (fax)

The Domestic Violence Awareness Month Project is coordinated by the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Vilolence.

To better put this in perspective was this article I came across from Topeka, Kansas from 'TheWeek.com':

Legalizing domestic violence: Topeka's 'terrible' plan to save money

Just in time for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Kansas' capital city is on the verge of decriminalizing domestic battery as part of a budget standoff

posted on October 7, 2011, at 11:35 AM

Due to budget cuts, domestic violence cases may no longer be prosecuted in Topeka, Kan., potentially sending a "terrible message" to victims of domestic battery. Photo: Gaetano/Corbis SEE ALL 24 PHOTOS

The Topeka City Council will decide next week whether to essentially legalize domestic violence in the Kansas capital, in a budgetary game of chicken with Shawnee County, which encompasses Topeka. The fight started when Shawnee District Attorney Chad Taylor, facing a 10 percent budget cut for next year, announced Sept. 8 that his office would no longer prosecute misdemeanor cases, including those involving domestic violence, inside Topeka city limits. The City Council is betting that if it strikes Topeka's ordinance against domestic battery, it will force Taylor to reconsider. Here's what you should know:
What happens if Topeka follows through?If the City Council repeals the domestic-battery ordinance, municipal courts wouldn't be able to take on those cases, effectively sending the ball back to Taylor's court. Domestic violence is still a state crime. But "because only Taylor has authority to decide what cases he files and prosecutes," domestic violence prosecution could slow to a trickle, says The Topeka Capital-Journal in an editorial. Repeat offenders are charged as felons, and the D.A. would still take those cases.
How bad could this get?Already, the standoff is putting victims in grave danger "in the world that does not exist inside of an Excel spreadsheet," says Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel. Taylor has rejected at least 30 domestic violence cases since Sept. 8, and the 18 people arrested in Topeka for domestic battery have all been released from county jail because no charges were filed. And even if Taylor eventually blinks, and decides to resume prosecuting first-time offenders, the City Council's decriminalization of domestic violence would still send "a terrible message to victims of domestic battery and the entire community," says The Topeka Capital-Journal's editorial board.
How dire is the financial situation?In 2012, the D.A.'s office expects to see $347,765 cut from its budget — which is $3.5 million this year. Of course, if nobody takes these domestic violence cases, it could save some money in the short run, says Marie Diamond at ThinkProgress. But domestic violence has "staggering financial consequences" — medical costs, for instance. There are bigger human costs, too, says Topeka victims' advocate Claudine Dombrowski. If the city and county keep up this "disgusting" fight, "they need to invest in headstones, because these women are going to end up in cemeteries."
Who should shoulder the blame?Everyone involved says they believe domestic violence needs to be prosecuted vigorously, but that they can't pay for it, says Maya Dusenbery at Feministing. And "it’s hard to blame them too harshly for that," given the deep budget cuts hitting states and cities. "Thanks, austerity!" Maybe, says National Organization for Women's Kari Ann Rinker. But right now, local officials are just "finger-pointing and blaming" like 5-year-old children, and they all deserve "some amount of blame" for putting women at undue risk.
Sources: Feministing, Fox 4 Kansas City, The Frisky, Jezebel, Mother Jones, ThinkProgress, Topeka Capital-Journal (2,3,4)