Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   George Takei :verified: 🏳️‍🌈🖖🏽 (georgetakei@universeodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:58:30 JST George Takei :verified: 🏳️‍🌈🖖🏽

   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.

   • Embed this notice
     mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:19:08 JST mike805

     in reply to

     @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.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:19:08 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805

     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.

     @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:22:03 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805

     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.

     @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:22:04 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @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.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:28:28 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805

     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.

     @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:28:29 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @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.

   • Embed this notice
     mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:32:47 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @georgetakei That would be nice. I still think a Federal law upholding that right (and the FBI ready to arrest state officials who violate it) would do a lot to both practically back down the state-level oppressors, and force cases in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

     It is absurd that a right can be upheld in court and it still takes years before you can safely exercise it. Or you can take your chances on being a test case. That requires money and no fear of jail.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:32:47 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805

     /such a law would be great just because it may take some time before SCOTUS acts, if it will act.

     All I am saying is that the two arent comparable... Abortion has no amendment and democrats have made no effort to propose one (but republicans have proposed anti-abortion amendments many many times).

     Cant really compare that to guns where republicans already have an amendment, secured it as best they could with getting a friendly scotus, and generally are working against bad-faith interpretations rather than lack of action on their parts.

     @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:37:37 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Butler
     • mike805

     @peterbutler

     Well only scotus ruled that, courts need to agree with scotus.. but yea it has been the interpritation for quite some time.. but it is a **horrible** interpritation.

     Now to be clear I support abortion, and I was saying for years that it was a cheat to even attempt toi use that amendment the way it was to protect abortion, it made no logical sense... and here we area.

     I may dislike the fact that abortion is no longer protected, but it was absolutely the correct interpretation of the law in its current state.

     @mike805 @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Butler (peterbutler@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:37:38 JST Peter Butler

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • mike805

     @freemo @mike805 @georgetakei For 50 years, courts across the country agreed that the 14th amendment protects the right to abortion

     It’s as cut and dry as the 2nd amendment to me 🤷🏼

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:39:00 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Butler
     • mike805

     @peterbutler

     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.

     @mike805 @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Butler (peterbutler@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:39:01 JST Peter Butler

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • mike805

     @freemo @mike805 @georgetakei

     Chemical weapons?
     Tanks and bazookas?
     Nuclear weapons?

     You really believe citizens should be able to “bear” all of those “arms”??

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:40:17 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Butler
     • mike805

     @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

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:42:05 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Butler
     • mike805

     @peterbutler

     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.

     @mike805 @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Butler (peterbutler@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 05:42:06 JST Peter Butler

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • mike805

     @freemo @mike805 @georgetakei

     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

   • Embed this notice
     LiveByReason (livebyreason@universeodon.com)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 07:14:59 JST LiveByReason

     in reply to

     @georgetakei

     Men: Please speak up in support of women, trans men, and gender fluid individuals on this issue.

   • Embed this notice
     mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 19:23:34 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • Peter Butler

     @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.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 19:23:34 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Peter Butler
     • mike805

     @mike805

     Agreed, that is part of the problem.

     @peterbutler @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 19:27:01 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Bernie Forcefully Does It

     @BernieDoesIt

     No, if you want the definition of a law to change over time you need to legally get new amendments drafted that change it. Thats how all law has worked. They dont have expiration dates that automatically activate or anything so absurd.

     @mike805 @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     Bernie Forcefully Does It (berniedoesit@mstdn.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 19:27:03 JST Bernie Forcefully Does It

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • mike805

     @freemo @mike805 @georgetakei The Constitution was written by eighteenth century common law lawyers for eighteenth century common law lawyers. You can't just look at the words out of context to decide what the right to keep and bear arms covered and did not cover. It was never intended to be read that way.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 15-Dec-2023 03:38:42 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Bernie Forcefully Does It

     @mike805

     Yea im not sure thats a perfect fix, but its not a horrible idea either. It certainly fixes the dependency creep issue :)

     @BernieDoesIt @georgetakei

   • Embed this notice
     mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 15-Dec-2023 03:38:43 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • Bernie Forcefully Does It

     @freemo @BernieDoesIt @georgetakei There is a reasonable case that all normal laws (not the Constitution) ought to have expiration dates. And should have to be read aloud at each renewal, with all the voting members present.

     That would limit the total volume and complexity of law, and cause bad laws to expire if there was no will to renew them. Where laws did have expiration dates, like the Assault Weapons Ban, they do expire.

     No more 1000 page laws that nobody has read.