Catholic voice in fiction and fine art poised for new relevance – Crux: Covering all things Catholic

CHICAGO Catholic fiction, poetry and drama are poised for a Renaissance of sorts, according to participants of this years Catholic Imagination Conference Sept. 19-21 at Loyola University Chicago.

Organized under the theme The Future of the Catholic Literary Tradition, the event attracted nearly 500 writers, poets, educators, graduate students and journalists to an examination of the significance of the Catholic voice in contemporary fiction and fine art.

Michael Murphy, director of the Hank Center for the Catholic Intellectual Heritage at Loyola University, was host for this years biannual conference. Previous conferences took place in 2015 in Los Angeles and in 2017 at Fordham University in New York.

The Hank Center was founded in 2006 to investigate Catholic thought and its links to all academic disciplines. But it was the literary arts, particularly fiction, poetry, drama and film that dominated discussion at the 2019 event.

What is the state of discourses in faith and Christian humanism in a world increasingly described as postmodern, post-Christian, post-religious, Murphy asked in describing some of the inspiration for the conference. How is Catholic thought and practice represented in literature, poetry and cinema?

Interest in the Catholic voice in art surged ahead in 2004 with the appearance of essays in Catholic periodicals bemoaning the lack of meaningful faith-based content in contemporary fiction. Except for small religious publishing houses, Catholic-themed material has had few outlets, especially since the passing of celebrated Catholic writer Flannery OConnor in 1964.

In a December 2013 essay, U.S. poet Dana Gioia wrote that the Catholic voice is heard less often in public conversations informing American culture.

Catholics have lost the power to bring their own best writers to the attention of a broader audience, Gioia said. Today if any living Catholic novelist or poet has a major reputation, that reputation has not been made by Catholic critics but by the secular literary world, often in spite of their religious identity.

The former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, Gioia was one of the driving forces in looking to stem the decline of Catholicism in American letters. He hosted the first Catholic Imagination Conference and was one of the main speakers at this years affair.

The Catholic voice in literature matters in two important ways, Gioia told Catholic News Service. First, it allows Catholics to hear their experience and worldview articulated from their own perspective. Second, it enriches and enlarges American literature by reflecting the lives of its largest religious group. Without a vital Catholic presence, American literature is not merely diminished, but incomplete.

Gioia is excited by the growing interest and enthusiasm for similar Catholic-themed conferences.

Without any doubt, there has been a growing interest and confidence among Catholic writers over the four years since our first conference, he added. They have gradually realized how large and talented their own community is. They no longer feel so isolated and alone.

The energy, intelligence and talent present at this conference left everyone but the hardcore cynics full of optimism for the future of Catholic literature.

Other conference delegates agreed with the need to emphasize the Catholic voice in American fine arts. Robin Hart-Winter, director of the St. Catherine of Siena Center at Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois, said it was refreshing to hear from so many scholars, authors, poets and dreamers at the event.

The Siena Center examines critical issues of church and society in light of faith and scholarship, so the Catholic Imagination Conference is a place I go for inspiration both personally and professionally, Hart-Winter said.

For his part, Murphy believes the Catholic imagination conferences serve as a valuable resource for those concerned with bringing the authentic Catholic voice to fiction and other fine art.

It matters deeply that we keep this alive, he said. In many ways, we are emulating and participating in the precise way that Jesus taught. His was a Catholic imagination if there ever was one. But to teach about the uniqueness of our lives in God precisely through story, narrative art and public oratory is the clue to how important all of this is.

In addition to poetry and fiction readings from authors, the conference featured the presentation of a lifetime achievement award to Paul Mariani, the chair of English studies at Boston College. Mariani is a poet, educator and author of authoritative biographies of several poets including Jesuit Father Gerard Manley Hopkins, Robert Lowell and John Berryman.

The conference also included the presentation of the Hunt Prize for excellence in journalism, arts and letters to poet Mary Szybist, associate professor of English at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon.

Mastromatteo, a Toronto-based writer and editor, writes regularly about Catholic writers for an ongoing CNS series.

Crux is dedicated to smart, wired and independent reporting on the Vatican and worldwide Catholic Church. That kind of reporting doesnt come cheap, and we need your support. You can help Crux bygiving a small amount monthly, or witha onetime gift. Please remember, Crux is a for-profit organization, so contributions are not tax-deductible.

See the original post:

Catholic voice in fiction and fine art poised for new relevance - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Good news: Christianity in NZ is fast heading towards extinction – Patheos

LAST year Christians in New Zealand got the hump when Jesus was turfed out of parliament following a decision by the speaker Labours Trevor Mallard to remove all references to Christ in official government prayers.

Although Mallard unfortunately stopped short of banishing prayer altogether God still gets a mention around 1,000 Christians, who labeled him Dishonorable Judas Mallard, descended on parliament to protest the move. Some of the fools are pictured above.

Then earlier this year, New Zealand scrapped its archaic blasphemy law a move welcomed byJolene Phipps, President of Humanists NZ, who stated:

Blasphemy laws have never served a useful or justifiable purpose. Instead they have been used to limit freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. Where they exist, blasphemy laws often incite violence rather than prevent it.

Charges of blasphemy are regularly used to persecute political or business rivals or to suppress minority groups. People accused of blasphemy have been stoned or hacked to death, and lawyers and judges intimidated with death threats or killed. We know a number of humanists accused of blasphemy who have sought refuge in New Zealand to escape persecution.

Now the country is back in the news following a report that the number of New Zealanders with no religion has officially surpassed the number of those who call themselves Christian.

Newly released data from the 2018 shows that 48.59 per cent of New Zealanders are not religious up from 41.92 at the 2013 Census.

The number of people identifying with the Christian superstition has fallen from 47.65 per cent in 2013 to 37.31 per cent this year.

In a press release today, Humanists NZ said the numbers suggest its time to re-think the concessions and privileges afforded to Christians.

Christianity has a privileged position in public policy today that is out of step with modern New Zealand. From parliamentary prayers to classrooms closing during the school day so that Christian groups can run religious instruction, the concessions awarded to religious organisations clash with human rights and our concept of a free and fair society.

She added:

In our hospitals, 10 Christian churches get 100 per cent of the funding for chaplaincy, pastoral and spiritual support from the Ministry of Health.

Religious groups are awarded charity status and tax exemptions just for promoting religion.

Non-religious people need more recognition, support, services, and representation. We want to work together to ensure our voices are heard.

For the record, NZs Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, 39, ditched the Mormon faith in her twenties because of its hostility towards gays, and now calls herself an agnostic.

Last year she became the first NZ PM to join a Pride parade in Auckland, as the pic above shows.

The 2018 Census numbers also show rising numbers of people identifying with other religions.

The number of Sikhs has more than doubled, from 19,191 in 2013 to 40,908 in 2018.

The number of those practising Islam has risen from 46,149 in 2013 to 61,455 in 2018.

And the number of Hindus also continues to climb, going from 89,319 in 2013 to 123,534 in 2018.

Link:

Good news: Christianity in NZ is fast heading towards extinction - Patheos

Global Nootropics Market Estimated to Reach USD 5959 Million By 2024 – Daily Market Updates

The leading research firm Zion Market Research published a research report containing 110+ pages on "Nootropics Market: By Application (Memory Enhancement, Mood and Depression, Attention and Focus, Longevity and Anti-Aging, Sleep, Recovery, and Dream Enhancement, and Anxiety): Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis, and Forecast, 20172024", which serves with all-inclusive, highly-effective, and thoroughly analyzed information in a well-organized manner, based on actual facts, about the Nootropics Market. The whole information from the scratch to the financial and management level of the established industries associated with the Nootropics Market at the global level is initially acquired by the dedicated team. The gathered data involves the information about the industrys establishment, type and the form of products it manufactures, annual sales and revenue generation, the demand of the manufactured product in the market, marketing trends followed by the industry, and a lot more important information.

The industry analysts begin their task by compiling this huge pile of information, graphically expressing, anticipating the future market growth, offering the ways to improve the business, and many other important viewpoints explained by them in the Global Nootropics Market report.

Request Sample Copy of Nootropics Market Research Report @ https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/sample/nootropics-market

The Global Nootropics Market report elucidates the comprehensive analysis of the market-derived on the basis of regional division:

The report comprises precise analytical information related to market forecast for several upcoming years. The report also includes the particulars about the valuation of macro and micro elements significant for the growth of already established Nootropics Market contenders and emerging new companies.

The industries majorly comprise the global leading industries:

Accelerated Intelligence, Inc., Nootrobox, Inc., AlternaScript LLC, Onnit Labs LLC, Cephalon, Inc., Clarity Nootropics, Peak Nootropics

Request for PDF Brochure of This Report: https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/requestbrochure/nootropics-market

Report Brief:

The report covers forecast and analysis for the Global Nootropics Market on a global and regional level.

The report includes the positive and negative factors that are influencing the growth of the market.

Detailed information about market opportunities are discussed.

The key target audience for the market has been determined in the report.

The revenue generated by the prominent industry players has been analyzed in the report.

The market numbers have been calculated using top-down and bottom-up approaches.

The Global Nootropics Market has been analyzed using Porters Five Forces Analysis.

The market is segmented on the basis of Component, applications, connectivity, and end-user, which in turn bifurcated on the regional level as well.

All the segments have been evaluated based on present and future trends.

The report deals with the in-depth quantitative and qualitative analyses of the Nootropics Market.

The report includes detailed company profiles of the prominent market players.

Inquiry more about this report @ https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/inquiry/nootropics-market

The Global Nootropics Market report also delivers the accurately estimated pattern of CAGR to be followed by the market in the future. The numerous highlighted features and enactment of the Nootropics Market are examined based on the qualitative and quantitative technique to deliver the whole scenario of the current and future evaluation in a more effective and better understandable way.

The report covers a forecast and an analysis of the Nootropics Market on a global and regional level. The study provides historical data from 2015 to 2018 along with a forecast from 2019 to 2027 based on revenue (USD Billion). The study includes the drivers and restraints of the Nootropics Market along with their impact on the demand over the forecast period. Additionally, the report includes the study of opportunities available in the Nootropics Market on a global level.

In order to give the users a comprehensive view of the Nootropics Market, we have included a competitive landscape and an analysis of Porters Five Forces model for the market. The study encompasses a market attractiveness analysis, wherein all the segments are benchmarked based on their market size, growth rate, and general attractiveness.

For More Information, Read Detail Report Here: https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/nootropics-market

About Us:

Zion Market Research is an obligated company. We create futuristic, cutting edge, informative reports ranging from industry reports, company reports to country reports. We provide our clients not only with market statistics unveiled by avowed private publishers and public organizations but also with vogue and newest industry reports along with pre-eminent and niche company profiles. Our database of market research reports comprises a wide variety of reports from cardinal industries. Our database is been updated constantly in order to fulfill our clients with prompt and direct online access to our database. Keeping in mind the clients needs, we have included expert insights on global industries, products, and market trends in this database. Last but not the least, we make it our duty to ensure the success of clients connected to usafter allif you do well, a little of the light shines on us.

Contact Us:

Zion Market Research

244 Fifth Avenue, Suite N202

New York, 10001, United States

Tel: +49-322 210 92714

USA/Canada Toll-Free No.1-855-465-4651

Email: sales@zionmarketresearch.com

Website: https://www.zionmarketresearch.com

Sorry! The Author has not filled his profile.

Read more here:

Global Nootropics Market Estimated to Reach USD 5959 Million By 2024 - Daily Market Updates

Magtein Market Expected to Witness the Highest Growth during the Forecast Period 2019-2029 – The Tribune City

With the increased focus of the personality development and better lifestyle preferences, the consumers are embracing the philosophy of Sound mind in sound body. As seen in the recent past, consumer behavior is turning towards enhancement of the body with focused nutrition. One of the key change is towards the usage of nootropics.Magteinis one of the newest emerging nootropic. Patented by Magceutics, Inc., ADIP is the sole distributor for Magtein in the global market. With the acceptance of Magtein as one of the dietary supplement, the increase in usage of Magtein can be expected in the forecast period.

Request Brochure of this Report @https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=B&rep_id=4088

Changing Perceptions of Non-GMO Neutraceuticals

As per the studies carried out on brain health, research has shown that the brain growth peaks around the age of 25. After the peak growth for the brain has reached, the reduction in efficiency can be seen in the following decades. The major cause of the reduced efficiency is due to the loss of neurons, reduced plasticity and reduced synaptic density. The rate of decrease is accelerated after the age of 40. This translates into the loss of nearly 5% pre decade can be observed. Proper maintenance of the body and special attention to the dietary nutrition can alter the loss rate in positive way. As established in the clinical trial, magtein has shown high efficacy and boost the executive functions of the brain. The preference of the consumers towards non-GMO supplements has been rising, as seen in the recent past. Magtein being a non-GMO compound, is expected to play an important role in the neutraceuticals market.

Now Foods, Source Naturals, Vitacost, Life Extension, Nutridyn and NutriKey are some of the key suppliers ofmagteinsupplements in the market. Magtein used by these companies is sourced via AIDP. The companies are responsible for using the source material and adding other nutrients, like B-12 among others. The magtein supplements are directly available on the online retail stores and specialty retail pharmacies. The magtein supplements are also available in some of the supermarkets like Walmart.

The research report presents a comprehensive assessment of theMagtein marketand contains thoughtful insights, facts, historical data and statistically supported and industry-validated market data. It also contains projections using a suitable set of assumptions and methodologies. The research report provides analysis and information according to Magtein market segments such as geographies, type and sales channel.

Request TOC of this Report @https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=T&rep_id=4088

Increased Magnesium Supplement Sale to amplify position of magtein

Recent researches have shown that majority of the American population rarely meets the needed daily nutritional index. Magnesium is one of the most important mineral that should be part of daily nutritional intake. With the increasing research on magtein by health fanatics, there has been noticeable preference of magnesium supplements in the market. Magtein has been through many clinical trials and is proven to have better efficacy than the magnesium supplements available in the market. This will augment the position of magtein as one of the one of the leading magnesium supplements. The magtein supplement is still in the early stage of awareness. With the increasing awareness of the nootropic supplements, magtein is likely to emerge as a strong contender with the established nootropics.

Awareness of Brain health

The focus of the dietary supplements industry has been focused towards development of supplements that enhance individual nutritional profiles and boost performance. This has amplified the development of nootropics. Magtein has been tailored to boost the magnesium levels in the brain. The clinical trials on magtein have shown to boost executive function and in turn increase overall cognitive functions of the brain. The stigma involved with the usage of dietary supplements has still been evident in the ASEAN economies. The consumers in these regions have shown the tendency of consumers to prefer traditional dietary supplements to maintain their health. But the lack of proper measurement of efficacy of the traditional medicine is still being researched. Nootropics are still in the stage of product introduction in these regions. The increasing awareness of the benefits involved with dietary supplements will increase the potential of magtein in South Asia and Middle East & Africa.

Report Overview @https://www.factmr.com/report/4088/magtein-market

Read more here:

Magtein Market Expected to Witness the Highest Growth during the Forecast Period 2019-2029 - The Tribune City

Letter to the editor: Enemies of Second Amendment – TribLIVE

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

View post:

Letter to the editor: Enemies of Second Amendment - TribLIVE

Supreme Court gun case: the biggest Second Amendment case in years – Vox.com

Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedys retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.

The case centers on an unusual and recently changed New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.

Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.

The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference.

New York State Rifle, in other words, is of two-fold importance. It is important because the Supreme Courts current majority is likely to expand the scope of the Second Amendment significantly if they decide the merits of this case. But it is also important because the debate over whether to dismiss this case will offer a window into the psychology of the Courts Republican majority.

The argument that New York State Rifle must be dismissed as moot is very strong. Should the Supreme Court move forward with the case, it will only add to fears including fears that were recently raised by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that the Court is bending the rules in order to achieve conservative outcomes.

A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Courts internal deliberations.

In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.

Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that 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 all remain valid, as are bans on dangerous and unusual weapons.

In a November interview with the New York Times Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for some important changes to Scalias original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevenss urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller should not be taken to cast doubt on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedys intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.

But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.

Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbias government passed legislation banning semi-automatic assault weapons and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Courts Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case Heller v. District of Columbia was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.

Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that both D.C.s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller. (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)

And Kavanaughs dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.

Heller, as mentioned above, was the first Supreme Court case in American history to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Since Heller, moreover, the Courts only handed down one significant Second Amendment opinion. And that 2010 opinion, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, merely held that states must comply with the same Second Amendment regime as the federal government.

The Supreme Courts Second Amendment jurisprudence, in other words, is underdeveloped. In Heller, the majority basically hit a reset button that wiped out the Courts prior Second Amendment decisions, which held that the obvious purpose of this amendment was the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, not an individual right to bear arms.

Heller replaced this older framework with an uncertain new framework that emphasized an individual right to self-defense. But the Supreme Court has done little to develop that framework since Heller.

Yet, while the justices have largely avoided big guns cases, the lower courts cannot. And a consensus view emerged among the federal appeals courts regarding how the Second Amendment should be read.

At least 10 such courts apply what United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson describes as a two-step analytic framework. Under this framework, severe burdens on core Second Amendment rights are subject to strict scrutiny, the most skeptical level of review that courts typically apply in constitutional cases. Less onerous laws, or laws that govern conduct outside of the Second Amendments core, are subject to a more permissive test known as intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, major burdens on gun owners are especially likely to be struck down, while less consequential burdens are more likely to be upheld.

Kavanaugh, for his part, rejects this consensus framework altogether. In his 2011 dissent, he argued that the consensus view should be abandoned for a different test courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny. While its unclear how Kavanaughs test would apply in every individual case, the fact that Kavanaugh took a position well to the right of his two Republican colleagues strongly suggests that his test would invalidate more gun laws than would the consensus framework.

New York State Rifle, moreover, offers someone like Kavanaugh the perfect vehicle to upend the consensus framework because the (now repealed) rule at the heart of this case imposes only a minimal burden on gun owners.

New York offers two kinds of handgun licenses. A carry license permits gun owners to carry a handgun for target practice, hunting, or self-defense. Meanwhile, a less permissive premises license permits a gun owner to have and possess in his dwelling a handgun. Premises license holders, however, may only bring the gun outside of their home for limited reasons, which include bringing the gun to seven specific gun ranges to practice shooting.

The plaintiffs in New York State Rifle, each of whom has a premises license, raise a very narrow challenge to this framework. As a federal appeals court explained, some of them seek to transport their handguns to shooting ranges and competitions outside New York City. One of them also owns two homes, and he wishes to be able to transport one gun between those two homes.

New York State Rifle, in other words, involves what Judge Higginson described as a less onerous law that governs conduct outside of the Second Amendments core. This isnt a grand showdown over when and where people can carry guns or whether they bring a gun into their own home. Its a small legal dispute about little more than whether lawmakers can require certain gun owners to practice shooting at certain specified gun ranges.

And yet, this very smallness is what makes New York State Rifle so dangerous to the consensus framework. The rule at the heart of this case is the very sort of gun restriction that the consensus framework is likely to treat as insignificant. And that gives the Supreme Court an ideal vehicle to hold that judges should treat all gun laws with skepticism even very minor ones.

All of this said, there is a strong argument that New York State Rifle must be dismissed as moot. Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial power only applies to cases and controversies, meaning that federal courts may only hear live legal disputes between parties.

But New York City changed its rules to let people with premises licenses do what the plaintiffs in this case want to do. And the New York state legislature also passed a law providing that gun owners with premises licenses may bring their gun to another dwelling or place of business of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess such pistol or revolver, to an indoor or outdoor shooting range that is authorized by law to operate as such, or to a shooting competition at which the licensee may possess such pistol or revolver consistent with the law.

So the plaintiffs won! They asked for specific, narrow relief, and the state legislature gave it to them. Theres no longer a legal dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case, and that makes the case moot.

But a few amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court suggest that the case should not be dismissed under a doctrine known as voluntary cessation. Broadly speaking, this doctrine allows a court to continue to hear a case after a defendant voluntarily quits the behavior that led to them being sued. The point of this doctrine is to prevent a defendant from dodging lawsuits by doing something illegal, ceasing their illegal activity for long enough to dismiss any lawsuits challenging that activity, and then resuming their illegal actions as soon as the lawsuits are dismissed.

Yet, as a group of legal scholars explain in their own amicus brief, that doctrine does not apply here. The defendant in this case is New York City. But a law preventing the city from reinstating the challenged rules was enacted by New York state. It would be impossible, in other words, for the city to resume its allegedly illegal conduct because a higher power stripped the city of its ability to do so.

We could know as soon as next week whether the Supreme Court will dismiss the case or whether it will add to Justice Sotomayors fears that the Court is ignoring its own ordinary procedures, in this case by finding away around the mootness doctrine.

Yet even if the case is dismissed, such a decision will only delay a reckoning on the Second Amendment. Eventually, the justices will hear a gun rights case that is not moot. And when that happens, Justice Kennedy wont be around to inject a note of caution into the Courts opinion.

View post:

Supreme Court gun case: the biggest Second Amendment case in years - Vox.com

On guns and the Second Amendment | Opinion – The Reflector

Letters have appeared in The Reflector recently that feed two myths on gun control and the Second Amendment one myth stated clearly and the other hinted at. The first is that Democratic Socialists are bent on banning and confiscating all firearms. There may be some extreme Socialists that are advocating for this, but most do not. I have not heard a Democratic candidate advocate for such extreme measures. They are in favor of improved background check methods, red flag laws, and limiting access to rapid-fire assault weapons and magazines that allow multiple bullets to be fired in quick succession. To accuse them of being against all weapons and working to confiscate them is a lie.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The language has created considerable debate regarding its intended scope. What is meant by well regulated militia and the right . . . to keep and bear arms have been hotly debated. One myth that has circulated is that since the amendment does not stipulate which arms, any effort by the government, state or federal, to limit access to any guns violates this right. Following this line of thinking, we should consider what the framers of this amendment meant by arms. The arms at that time were flintlock muskets and pistols with a one-round magazine each. The most stilled marksman could only fire three shots per minute. Imagine if we applied their understanding of arms today how many mass shootings would be prevented. Also, the amendment was motivated by the fear that a national standing army would be a threat to the states. That fear, I believe, is largely a relic of the 18th dentury even though there are some that still believe the U.S. military might be used to take away a state and individuals right to defend.

If you have read this far, you might conclude that I am a Socialist Democrat. I am not, but in contrast to the current political and cultural trends, I do not like myths and lies being inflicted against anyone even those I do not agree with. The truth can stand on its own feet without the support of myths and lies.

Visit link:

On guns and the Second Amendment | Opinion - The Reflector

‘2nd Amendment Rally’ Planned Nov. 2 in Washington, DC – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Grassroots Second Amendment activists from across the country are being urged to attend a 2nd Amendment Rally on Saturday, Nov. 2 at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., where they hope to deliver a message that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now is the time for activists to make plans, as the rally is a mere six weeks away. It is being dubbed as a rally for the Second on the 2nd.

As explained by activist Rob Pincus, director of media relations for Save the Second, during an interview with the Right of the People podcast from the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix, Weve got a big election coming up next year. We need to remind the nation, we need to remind ourselves that we are the Second Amendment lobby and thats why the 2nd Amendment rally is important.

Pincus pointed to the rallys website for details. There is also a Facebook page where people can learn details as they emerge. He said there is no sponsorship for this event and no single organization. Funding is provided by people who care about the Second Amendment.

What has sunk in over the past few months is that far too many people are willing to write a checkand say okay, Ive done my part, and then move on, Pincus lamented.

According to the rally website, The Second Amendment Rally is a grassroots event, organized and funded by grassroots activists, open to all supporters of the Constitution and lovers of liberty.

If you own a gun, Pincus said during the podcast interview, you are the gun lobby.

The rally is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. and run for three hours.

Just how many will appear would be speculation at this point, but Pincus suggested that organizers are hoping for several thousand rights activists to attend.

Maybe having 10,000 people, 15,000 people standing on the capitol steps, on the capitol grounds, listening to some of the most active leaders the most active advocates inside the Second Amendment community for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, he observed, I think that will be an opportunity for everybody to remember that we are the gun lobby. We are the ones who exercise these rights. We are the ones who benefit from these rights.

Pincus was one of 91 speakers who appeared at the 34th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference over the past weekend. As Ammoland News reported earlier, this years event was the biggest in the conferences history. More than 1,100 people pre-registered and it appears many if not most of them showed up for at least part of the event. In addition, according to Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, the two-day event was viewed by more than 100,000 people as it was live-streamed on the SAF Facebook page.

In the past, gun rights activists have been a lethargic bunch, but this time around things are different. The Second Amendment has been under attack as never before, in part by anti-gunners exploiting mass shooting incidents to push bans on so-called semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, along with registration and one-gun-a-month schemes. Also on the gun control agenda are safe storage mandates, mandatory training requirements, expansion of so-called red flag laws and other restrictions suggesting that proponents are trying to turn Second Amendment-protected rights into government regulated privileges.

What also makes this year different for grassroots activism was the heat-of-the-moment candor by Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis Beto ORourke during the recent debate. His declaration, Hell, yes were going to take your AR15, your AK47 finally erased any doubt that anti-gunners intend to disarm law-abiding American citizens.

Most noteworthy about the remark was the silence from all the other candidates on the stage, suggesting they all quietly concur with ORourkes threat. His comment was mentioned or alluded to repeatedly during the recent rights conference.

The Second Amendment expressly protects the rights of the individual, Pincus stated. The individual needs to get involved and the Second Amendment rally is an opportunity to do that.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor atTheGunMag.comand Liberty Park Press,author of multiple bookson the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Originally posted here:

'2nd Amendment Rally' Planned Nov. 2 in Washington, DC - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The second amendment was about national security – Herald Review

This is in response to the recent letter by Jeff Bishop. There are three points I want to make.

First, it is not the case that those who question the wisdom of allowing military style weapons to be largely available are confused by terminology. Few people think of the AR-15 as an assault rifle just because of the letters AR. This is irrelevant. Whether it is an AR or an AK, the point is the same.

Bishop goes on to assert that the only difference between the AR and other weapons is looks. Not true, and Im sure he knows it. A bolt action rifle that holds three rounds cannot take out fifty people in a matter of seconds. But an AR or AK or similar weapon with a thirty round detachable magazine that can quickly be changed is capable of doing just that. This is an important distinction

Guns were invented to kill people or animals. Automobiles , etc. were not invented or intended for the express purpose of killing.

Bishop says that many people use ARs for varmint hunting. So what? What is that compared to the lives of children? Is his desire to shoot rats or prairie dogs for pleasure more important than the lives of kids in school?

And I wonder if Bishop has kids or grand kids in school, would he rather have an attacker show up with a blunt object or an AR?

As for the second amendment, Bishop exhibits a complete lack of understanding. The second amendment was about national security. The founders were worried that a professional standing army would be a threat to liberty. Thus, a well-regulated militia was seen as necessary to the security of a free people. The British were still a threat, as were other potential adversaries. Further, Shays Rebellion was fresh in mind, and a militia was needed to put down possible future insurrections, including possible slave revolts. The second amendment was never about citizens fighting against the government. That is a myth.

Also, the Supreme Court never recognized an individual right to own firearms until the 2006 D.C. v. Heller decision. But even in the majority opinion, Justice Scalia, hardly an opponent of gun ownership, stated that certain regulations on firearms were legitimate.

Lastly, Bishop asserts that if assault weapons are banned, it is just an incremental move toward banning all guns. This has no basis in fact. We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years, after all. And there is no political will in either major political party to do anything remotely close to banning all guns.

Jacqueline Dowell

Grand Rapids

See the original post here:

The second amendment was about national security - Herald Review

Opinion/Letter: ‘Militia’ key to 2nd Amendment – The Daily Progress

Militia key to 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My dictionary defines militia as A citizen army as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service.

It seems logical that anyone has the right to bear arms; however, it should be to be part of a well-regulated militia. Gun owners, especially male civilians, should be required to register their arms so the government would know who it can call upon for service in an emergency. The government could then reimburse those called up for service for their expenses, such as ammunition expended.

Reference: American Heritage Dictionary

Read more:

Opinion/Letter: 'Militia' key to 2nd Amendment - The Daily Progress

What’s At Stake In The Guns Case At The Supreme Court? – KCUR

Dave Hardy, an attorney in private practice in Arizona, thinks this is the term when the Supreme Court finally decides whether a constitutional right to carry a firearm extends beyond the front door.

Gun rights advocates like Hardy, whos been writing about the Second Amendment since the 1970s, have waited for years for the Supreme Court to hear a new challenge to a gun control law.

You dont do much work in the field, in terms of earning money, but its been something that interests me, Hardy said.

The wait has gone on since the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which established that the Second Amendment wasnt about arming militias. Instead, according to the court, it guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms. The only guarantee spelled out in that decision, authored by the late Antonin Scalia, was the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.

The decision explicitly left room for further regulation: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

What the court has protected, and what it has prohibited

Existing prohibitions, such as those preventing felons from owning firearms or against carrying in certain places, were cleared by the court in the Heller decision. Two years later, the Supreme Court protected the individual right to keep and bear arms from state regulation in 2010 decision McDonald v. Chicago.

In the past decade, the court has refused to hear any challenges to appeals courts or state court rulings. These include a case that upheld a ban on assault weapons in a Chicago suburb, and Californias licensing and background check restrictions, among many others.

Sometimes youll see the Supreme Court rule and the circuit courts become very enthusiastic about the ruling. And then theyll expand it as far as they humanly can, said Hardy. Thats not how it has worked with the right to keep and bear arms. This is one where theyre decidedly reluctant. I dont know if I would say hostile, but decidedly reluctant to go one inch further than the Supreme Court is prepared to take them.

This has left gun rights advocates increasingly frustrated.

The New York case

The justices have accepted New York State Rifle and Pistol Associations appeal in its case against New York Citys law repealed in June prohibiting gun owners from carrying their firearms outside the home, except to designated gun ranges inside city limits.

Theres agreement among observers on both sides of the gun control debate that New Yorks law was unusually restrictive and the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down.

Arguments are scheduled for Dec. 2, but the court could still decide that, because city legislators repealed the law, the case is moot and dismiss it. The state also passed a law preventing similar regulations in the future.

There are signs that the court will let it go ahead. They could have dismissed it at any point since New York changed the law. Instead, the court required the city to file a brief in support of the law. And the case has found a spot on the calendar.

David Kopel, a legal scholar at the Cato Institute and a gun rights advocate, says the court should still address the law.

It was upheld by the Second Circuit, which said that banning people from taking their guns outside the city for target practice isnt even a Second Amendment issue. Kopel said. So theres still that precedent thats out there.

Kopel is one of the advocates whos been pressing the court for years to expand on Heller and McDonald and expand the right to carry a gun outside the home. In their view, lower courts have been too eager to uphold restrictions on gun ownership.

Politics vs. The Second Amendment

The New York case arrives at the Supreme Court at a time when the debate over gun control is near the top of the political agenda in many states and in Congress. On the federal level, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has passed bills expanding background checks, banning high-capacity magazines and supporting red flag laws.

A new ban on military-style rifles is widely supported by the leading Democratic presidential candidates. None of these has been passed by the Senate or signed into law. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said he would introduce gun control measures for a vote in the Senate if they have the presidents support.

With all that in mind, attorneys for March For Our Lives, a youth-led movement founded in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, filed a brief arguing the court should keep this movement in mind and not make too broad of a ruling on gun rights.

Theyre asking the court to leave enough flexibility in the review of regulations to let public opinion and political developments have a say, said Ira Feinberg, the lead counsel for March For Our Lives.

Feinberg added that, while the New York law is unusually restrictive, the issues at stake are much larger. The court, in an opinion striking down that law, could apply whats known as strict scrutiny to any regulation of gun rights. Strict scrutiny would require the government to make the case for why any regulation is necessary and would effectively guarantee public safety. That would likely lead to the overturning of the New York law.

To drive the point home, the March For Our Lives brief led with a series of anecdotes of people affected by gun violence.

The plea that we make in the brief is that the court should not adopt a standard like strict scrutiny, which would make it impossible to justify any regulations here, Feinberg said. Theres an urgent need for regulation.

Kopel argues thats exactly why the Constitution guarantees certain rights.

There have been times where there were at least seemingly public majorities that have been in favor of all kinds of censorship or abuse of religious or ethnic or racial minorities, said Kopel. And, yes, the Constitution closes off the discussion about that.

What the justices records mean

Since the Heller case was decided, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia have left the court. Scalias replacement, Justice Neal Gorsuch, did not write any opinions on gun control regulations before coming to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch did sign onto a dissent by Thomas in 2017 denying review of a California law restricting public carry.

Thomas wrote: The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

And Kennedys replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is viewed as more hostile to gun regulations than his predecessor. In a 2011 dissent while on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh argued the government could not ban guns like the AR-15 because they were in common use and not historically banned.

He doesnt care about what effect any of these laws will have on public safety, said Allen Rostron, a law professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City and formerly a lawyer for Brady, a gun control advocacy organization.

[Kavanaugh] says that the right to keep and bear arms should be interpreted and applied based strictly on the text of the Second Amendment, the history of it and tradition, Rostron said.

According to Rostron, the court could choose to apply a level of review to government regulation that would make any gun control law impossible to defend.

If they said, We want proof, really compelling proof about what exactly this gun law would do and how it would improve safety, Rostron said, its very hard to prove it definitively one way or the other.

Coming up with standards for gun regulations

Rostron argues there are two areas the court still has to sort out: Just where does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply? Precedent has established the right inside the home. How much of a right do citizens have to carry firearms outside the home?

The other core question: just how strong is the right to keep and bear arms? Who can be denied it and on what grounds? How many hoops can people be made to jump through before getting a firearm?

He says many existing restrictions, like on felons or people with domestic violence convictions owning firearms, are likely to be left in place. But licensing requirements might start getting a harder look.

Certainly the places in the country that have more restrictive requirements, more discretion with law enforcement and that sort of thing for gun licensing, would potentially be struck down, I think, Rostron said.

There are cases challenging New Jerseys licensing rules: Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo and Ciolek v. New Jersey that have all been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Massachusetts case, Gould v. Morgan, challenging the licensing system in that state has also been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Gun rights and a history of discrimination

Nezida Davis, an Atlanta-based attorney for the National African American Gun Association, filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against New York Citys law.

The brief points out a long history of prohibiting gun ownership among African Americans, going back to the days of slavery and continuing through the Jim Crow era. It argues that licensing systems, in which sheriffs decide who has the right to a license to carry, violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

These types of restrictions, where government agencies decide whether you have the right to get a firearm, weve found that leads to discrimination, Davis said.

While theres widespread agreement that New Yorks law wont get the Supreme Courts approval, the big question everyone interested in the gun debate is waiting to learn is: How far are they going to go in striking it down?

Guns & America is a public media reporting project on the role of guns in American life.

See the original post here:

What's At Stake In The Guns Case At The Supreme Court? - KCUR

Pearl: ‘Senator Tuberville said he’s got Israel and the Second Amendment covered’ (VIDEO) – Yellowhammer News

The three West Alabama hospitals of the DCH Health System on Tuesday are only accepting new patients in the most critical condition.

This comes as a result of the system experiencing a ransomware attack, according to a press release.

A criminal is limiting our ability to use our computer systems in exchange for an as-yet unknown payment, the release stated.

The hospitals affected are DCH Regional Medical Center in Tuscaloosa, Northport Medical Center and Fayette Medical Center.

344

Our hospitals have implemented our emergency procedures to ensure safe and efficient operations in the event technology dependent on computers is not available, the release outlined. That said, we feel it is in the best interest of patient safety that [the three hospitals] are closed to all but the most critical new patients.

Our staff is caring for the patients who are currently in the hospital, and we have no plans to transfer current patients, the release added.

Patients scheduled for an outpatient procedure or test at a DCH hospital should call before going to the facility.

Additionally, local ambulances have reportedly been instructed to take patients to other area hospitals if at all possible.

Patients who come to our emergency departments may be transferred to another hospital when they are stabilized, the release added. We are constantly evaluating our situation, and we will provide updates.

Reacting to the news on Tuesday, a high ranking member of the University of Alabama Student Government Association told Yellowhammer News, Students already are warned about DCH essentially the message I was told as an incoming freshman was, Dont go there. Its a disaster. Go to UAB or somewhere else in the Birmingham area if you can at all help it. That said, what were seeing today is shocking. If a health system is susceptible to a cyber attack at any time, how can I trust that place with my wellbeing?

Yellowhammer News also spoke with an economic development professional heavily involved in statewide site selection and recruitment work, including Tuscaloosa and West Alabama.

At the end of the day, areas with high-quality, reliable healthcare access have a big leg up, he said. In Tuscaloosa, a lot of things have been going right and theres significant room for more growth. However, when companies are looking at cities in other states, or even comparing, say, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa or Huntsville and Tuscaloosa, one big thing we hear is that Tuscaloosas healthcare system is a negative mark on their scorecard.

Sean Ross is the editor of Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

Read more here:

Pearl: 'Senator Tuberville said he's got Israel and the Second Amendment covered' (VIDEO) - Yellowhammer News

Letters: Where’s the militia in 2nd Amendment? – Opinion – Palm Beach Post

Post readers letters on various local, state and national topics.

Is the Second Amendment relevant in todays society? Does the Second Amendment only give us the right to own a firearm if we are a member of a well-regulated militia?

The United States has not had a militia for 150 years; should it be reinstated and all firearm owners, including myself, be required to be a member of a militia?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the National Guard does meet the requirements of a well-regulated militia, but reasonable gun control laws are constitutional. Everyone always quotes the second half of the Second Amendment but never the first half.

The reason I have asked the above questions is that there is no place you can go today and not think about a shooting. It is my opinion that we step back and have a reasonable discussion about firearms. When someone starts screaming that the Second Amendment gives him or her the right to own a gun, ask if they have read the entire Second Amendment and ask if they are a member of a well-regulated militia.

Nicholas Sacco, West Palm Beach

'Eyesore piles

could be of use

I live in the northern part of Palm Beach County. Each day I commute down A1A from Jupiter to Lake Park. The railroad tracks parallel the road and about every 100 yards or more there are piles of concrete ties that are quite an eyesore piled in groups of 15 or more.

My first thought was they should ship them to the Mexican border to help build the Trump wall. My second thought, after reading about how many people die crossing these railroad tracks in the south county area, would be to use them to build barriers in Boynton Beach and Delray Beach where people take short cuts across the tracks, and reduce the chances of people getting killed on the tracks.

It sure would make driving from Indiantown Road to Northlake a lot easier on the eye and make good use of the railroad ties.

Royce Emley, Tequesta

Zero interest rates

would hurt seniors

President Trump's repeated calls for the Federal Reserve to push interest rates down to zero demonstrate his lack of concern for the financial interests of retired people.

People who save part of their income during their working years and invest it in safe, fixed income assets like savings accounts, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, treasury bonds and corporate bonds to provide income which supplements their Social Security benefits during their retirement years are financially devastated by falling interest rates.

Pushing interest rates down to zero would mean that retired people who live on the interest earned on these types of assets would earn no interest on the money they sacrificed so much to save during their working years.

In addition, it could negatively affect retirees living on fixed incomes by overstimulating the economy, causing inflationary price increases.

David Weissman, Delray Beach

Thank Trump for

crude-oil increases

Since President Trump came into office, American crude-oil production has increased by 3.65 million barrels per day. This is a leap of more than 40 percent. As a result, gasoline prices have come down.

These prices would have come down even more, but there have been voluntary production cuts by some of the world's largest producers, including Saudi Arabia. These foreign producer cuts were made for their own benefit to keep oil prices from falling even more.

As a result of the greater American energy independence, America is far less dependent on OPEC petroleum and the unstable Middle East oil producers. The recent attack on the Saudi petroleum facility had little effect on the price of gasoline in America.

President Trump deserves credit for his efforts in this regard.

Arthur Horn, Boca Raton

The Palm Beach Post is committed to publishing a diversity of opinion. Please send your views to letters@pbpost.com or by mail to Letters to the Editor, The Palm Beach Post, 2751 S. Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33405. Letters are subject to editing, must not exceed 200 words and must include your name, address and daytime phone number (we will publish only your name and city).

See original here:

Letters: Where's the militia in 2nd Amendment? - Opinion - Palm Beach Post

Beto, Kent State, and Why We Have a Second Amendment – Patriot Post

There are some venues you simply ought to avoid when talking about certain subjects. Beto O'Rourke found one such venue when reiterating his call for gun confiscation: Kent State University. Reasons Eric Bohm nails it, writing:

Kent State is, of course, the location of the infamous 1970 shooting that left four students dead and nine others injured. The shots were fired not by private citizens but by members of the Ohio National Guard, who shot at a crowd protesting Americas involvement in the Vietnam War.

Invoking armed agents of the state gunning down unarmed civilians is an interesting way to argue that Americans would be better off if the government forcefully disarmed private citizens. But hey, I guess thats why we keep being told Betos an unconventional candidate.

The Washington Examiners Becket Adams adds, If you are going to advocate for the forcible confiscation of an estimated 16 million rifles from lawful American citizens, it is probably best not to do it against the backdrop of one of the most famous incidents of unarmed citizens being shot to death by government forces.

Obviously, O'Rourkes proposal, if it involved actual door-to-door confiscation as it would need to for effectiveness, would be deadly. But ironically, that fact and Betos carelessness serve to highlight the most fundamental point of all when it comes to the Second Amendment: The Founders didnt write it to protect hunting, and its not even primarily about defending yourself against criminals. The Second Amendment is meant as a bulwark against government tyranny.

Democrats know that in order to truly carry out their tyrannical ideas of social justice, they must first confiscate the firearms of American citizens. But the British found out at Lexington and Concord and all the way to Yorktownthat Americans value our God-given Liberty far too much to succumb to confiscation, dressed up though it may be as buybacks.

More:

Beto, Kent State, and Why We Have a Second Amendment - Patriot Post

Why do we Have a Second Amendment? | Letters to the Editor – MDJOnline.com

There are so many people complaining about the Second Amendment and how it is antiquated and should no longer apply because we dont live in the same world as it was when it was written. It was written because they knew firsthand what it was like to live under an oppressive government.

Also it has been said that the civilian population does not need military style weapons. Maybe they are right, but if our forefathers had not had weapons equal to the ones the British had, we would never have won our independence. Can you imagine what it would have been like to have fought them with bow and arrows instead of flintlocks like the British had? Our forefathers knew firsthand that if the population doesnt have the ability to defend itself against oppressors, we are at their mercy.

When a dictator comes to power, the first thing he does is disarm the population so they have no defense. When asked at the end of WWII of some of the surviving Japanese Naval and Air Force officers why they never considered invading the U.S, they said they knew that we had government-sponsored rifle matches, shotgun and pistol matches, and Americans were privately armed. They would have to attack an armed and trained civilian population, and there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

We had all better pray that we never have to give up our guns. If we do, we are at the governments mercy, and we are doomed. No matter what laws are passed, bad people will always find a way to get around it. All the laws that were on the books at 9/11 didnt stop the hijackers who armed only with box cutters killed over 3,000 people and brought our country to its knees.

Originally posted here:

Why do we Have a Second Amendment? | Letters to the Editor - MDJOnline.com

Join Us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium Next Saturday October 5th – NRA ILA

We hope you can join us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium that will be held Saturday, October 5th, in Virginia at the Doubletree Hilton Richmond-Midlothian.

Focusing on recent developments in our nations courts and legislatures regarding the Second Amendment, speakers will discuss a variety of topics among multiple panels. The Symposium will feature top Second Amendment attorneys covering topics that range from recent, critical court decisions, federal and state level updates, as well as critical legislative and political updates on defending and advancing gun owners' civil rights in Virginia.

Saturday, October 5, 20191021 Koger Center Blvd.North Chesterfield, VA 232359:30 a.m. 3:30 p.m. (Registration 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.)Lunch will be provided

This event promises to present a thought-provoking discussion of one of the most relevant and important freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Each registrant will receive valuable information including panelists written materials on their respective subjectsan excellent source for future reference. For guests who are attorneys, this years event may once again meet state requirements for continuing legal education. The event, including all materials and lunch, is free. RSVP is required above.

Please direct questions to Suzanne Anglewicz, sanglewicz@nrahq.org.

View post:

Join Us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium Next Saturday October 5th - NRA ILA

‘Mixed-ish’ miss the mark with its reference to the second amendment in the water gun scene – MEAWW

The second spinoff of 'Black-ish', 'Mixed-ish' premiered last week. Narrated by the adult Bow Jackson (Tracee Ellis Ross), the show chronicles her childhood, beginning from when her family leaves a post-racial, utopian commune to live in the outside world with Bow's paternal grandfather, Harrison Jackson III (Gary Cole).

Bow's grandfather is everything her father Paul was against capitalism, guns, and more. When Harrison tries to bond with his grandkids, he gets them water guns.

The episode ends with a colorful montage of the family playing with the water guns and Santamonica holding hers up and yelling "I love the second amendment".

Yikes! At a time when entire shows are being pulled out and canceled without airing in the wake of mass shootings and when gun control forms a big part of social debate, these are questionable words that the writers have chosen to be uttered by a seven-year-old girl.

In fact, just a few days before the episode aired, non-profit organization Sandy Hook Promise (created in the wake of the shooting at the elementary school) released a PSA skit.

In the skit, kids talk about their back-to-school items which then shifts to them running and hiding for their lives with gunshots and screams heard in the background.

Mass shootings are not a 21st Century phenomena. The eighth deadliest mass shooting happened in 1984, just a year prior to the one in which 'Mixed-ish' is set a shooting at a McDonald's in San Diego that killed 21 people.

Two years after that, a shooting at a post office in Oklahoma killed 14 people. It was in the 80s that gun ownership was largely advocated as equating to freedom and in 1986, the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

The Act succeeded in enacting a largely self-enforcing, comparatively lax set of regulations that included the reintroduction of interstate sales of firearms and a reduction in the number of gun dealer inspections.

It also prohibited the government from keeping a national registry of gun owners. A schoolyard shooting in California in 1989 that killed five children then prompted the state to ban possession of semiautomatic assault weapons.

So yes, the show did take a misstep when they aired that scene a water gun fight scene without those words uttered would have been easy to do and the line seems quite out-of-touch for a show that wants to portray racial issues in the 80s. 'Mixed-ish' airs on Tuesday nights on ABC.

See the article here:

'Mixed-ish' miss the mark with its reference to the second amendment in the water gun scene - MEAWW

Fighting ignorance with gun control reform – DU Clarion

Why is it that when it comes to vaping, society is quick to try to ban it but they are not as quick when it comes to more necessary topics such as gun control?

Gun control reform has been a hot topic of discussion because of the rise of mass shootings in America. The nation has grown immune to the effects of these mass shootings as they become more frequent. People are getting used to hearing news stories about it, and this is not right. Letting people die and not taking action about it is wrong.

We, as a nation, are watching people die at the hands of gun violence, and yet, we hesitate to find a solution. We are unable to agree on stronger gun laws that will limit the access of firearms for the use of evil.

The most recent example of this evil is what transpired in El Paso, Texas. The shooting occurred at a Walmart back in August and resulted in over 20 deaths. The shooters goal was to kill as many Mexicans as he could, and it was recorded as one of the worst massacre(s) of Hispanic people in recent American history, according to The Texas Tribune. Yet, all the rifles used by the shooter were bought legally. The shooter was able to access guns from abroad and used them to carry out a horrific racist act.

Sadly, many people argue that gun control should not be as restrictive because of the Second Amendment. They believe that gun control reform directly impedes on the rights of an individual to bear arms.

It is important to know the historical context of this amendment, though. The phrasing of this amendment is very general, its meaning up to interpretation. In court, there is an ongoing argument over whether or not the amendment refers specifically to an individuals right to bear arms in self-defense or to the right of a state to have a well regulated militia. In United States v. Cruickshank in 1876, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment related directly to the state having a well-equipped militia. In recent cases though, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court overruled a ban on individuals right to possess a handgun.

One should take notice, though, of how the era that the Second Amendment was created in is completely different than our own. It was during the Revolutionary War, back when people had to store their own weapons so they could act quickly and fight when needed.

But, currently, what are we fighting for that requires arms?

Our children and our innocents are dying at the hands of gun violence. According to CNN, there have been 22 school shootings since the start of this year through July. The numbers are following a pattern. No one feels safe.

The nation should be united in saving its people, not in protecting an amendment that was drafted to meet the necessities of a specific era. Laws have no value if they are not protecting us, and the Second Amendment is doing more harm than good. The politicians we put in power need to analyze the magnitude of our countrys gun violence.

Our current fight is with ignorance. Ignorance built out of protecting and following the Second Amendment blindly. Ignorance towards the horrific issue of mass shootings, especially in schools. Ignorance towards the deeper motivations behind shootings, like racism.

Our nation will not survive if evil is given a weapon to enact itself. The issue of gun violence in America runs deeper than we think, so stronger gun laws is a necessary step in order to attack the issues that motivate shootings. Stop gun violence. Stop people from getting shot because of their skin color. Stop acts of racism. Stop ending futures. It is time for America to act and save its civilians.

See the rest here:

Fighting ignorance with gun control reform - DU Clarion

Nobel Peace Laureates Call for Abolition of Nuclear Weapons – IDN InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

By J Nastranis

NEW YORK (IDN) Ten Nobel Peace Laureates and 30 organisations bestowed that honour have expressed profound concern that 74 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons continue to pose an existential threat to humankind, reiterated the warning of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, and accentuated the need to strengthen basic freedoms.

In their Declaration titled Make Your Mark for Peace emerging from the 17th Nobel Peace Summit, they also express deep concern over the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security CouncilChina, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United Statesplus Germany) together with the European Union. Formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement was reached after 20 months of "arduous" negotiations.

The Nobel Peace Laureates are also vexed over the withdrawal of the United States and Russia from the 1987 Intermediate Forces (INF) Treaty which gives precise definitions of the banned ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles: An intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) is a ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile having a range capability between 1,000 and 5,500 kilometres.

President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Treaty on December 8, 1987. It required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometres.

The Treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and employ extensive on-site inspections for verification. As a result of the INF Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles by the treaty's implementation deadline of June 1, 1991.

The Nobel Peace Laureates say, threats to international peace do not come only from nuclear weapons. They are extremely concerned about escalating expenditure on conventional arms and the development of new and deadly weapons systems, as the Declaration of the summit in Mrida, Mexico on September 22, 2019, states.

The Peace Laureates say they took note of the letter received from the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and fully support his call to all leaders of nuclear-weapon powers to reaffirm without delay the proposition that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought and to return to the negotiating table to agree on reducing and eliminating the nuclear arsenals.

The Declaration implores in particular:

The Declaration also emphasises the need for a renewed understanding of the concept of peace. After the devastation of two World Wars and a series of ideological, religious and civil wars, the relative absence of war has been mistaken as the achievement of peace.

But the fact is that as long as basic freedoms are violated and gross corruption, violence, extreme poverty, inequality, racism, modern-day slavery and trafficking of persons, discrimination, and discrimination phobias exist, there can be no true peace. We proclaim that true peace is inseparable from the achievement of true justice, the Nobel Peace Laureates declare.

The ten Laureates who attended the summit in Mrida included: former President Frederik Willem De Klerk of South Africa; former President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia; and former President Lech Walesa of Poland.

Other participants were: Iranian human rights activist Dr Shirin Ebadi; Yemeni journalist and activist Tawakkol Karman; Northern Irish politician Lord David Trimble; American political activist Prof Jody Williams, known for her work in banning anti-personnel landmines; Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee; children's rights activist from India, Kailash Satyarthi; and political and human rights activist from Guatemala, Rigoberta Mench. [IDN-InDepthNews 30 September 2019]

Image credit: World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates.

IDN is flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate.

http://www.facebook.com/IDN.GoingDeeper - https://twitter.com/InDepthNews

View post:

Nobel Peace Laureates Call for Abolition of Nuclear Weapons - IDN InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

Kara Walker Turbine Hall review a shark-infested monument to the victims of British slavery – The Guardian

The real challenge of Kara Walkers Fons Americanus is not the scale of her 13 metre-high fountain in Tate Moderns Turbine Hall. Nor that at first glance, we are faced with an outmoded work of monumental public sculpture, populated by figures and sea creatures, which towers towards the roof, accompanied by the sound of rushing water. The challenge, instead, is one of tone.

One of Walkers reference points has been the Victoria Memorial in front of Buckingham Palace: a great, ludicrous heap of marble and gilded nonsense, topped by a Winged Victory so Fons Americanus is also a heap of allusions and references, humour and horror. Playing on an odious sentimentality, inverting stereotypes, Walkers aim is to entertain as she instructs. Fons Americanus is a sustainable, non-toxic, solvent-free, marble-like gift, a monument not to the beneficiaries of the British empire, but to its victims, and to the hypocrisies and accommodations to evil that led to slavery.

Part-way down the Turbine Hall ramp, a black boy is up to his chest in a lake of his own tears in an open conch shell, a pearl in an oyster, drowning. In the fountain, sharks rather than dolphins sport in the spume.

Describing her work, in its full, lengthy cod-18th century title (which she has printed on the Turbine Hall wall) as an allegorical wonder, Walker lards up an already over-the-top monument. How could it be other? This miserable monument to the slave trade and colonialism is a ripe and fitting cenotaph to imperial ambition, and the human and material profiting on misery at the heart of empire.

Her sculpted allegory owes its edge to the regency-era political cartoons of James Gillray and Thomas Rowlandson, and also to its multilayered, internal references. JMW Turners abolitionist painting Slave Ship, originally titled Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying Typhoon Coming On, is rendered as a bath-toy frigate, riding plaster waves. Walker nods to Damien Hirsts shark in formaldehyde, but one must also think of John Singleton Copleys 1778 painting Watson and the Shark. Twelve-year-old Brook Watson was saved following a shark attack in Havana harbour, and Copleys painting shows him rescued by a small group of sailors, including a black man. Watson went on to become a British MP and Lord Mayor of London. He also voted against the abolition of slavery.

The black man adrift in a rowing boat is taken from Winslow Homers 1899 painting The Gulf Stream, but the name engraved on the back of the craft is K West a reference either to Key West, in the Straits of Florida, or to Kanye West (West, like Walker, spent his childhood in Atlanta). Or both.

Walkers art, with its frequent, sometimes controversial use of antebellum imagery, is in any case a shark-infested pool of citations. Venus, naked on the top of the monument, throws her head back and spurts water from her nipples and her cut throat, which arcs noisily to the pool below. Is this Tintorettos The Origin of the Milky Way? And who is the seated black buccaneer captain in his four-league boots? And what of the boy with the snorkel, playing oblivious in the water? The man holding a figure whose back is riddled with bullet-holes, the Gillray-like bewigged figure praying, and the figure with seaweed-braided hair (or are they dreadlocks?) in the pool, and the figure crouching under the raised skirt of an African Caribbean deity all have their referents. We are never far from lynchings in Walkers work, and heres a noose, dangling from a branch.

The key reference in the work is Thomas Stothards preposterous and disgusting 1801 engraving of a black Venus, carried on a shell, wafted across the Atlantic by white cherubs and a Neptune bearing a Union Jack. The engraving was used in 1801 as the frontispiece to a pro-slavery book entitled The History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the West Indies. Walker invites us to marvel and contemplate, to Gasp Plaintively, Sigh Mournfully and Gaze Knowingly and Regard the Immaterial Void of the Abyss in what she calls a Delightful Family Friendly Setting. Fons Americanus is sardonic, barbed, monstrous, absurd, astonishing and funny, tipping over into the obscene. Monuments are always troubling, and rarely to be trusted. Walker has got the tone just right.

Read more here:

Kara Walker Turbine Hall review a shark-infested monument to the victims of British slavery - The Guardian