Mediaboss Marketing

Last month, former CNN host Don Lemon and Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy got into a contentious exchange on CNN This Morning. The argument, which many believe was the cause of Lemons shocking sudden departure from the network, was over Ramaswamys assertions that Black Americans received certain freedoms following the Civil War.

A Look Inside The 2022 National Portrait Gala

Black people secured their freedoms after the Civil War; it is a historical fact, Don, just study it, only after their Second Amendment rights were secured, Ramaswamy said. Lemon quickly retorted: You are discounting a whole host of things that happened after the Civil War when it comes to African Americans, including the whole reason that the Civil Rights Movement happened is because Black people did not secure their freedoms after the Civil War.

While speaking to The Root, historian, professor and author Dr. Walter Greason explained that Ramaswamys false claims are part of the GOPs larger political agenda.

[Ramaswamy] is part of a huge rhetorical effort that goes back over a century of trying to misrepresent the past, he said. So hes got lots of bad company standing on his side. Greason also explains the complexity of the Civil War that the politician inaccurately oversimplifies.

In remembering the war, people get confused. I always push people to look back at the actual acts of succession that provoke the Civil War. So look at the documents drafted in South Carolina at the end of 1860 and into early 1861. Theyre saying that they want to defend their rights to own people. That is the number one cause and it then spreads throughout the other Confederate states to justify that they feel that their right to enslave Africans is threatened by Abraham Lincolns election.

Greason continued, Now, after the war, theyll try and sanitize this argument in their law and say, Well, we were standing up for our states rights. We didnt want the federal government to encroach on our prerogatives to rule ourselves. But the core right that they identified at the beginning of the conflict was to enslave Africans. The historian expounds on the fact that Lincoln didnt want to make it a war about slavery in the beginning since he knew racial equality wasnt a popular idea in the Northern states.

Lincoln originally framed the Civil War as a way to restore the union, to negate the acts of succession and to declare that the federal government was supreme. However, according to Greason, Lincoln eventually recognized that he had to condemn and eliminate slavery in order to bring the union back together. There are a lot of misunderstandings [about the Civil War] that allow the space for someone like Ramaswamy to basically misrepresent and lie to the American people today relying on the fact that most people dont read and they certainly dont read history.

Greason believes that Lemon was correct when he stated that Black Americans did not secure their freedoms after the war was fought. We often have a simplified understanding of the way Black freedom evolves in the United States in that we see slavery in the 19th century as the worst form of oppression. But we overlook segregation in the North and in the West. If we start to see that slavery and segregation are related, in fact, there is no real Black freedom until 1965. And even beyond that point, the forces of conservatism continue to fight against Black freedom to the present day.

The professor concludes by discussing how people of colorRamaswamy is Indian-Americanare frequently conduits for hateful Republican rhetoric. White nationalist, white segregationist politicians love to find people and say, See, theyre from the Black or the Mexican or the Puerto Rican community and they agree with our conservative policies that say theres no need for serious change or systemic analysis of injustice in this country, he said.

Its a visceral point thats designed to negate centuries of dedicated work, he continued. People giving their very lives to the idea of democracy and liberty for all by saying, Oh, this one person says that theres no injustice...its fine. This is essentially what Ramaswamy is auditioning forhe wants that voice. He wants to be the new Bobby Jindal.

By referring to Jindal, who was the first Indian-American to run for president back in 2016, Greason addresses Ramaswamys disturbing ascension to power. Ultimately, this is the same strategy [used by] some wealthy conservative immigrants from different parts of the world to claim their unique individual status by embracing racism through conservatism.

Read more from the original source:
Here's What Vivek Ramaswamy Got Wrong About The Civil War ... - The Root

A challenger to Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz said it would have been "better" if the Second Amendment "hadnt been written."

In a resurfaced video from 2018, Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, weighed in on the right to bear arms and said he did not believe the Second Amendment should have been written in the first place.

"Within the confines of the accurately applied Second Amendment, we can do everything we want to do, as far as regulating weapons and all that," Allred said. "The Second Amendment does have, in the first sentence, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia, and 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

SEN. TED CRUZ LANDS HIS FIRST MAJOR DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER IN 2024 RE-ELECTION BID

In a resurfaced video from 2018, Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, weighed in on the right to bear arms and said he did not believe the Second Amendment should have been written in the first place. (Emil Lippe/Getty Images)

"And its two ideas there. The recent trend has only been to focus on the right to bear arms instead of the well-regulated militia part," Allred continued in the video, which was first resurfaced by Breitbart. "So I just think we have to accurately apply it."

"Would it be better if it had not been written? Of course. But theres no chance that were going to repeal any of the Bill of Rights amendments," the Texas Democrat said.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is running for a third six-year term. (Fox News)

"Im not just talking about politically, it wouldnt happen. Its not within the bounds of reality in this country," he added. "But what we could do, I think, is theres plenty of room within there to not allow people to have 'weapons of war.'"

Allred's campaign manager Paige Hutchinson told Fox News Digital, "Congressman Allreds record on this is clear: He supports common-sense reforms and respects the rights of law-abiding gun owners."

"He proudly supported Senator Cornyns bipartisan bill to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, which Ted Cruz voted against," Hutchinson said. "A highly edited clip from six years ago is not in any way an accurate reflection of Allreds position."

Allred voted for Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn's Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that was signed into law last year and bolstered states' red flag laws, enhance background checks for gun buyers under 21, add penalties for some gun criminals and provide funding for a variety of health and mental health-related programs.

Cornyn's bill also addresses the so-called "boyfriend loophole," which is a gap in federal law that means spousal domestic abusers can have gun rights taken away but not unmarried ones.

Cruz has become a Texas powerhouse in the Senate after his victory over former Rep. Beto ORourke, a Democrat, in 2018. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

On Wednesday, Allred, a former NFL linebacker who later worked in President Obamas administration before defeating Republican Rep. Pete Sessions in 2018 in Texass 32nd Congressional District, which includes parts of the city of Dallas and its northeastern suburbs, became the first major Democrat to jump into the Senate race against Cruz, who is running for a third six-year term representing Texas.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Allreds campaign on Friday said it raised $2 million in the first 36 hours since launching his campaign, but while his $2 million haul is significant, the Texas Democrat will need to keep the aggressive pace up. Cruz began the cycle with $3.3 million in cash on-hand, while bringing in an additional $1.2 million in the first quarter of this year.

Cruz has become a Texas powerhouse in the Senate after his victory over former Rep. Beto ORourke, a Democrat, in 2018.

Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind and Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

Original post:
Ted Cruz challenger said it would've been 'better' if Second Amendment 'had not been written' - Fox News

2nd Amendment Rights defender Guy Relford is one of the few coming in support of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. v. Rahimi, a post-Bruen Second Amendment ruling.

Read the ruling here:

21-11001-CR2.pdf (uscourts.gov)

To the layman, it appears that the court is okay with dangerous domestic abusers having the right keep their weapons that they will ultimately use against their victims. But the ruling is far more nuanced than that. The ruling maintains that ones Second Amendment right cannot be infringed if the individual has not been convicted of a crime.

The idea of you losing your gun rights if you havent committed any crime? The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that unconstitutional.

Domestic orders of protection arent necessarily a result of a crime that has been committed. The 5th Circuit has ruled that the order of restraint alone cannot erase ones 2nd Amendment rights.

Hear the discussion here:

Listen to the show in its entirety, and older shows here:

The Gun Guy WIBC 93.1 FM Indys Mobile News

Watch the Gun Guy show in its entirety:

Read the rest here:
5th Circuit Courts Controversial Ruling in favor of 2nd Amendment Protections - WIBC - Indianapolis News & Politics

Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) challenger in the upcoming 2024 election, Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), once said that it would have been "better" if the Second Amendment "had not been written."

The statement that Allred made was during a campaign event in 2018 when he was discussing the interpretation and viability of the Second Amendment. During this discussion, Allred said that the Second Amendment states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," adding that there are "two ideas" to this, according to video journalists dug up.

TED CRUZ: A DOJ INDICTMENT OF HUNTER BIDEN IS LIKELY, BUT COMES WITH THIS CATCH

"The recent trend has only been to focus on the right to bear arms instead of the well-regulated militia part," said Allred. "So I just think we have to accurately apply it. Would it be better if it had not been written? Of course. But theres no chance that were going to repeal any of the Bill of Rights amendments."

In 2021, Allred co-sponsored a bill on universal background check legislation, with the bill criminalizing private gun sales conducted without an FBI background check. Outside of Allred, the other co-sponsors of this bill included Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib Rashida (D-MI), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

When asked about Allred's past statement on the Second Amendment, his campaign manager Paige Hutchinson claimed that Allred "supports common-sense reforms and respects the rights of law-abiding gun owners."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"He proudly supported Sen. Cornyns bipartisan bill to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, which Ted Cruz voted against," Hutchinson told Fox News Digital. "A highly edited clip from six years ago is not in any way an accurate reflection of Allreds position."

Allred, who has widely been seen as a rising star within the House Democratic Caucus, announced his run against Cruz on Wednesday. Cruz has indicated he is running for reelection.

Link:
Ted Cruz's challenger once claimed it would have been better if Second Amendment 'had not been written' - Washington Examiner

By Merrill Ring | Special to the Courier

The words A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the well-being of a Free State are, as Scalia (District of Columbia v. Heller) correctly points out, a preamble to the remaining words the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Preambles, especially in law, typically consist of explanations and justifications for what follows. The preamble to the entire Constitution sets the stage for the Constitution. It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.

What Scalia (and the Court) does, having noted that there is a preamble in the Second Amendment, is to toss it out as irrelevant to what the Court should hold about the Second. As a result, he takes the right of the people to be the only clause that the Court, in understanding, interpreting, this provision of the Constitution, must pay attention to. And, of course, that clause says flatly that there is an unexceptional (?) right to guns. Thus, the Courts rejection of gun control.

Should we go along with that? Should not the explanatory preamble be taken into consideration in deciding questions about whether people in this country should have a right to gun ownership?

The Courts aim is to understand the Constitution and its provisions. And that explanation in the preamble of why we should have that right is part of the Constitution. The Court, in its constitutional role, must consider the entire Second Amendment. Yet that is just what Scalia and the Court refused to do, treating the words in the preamble as rather like I say unto you, as if they were legal fluff.

However, the preamble explains why a certain right must exist. The reason for the right is that a militia is necessary to the defense of freedom. Given that, a certain consequence follows, a certain right must exist.

The background to understanding that reason is that, while the Constitution does provide for an army, it is not a standing army: Congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8). There is no provision, as there is for a navy, for an army being a continuing agency of the government, a continuing military force.

It is in the context of the provision against a standing army that the Second Amendment exists in the Constitution. It says that a militia is necessary to the countrys freedom (there being no standing army) and as a consequence it is necessary that citizens be armed, and as a consequence they have a right to be armed.

So, what happens when the country, contrary to the original Constitution, created a standing army? Then a militia is no longer necessary for its defense. That is, the condition mentioned in the preamble for having the right in question no longer exists: a militia is no longer necessary for the defense of the countrys freedom. As a result of the non-existence of the condition on which the right to gun ownership rests, the entire final clause becomes null and void. No such current right is thus established by the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment, as a result of the creation of a standing army, has become rather like the appendix in the human body: an irritating historical remnant. It, given the existence of a standing army, has no role to play in the Constitution and the country.

That conclusion does not mean that there is no right for citizens to own guns. That right can be defended under the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Given that, at the time, guns were important to both personal and local defense and for use in hunting, a strong case can be made that gun ownership is a constitutional right.

But of course, the pro-gun faction in the country does not like that way of constitutionally supporting gun ownership. First, it does not make gun ownership an explicit constitutional right it becomes an inferred right. Inferred rights are not as solidly grounded as constitutionally explicit rights, ones so important to our way of life that this one is mentioned right there as the second item in the Bill of Rights. Second, the requirement in the Second Amendment that gun rights shall not be infringed is highly likely not to be part of an inferred right, and that means that all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership might be constitutionally acceptable under the Ninth Amendment and the core of the current pro-gun faction wants unrestricted access to and possession of guns.

For those reasons, the current pro-gun group wants the Second Amendment to be the constitutional source of a right to gun ownership. Consequently, they applaud the Courts misunderstanding.

Merrill Ring, a Claremont community activist for more than 40 years, is a retiredprofessor of philosophy and dedicated Courier letter writer.

See more here:
SCOTUS misses the point of the Second Amendment - Claremont Courier