 Many of of us who were taught in American schools were told that the Civil War was not over slavery.
The issue was states' rights. Putting aside the fact that it obviously was fought over slavery, we also were taught in schools that the states' rights issue protected Southern slave-holding states. Numerous Court decisions enforced that view. But in fact the states' rights of northern, anti-slave states were ignored. They had passed laws prohibiting slave-holders seizing slaves who had gotten on the Underground Railroad and reached abolitionist territory. The federal courts overturned these laws. The irony now is that states' rights may be used to dramatically expand gun control. This week, while Congress refused to pass stronger laws even after Orlando, the U.S. Supreme Court took a different stance. By not acting. The court refused to hear a case challenging a law banning semi-automatic guns in Connecticut. The law was passed after 26 died at the Sandy Hook school. Also, in a separate case in California, a federal appeals court ordered two counties to follow state law that required people carrying concealed weapons to have permits. The counties had said no permits were needed. Most states require permits for concealed carry. The Supreme Court is short one member, split between conservatives and liberals. The betting is that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency there will be a court open to state laws that more carefully control guns. Then the issue becomes whether a state should have such a right. It has long been the opinion of right-wing Republicans that states should decide things such as abortion. Could gun control soon be among them? It worked, though slowly for same sex marriage. It may not be the fastest way to bring sanity to U.S. gun policy but it may work. Related: NEW YORK TIMES WALL STREET JOURNAL US House Dems hold sit-in to force voting on gun-control
2 Comments
 The television interview given by the mother of Columbine killer Dylan Klebold leaves out important information, actually reducing the amount known about WHAT led to the 13 killings. No one is suggesting Sue Klebold knew the young men were preparing a massacre. But the carefully choreographed televised interview leaves out important things that were known. Several so-called experts appeared but did not talk about bullying. Many believe that bullying of the killers by athletes was a major factor. Columbine had very successful athletic teams. “It was clear in the first hours after the shootings that vengeance against athletes was a preoccupation of the two killers. Harris and Klebold began firing with the words “anybody with a white hat" stand up, the Washington Post reported. Washington Post The Post, in a review of the Klebold’s book, mentions that bullying was endured by the killers. It was reported by the Denver Post that Wayne Harris, father of Eric Harris, had found at least one pipe bomb in his son’s belongings before the shootings. Denver Post The idea that Klebold would make no money from a book being promoted by the ABC interview with former Nixon speech writer Diane Sawyer is disingenuous. The settlement of lawsuit filed by victims and their families prohibits making any money from any media accounts of what happened at Columbine or the events that preceded the killings. But how will we know if the publisher sent funds her way. That settlement included depositions in which both families answered questions with the condition that what was said would not be released for 20 years years. This information will only be available in 2027. The interview also made no apparent attempt to look at why Jefferson County sheriff’s deputies did not pay attention to warnings that the teens were threatening to kill people. Colorado’s state government dropped its own investigation. |
