🏳️🌈🖖🏽
The election in 2024 is a crucial one for our democracy and our rights. Abortion rights, in particular, are on the line. Men: Please speak up in support of women on this issue. We need to hear from you as well.
@georgetakei So why didn't the Democrats pass a right to choose law when they had the chance? They apparently saw this as a useful wedge issue.
🇳🇱
Ivebeen saying the same thing.. there is a reason they never proposed an amendment on the issue... because they WANT it to be a weak or non existant right so people have a reason to vote for them.
@freemo @georgetakei I suppose the same applies to R's on gun rights. Why haven't the Republicans put in some strong gun rights protection laws? Because the 2nd Amendment is something people will vote single issue on. Likewise reproductive rights.
Because we already have the strongest law and protection imaginable, there is literally an amendment that says that access to guns cant be infringed, it doesnt even mention the possiblity for exceptions.
The problem is theleft has largely ignored the amendment and violated it. This isnt the republicans fault.
Now abortion, for that there is no amendment and no real protections, unlike gun laws.
@freemo @georgetakei The Federal government could have imposed national concealed carry reciprocity under the Commerce Clause. So anyone who was legally armed in their home state could not be forced to disarm while traveling. That would be a good start. They have done enough absurd things under the Commerce Clause and been upheld, it would be hard to overturn that one.
The 2A already makes it illegal to infringe on the right to bear arms, that includes the right to carry them. So any laws like that shouldnt be needed if it werent for our really ass-backwards SCOTUS rulings.
Getting clarence on the SCOTUS likely already fixed that we just need some gun cases to make it back to SCOTUS for reconsideration. My hope is that the now republican SCOTUS will actually enforce the 2A as it should have been all along, that is, to strike down **all** laws limiting access and the right to bear arms.
Chemical weapons?
Tanks and bazookas?
Nuclear weapons?
You really believe citizens should be able to “bear” all of those “arms”??
Some of those **america** as a whole cant bear due to international treaty, which would supercede any right for an individual to bear them.
But tanks and bazookas, sure.
@freemo @peterbutler @georgetakei And for those who mention the "big scary weapons" like tanks and bazookas, in Revolutionary times private citizens did own warships. Those ships could either burn down or starve out a coastal town. They were weapons of mass destruction in their day.
And people did own bazookas after WW2.
@peterbutler "
But more importantly what i think they should have a right to doesnt matter. What matters is there is a top level law (amendment) that does grant them that right. So long as that exists yes, it should be upheld and they should have that right.
Now if we agree certain weapons should be illegal, im fine with that. then make it a new amendment and do it the right way.
@mike805 @georgetakei