Abortion for more background), but whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you should be offended by the dishonestly named NY "Reproductive Health Act" that the Democrats and Cuomo just passed, and all of its provision. They claim this is about protecting Roe v Wade -- they are liars: it has virtually nothing to do with that.
🍉 The Green New Deal was a program championed by AOC, endorsed by the left, that confirms everything conservatives have been warning about the Watermelon Environmental Movement: their goal is not to save the planet, but use that to enact communism/socialism in the U.S. This $93 Trillion boondoggle admits wanting to destroy the coal, oil, airline industry, and replace planes to Hawaii with trains, and replace every building in the U.S. force everyone to go vegetarian (and eliminate cow-farts), within 10 years. Oh and complete wealth redistribution, 70%+ taxes, and so on. Politifact is of course flagging people as false for pointing this out, because they meant it, "perhaps in jest", even though there was not a scintilla of evidence of that.
In 2010 the Obama Administration was violating immigration law, the Constitution, and the oath of office, by ignoring or being lax on immigration. So Arizona passed a law that said they should enforce federal law (that the Obama administration wouldn't), called SB-1070. Democrats and Californian's lost their nut... how dare a state enforce federal law, they said. They called it racist, sexist, xenophovic and homophobic, along with other words they obviously don't know the meaning of.... only California had the same law on their books.
Progressive Conservative Democrats helped drive Alcohol Prohibition: the right way for once, via the Amendment process. While their propaganda tries to label it "right wing": most of the leadership and effort came from the Progressive, Democrats and the left. The whole radical idea that you should limit what other people put in their bodies, through federal powers, is quite a bit against the whole spirit of conservatism, individualism, liberty and the constitution. This was a huge lesson to the informed that laws need to follow society, not try to force society before the culture is ready or you get lawlessness and empowerment of organized crime. The left still gets that backwards and thinks the law should lead society.
There's a statement in the Eighth Amendment which says, "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". It wasn't until Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238) 1972 that the progressive activist side of the court was able to invent the trope that the death penalty could be considered cruel and unusual and be barred by the Constitution. None of them could agree with each other as to why this was the case, but the one excuse in common was about the "arbitrary imposition" of the punishment. (Basically, they were saying because it was rare and arbitrarily applied, they could say that was cruel). This is something that the Founding Fathers would have likely been completely surprised by, as capital punishment was quite common (thus not unusual) punishment for the prior 200 (nay, thousands) of years. Again, when Democrats/left can't win the right way (a Constitutional Amendment, etc), they just cheat and lie. The States rewrote their Capital Punishment laws to guarantee that it would be less arbitrary, and with their core excuse gone, even the liberal Supreme's had admit in Gregg v. Georgia (428 U.S. 153 ) 1976, that the death sentence could be imposed without being cruel and unusual.
When it comes to Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of the Right Wing Press (Radio, TV or Internet), the left has almost always opposed it. At least if you're saying anything they don't like.
Democrats/left are so against the 2A, that they're willing to sacrifice all our other civil rights (and bill of rights) as well, including the 4th. The 4th protects against illegal search and seizures by requiring probable cause. But "Red Flag" laws (and no fly lists), both violate the 6th clearly and stretch the 4th in some seriously questionable ways. Basically, anyone can claim you're dangerous and the storm-troopers will come and endanger you or your family if you resist, and you can try to sort it all out later.... and that's getting dangerously close to what a Police State looks like.
I love immigrants. I am one. Well, 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant. (Iranian Dad on one side, Italian Grandma and German Great Grandparents on the other), raised mostly by a British Step-Dad. Many of my friends (now and growing up) and coworkers today (and historically) have been immigrants as well. I've dated immigrants, I taught immigrants, and I hang with immigrants. I love variants in culture, language, food, and people. So if you think I'm against immigrants, you're a moron.That being said, if you think all immigrants are equal, and we should have open borders, your reading comprehension needs work. (I say that because lots of people will read the following, and then claim I'm anti-immigrant.
Abortion is a deeply personal view, and I have no problem with how people come down on it, as long it is thoughtfully decided. But Roe v. Wade is a lot simpler that the position on abortion. Roe v. Wade is about a ruling that invented law from the bench, and whether it was a good ruling or not. While I actually agree with the position (it fits my beliefs), that's not actually how it has been enforced (Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a later and far worse decision, and is how Roe is enforced). But despite agreeing with Roe, everyone with the slightest law background who has looked at the decision, has admitted that it was a lousy ruling, Blackmun totally overreached, and it made the world a worse place.
A sanctuary city is the idea that if someone an illegal alien and they commit many felonies (some violent), the state will not inform the Federal Government that they're in custody, and will release them into the public to avoid them getting rounded up by ICE. So it is a sanctuary for criminal illegal aliens. The state reports Americans who commit crimes to the Fed. California took it a step further and made it a State Law, which lead to a Sanctuary State Backlash : where cities are suing the state to follow federal law, and California taxpayers have to pay both sides lawyers to fight.
America was founded on the idea that "Guns are liberties teeth", and if you can't trust your public to defend themselves, or to defend their liberty, then the government is corrupted beyond repair and it's time for a new one. To the left, that's an antiquated idea that needs to change -- so that they can remake America in a different image. To the informed, those actions are proof that the left is exactly the kind of leaders and issue positions that the founders were warning against, and the Second Amendment was written for.
Democrats/left are so against the 2A, that they're willing to sacrifice all our other civil rights (and bill of rights) as well, especially the 6th. The 6th basically guarantees fundamental rights like due process, the ability to face your accusers and the accusations. "Red Flag" laws (or ERPO's: Extreme Risk Protection Orders) are ones that say anyone can make claims that you are a threat to yourself or others, and thus should have your 2A (and 4A) civil rights taken away, based on secret Kafkaesque proceedings where the gun owner is barred from participating in the hearings, arguing their side of the dispute, or even seeing and addressing the accusers or charges until after the storm troopers have kicked in your door to take your property (for your own good).... and that's what a Police State looks like.
One of the great contributions to civilization, was the creation of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS : Supreme Court of the United States), in the United States Constitution (as defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789). It was such a good idea, that many other countries have copied it. Even the U.K. got religion and created one in 2009, 220 years after we did. America's Supreme Court was partly inspired by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is one of the oldest in the world and created with the colonies charter in 1692 -- but of course various courts and Judicial activities far predate that.
The knee-jerk anti-voterID response is, “but Voter Suppression”. While voter suppression is real, and infrequently happens on both sides of the aisle -- it's usually done by not having enough polling places in the right areas, not by checking ID. And you can tell how seriously the Democrats care about it, because in cases where goons in Philadelphia are standing outside a polling station with clubs, presumably to intimidate away anyone not voting how they might prefer, the Obama Administration's DOJ (Democrats), just dropped open-and-closed case, to prevent sending a signal that such voter intimidation/suppression will not be tolerated. It would only be a problem for them if white folks did that.
🔫 It doesn't matter what you think the law should be, it matters what it says. Politicians, Legislators and Judges all often ignore the rule of law (letter of the law), for sake of what they wish it said. Here's some examples.
In 2016, California passed many gun-grabbers dream laws: phased in tyranny over the next couple years. If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
Concealed carry facts:
In 1994 the federal government enacted a "Assault Weapon" ban, with a sunset clause to end by 2000. After 6 years it was shown that it had done absolutely nothing to curb crime, gun crime or mass shootings -- so it went away and there was absolutely no noticeable difference in either. California quickly enacted a standard magazine ban (what they call high capacity magazines) to punish their citizens for not living in a free state -- but because ex-post facto laws (ones that make prior actions a crime) are generally unconstitutional, they grandfathered in old magazines. While the law was still technically unconstitutional, it wasn't clear how the Supreme's would rule, so the gun advocates took it, and could get around the law by claiming new magazines were pre-ban. Then in 2018 California figured fuck the Constitution they'd ban them all (without fair compensation). It was guaranteed to lose, but they could harass their citizens for years while it wound it's way through the court. Instead a judge quickly and brutally ruled against it, and made standard capacity magazines legal for a week: and over 1M of them were bought, showing how fraudulent and corrupt the ban was in the first place. If crime doesn't skyrocket, it proves that magazine bans aren't about public safety, but intolerance and people control.
At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia.
But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313).You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below
Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, and pump/lever action, then bolt action guns (which committed one of our worst mass shootings in American history) and the results are, there are no safe guns in the hands of crazies. Thus logic says they're lying, either to us, themselves or both. So I've yet to meet the gun-controller that will be satisfied with X, when that means their neighbors will still have guns.
A good gun law? I'm pleasantly surprised. This law requires mandatory firearm knowledge before legislators can introduce firearm related legislation. What a novel idea!
Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.
Magazine limits have never been shown to have any impact on gun crime, crime, or casualties in mass shootings. Democrats demand low capacity magazines either knowing that (and not caring), or being ignorant of the topic they're trying to legislate. Persecuting someone knowing that your law can't help is kinda the definition of asshole.
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.
If our gun laws are reasonable, then they won't have unreasonable outcomes. There wouldn't be unreasonable prosecutions, people wouldn't be getting their lives ruined by gun laws or over aggressive prosecutors, as if the laws were reasonably designed and written, they would have checks against those abuses. A single example disproves the ideas that gun laws are reasonable, and we have more than a single example: * 2015.07.14 Elizabeth Griffith •* 2015.06.28 Brian Fletcher •* 2015.02.13 Charged for owning an antique gun •* 2013 Shaneen Allen •* 2010.07 Todd Doering •.