🏳️🌈🖖🏽
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.
Also, the 2A could be interpreted to only apply to militias, i.e. the only right to bear arms applies to within the demesne of organized militias, i.e. the government can regulate non-militia weapons as much as it likes
No it really cant, and thats a really dishonest interpritation.
For starters it is **obvious** it is a exemplary clause, not a qualifying one. I think thats pretty obvious and if you cant see that just change the language to something youd support and it becomes obvious.
Second, the people who literally wrote that amendment have been quoted and cited dozens if not hundreds of times explicitly stating that isnt what was meant, and the courts at the time made it clear that isnt what was meant.
There is literally no **honest** interpretation that could possibly see it that way, thats just absurd IMO.
@freemo @peterbutler @georgetakei The problem is, almost everyone starts from the goal they want to accomplish ("I want guns" or "I want abortion" or "I want to ban guns or abortion") and then looks for ways to do that within the constitution. The SC obviously did that with RvW.
In an honest Republic you'd start from the Constitution and determine whether your "want" is included in there. If not, start a political campaign to add it.
Prohibition was the last time that was done, ironically.
