In reply to: Both parties have changed from forty years ago. posted by Jfs86
The Democrat party's single most important issue is abortion. There is no item on the bill of rights that is even close. That is not a fringe position. Andrew Cuomo lit up the Empire State building when he signed the most radical abortion law.
Gov of Virginia was asked about a baby that survived attempted murder via abortion. He said would be decided by mother and advised by doctor. Again, these aren't fringe. They are the essence of the party.
Which is the formal name for it. Let's not start with that whole Trumpian slang thing, it's unbecoming of this board. I would say the same if someone started spouting "Rethuglicans".
It is fine if that is your opinion and feeling on the subject of abortion, but understand that we are governed by secular laws and many people will disagree with you. Compromise is how we govern.
Also remember that 50 years ago most Christian groups were in favor of many forms of abortion with only Catholics being the predominant anti-abortion group. This is to say that views change over the years - to suggest they've always been this way is highly hypocritical.
Just think of it as Republicans and Democrats. That was what auto complete offered.
My point is to counter the view of Sprack and others. Are not morally obligated to vote for Democrats. We do not have to refuse to vote for all Republicans.
Fifty years ago there were pro abortion Democrats and Republicans. There were pro Life people from both parties. The Church has been consistently anti abortion. I support that position. The government has used SWAT teams to arrest some supporters.
That is not a strong endorsement of compromise.
And that "trumps" everything else. I happen to agree with overturning Roe v. Wade, by the way. I always have.
He should have been impeached, removed from office and never allowed to run for president again.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what party he's in, or rather, what party he has taken over. If he thought he could take over the Democratic (sic) Party, he would have tried that. He doesn't really believe in anything but himself.
Anything but himself. However, the Democratic party believes in many things I believe are evil. And many of those things are the DNA of the party.
I'm not talking about any Republican. I'm talking about Donald Trump.
Do you have respect for the Constitution of the United States? He doesn't. Maybe when he's convicted of it in a court of law it'll dawn on you.
how will he be able to make his anti-abortion stance known?
Ah, well. Single issue. Logic is not included.
The Republican Party supports no limits on gun ownership, thanks to that lovely policy we have the worst gun crime rate in the developed world and get to witness children gunned down at mass shootings at least once a year. Are they not worthy of your support? It’s not so darn black and white.
If the Republicans nominated a guy who’s stated platform was that he was going to enslave the entire country, seize all the assets and rule as absolute monarch but came out strongly against abortion (because he wants more slaves) you would vote for him over Joe Biden. Right? If so so we have nothing to discuss as we will never see eye to eye. Hint I’m not an abortion fan either.
It's intrinsically evil and participating in one automatically self excommunicates the person.
Regarding gun control, the Democrats are horrible. Look what we did with all those guns in Afghanistan. We didn't do any due diligence on the Taliban. Next we have NYC. A recent arrival only 15 shot up Time Square.My friend had a very difficult time getting a gun in NJ.
It would seem that the good law abiding people will follow the laws. But the scofflaws not so observant.
Remember when Plexico Buress was arrested for bringing a gun and it discharging a few years ago? Well the law he was convicted of breaking was overturned by SCOTUS on 2nd Amendment grounds. Maybe that tragedy in NYC doesn’t happen if the law still stood.
Last time I checked, ownership of guns was protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
That document mentions none of the other people in your group.
I've never owned a gun in my life and probably never will. But I will fight for the right of people who want to own them because the Constitution says they can. I will also not allow the actions of mentally ill people or people using guns illegally (e.g. underaged people) to affect my belief that legal gun owners should be left the hell alone.
or are we only morally allowed to be women’s rights advocates?
You’ll see why, it’s the new name mysogynists and incels call themselves. It’s all about Men’s rights (to rule over women)
and misogynists, right? No one else?
It's the way the term evolved and the primary meaning.
No, what you are probably thinking is not, and it's also not what vermin is referring to either.
Think of it this way - James Brown sang "say it loud". We think nothing of it. It doesn't mean you can't be proud of who you are as a white person, but you'd never (I hope) refer to it as "white pride".
Unfortunately because of the broad use of it by the fringes the word has become tainted and it’s no longer innocent. Much like how I can’t flash the ok sign anymore (thanks to the white power people.)
flashed multiple times over the last few years, and no one cares or brings up "white power". It seems one group of people is more focused on this "issue" than others.
and assault rifle/military grade type of stuff?
...but the majority of gun-related crimes involve pistols.
The NRA opposes any curtailing of selling guns, no background checks, no age limits, no restrictions. Thats the gun advocacy group. Sensible restrictions are not tolerated, which I would prefer. However, if you asked me if I could chose the gun laws we have currently in this country compared to anywhere else in the western world, I would chose the later. How many inocent children have to die? We can’t even have a Super Bowl parade anymore for Pete sakes. This holding the line and blocking any restrictions is going to eventually lead to a massive backlash that will give us European laws (which I would prefer a little more leniency.). The opinion of Gen Z voters who have dealt with this shit first hand.
1. Do you consider opposing unrestricted abortion choosing valuing "the unborn over currently living individuals"? I like an explanation on that.
2. Not every "gun rights activist" takes the fringe position you assign. So if you're going to paint with that broad a brush you should be prepared for someone to make fun of your painting.
3. And is NARAL any less extreme in their views on abortion, a right NOT enumerated in the Constitution, than the NRA is on gun rights? I think they've both lost control of common sense. But a lot more "innocent children" die every year from abortions than ever die of gunshots.
1. No, but someone who is a single issue voter is by definition someone who values unborn life over living life as taken to the extreme, someone could be the second coming of Hitler but so long as he was anti abortion a single issue voter would vote for him over a moderate Democrat.
2. I’m really tired of the gun lobby at this point, our gun violence is a national disgrace that happens nowhere else in the developed world. Any change to curtail it is fought vigorously by powerful groups like the NRA. If you are a member and support them then that’s your view too.
3. Who says I’m part of NAARL they suck too. Why can’t we have a moderate position on abortion? Because that’s where I am at this point. I want exceptions for rape and incest. I want no restrictions if the mother’s life is in danger. I want paid maternity leave that can be taken after and before birth, I want free maternity care along with a vigorous adoption system to potentially convince women who would otherwise have an abortion to consider bringing to term and adopting. I bet a decent amount of people would be with me.
He is seen naked with a revolver and in other pictures he is seen with an automatic
He was not going to be prosecuted l. Now for just one. Part of my rationale for not voting against Republicans is the weaponization of the various government organizations.
I have yet to see any one protesting that. And he threw a gun away
isn't weaponizing anything.
He's a crook. It's called the rule of law. Republicans liked it before. Big rule of law guys. Now, not so much. The defense of Trump isn't that he's innocent, it's that he shouldn't be punished.
Didn't the whole Hunter Biden thing just fall apart?
to vote for a candidate who literally leads chants about locking up his opponents at rallies? I wont even debate whether you are right about Democrats weaponizing givernment (needless to say I disagree) biut saying you are against it and intend to vote for Trump leads me to believe you have less issue with the weaponization of government and who is doing the weaponizing.
Trump hasn't been very successful at it. I am against him doing it. However, the Democrats have been very successful.
HRC violated the law with her server and deleting emails. She worked with a law firm that worked with the Russians to accuse Trump. The Democrats used the Mueller commission to go after Trump. All based on a dossier that was paid for by HRC's supporters.
A abortion protester was arrested by a SWAT team in front of his family.
It is not good for the country
My point is we have crappy choices on both sides. Trump is a bad person
Biden is equally bad. I also believe his policies are wrong or evil.
Too many here think they and the Democrats are morally superior. I disagree.
What is great about the bill of rights is we can disagree.
The people using guns at that parade were using them illegally and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If "we can't even have a Super Bowl parade anymore", that's due to gangs, not due to guns.
Do you think it might have a little bit to do with our lax sale requirements, and zero responsibility for selling parties to make sure a gun doesn’t end up where it should? How do you know the guns are are even illegal? They may have been bought lawfully.
from just a couple of sellers.located outside the City limits. I am sure that is a coincidence. The iron pipeline from Southern States with limited gun restrictions to Northern States with more restrictive gun laws has been written about extensively. The State of Tennessee loosened their gun laws a decade ago to permit storing them in vehicles with no penalty for leaving them unsecured. During that time nearly 30,000 firearms have been stolen from vehicles. In 2022 there were 5,000 guns stolen from cars in the state.
I grew up with lots of friends who hunted and know many who have one for "protection" but this quote from the sponsor of the legislation exemplifies the problem to me
"Listen, freedom comes with some dangers. That's one of the things that made our country great is that we put the power in people's hands," said Rep. Jeremy Faison, an East Tennessee Republican who sponsored the 2013 legislation.
And prosecute the straw buyers purchasing the guns illegally.
warnings?
The idea we can do nothing while kids die in their schools due to a tortured reading of the second amendment is shocking to me.
As Scalia wrote “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Gong back to the original idea,the wording may have been too broad but I would include gun rights groups who push the idea of no restrictions whatsoever and talk about second amendment solutions to elections are every bit the problem of the other groups.
But the vast majority of red-flag laws in the country are never utilized. I would prefer they would be. I'm all in favor of prosecuting parents of underage shooters, for example.
language may have been imprecide I believe vermin's original post would distinguish between your positions when they get fleshed out (which are likely in line with 90% of the gun owners) and those who say no restrictions ever.
I'm fine with more responsibility for selling parties.
George Carlin always said the way to really hamper the drug trade in America wasn't to go after the dealers but rather the bankers who launder the drug money. Maybe a little hyperbolic, but I saw the wisdom of it.
The way to put a dent in the gun trade is to go after the straw buyers with zero tolerance. But that's too much of a nuance/inconvenience for prosecutors, especially where I live.
What are they to do about sellers in Indiana or Tennessee?
Do you support closing the gun show loophole / private sale exemption? Do you support a database of purchases where law enforcement could look for patterns that might indicate straw purchasers?
These are the type of regulations the most extreme guns rights advocates oppose.
I kid, but the sheer number of guns in society basically is causing their misuse. It's inevitable. When you have access to destructive, easy tooling with low barriers to entry, it becomes a solution to your problems.
Gang violence and mass shooters are distractions (albeit deadly ones) for our real problem - the proliferation of firearms with no training or sense of responsibility. Angry? Pull out your gun. Fearful of someone bringing a gun to your movie? Bring your gun! More guns means it's more likely someone will misuse one.
Look, I own several firearms myself, having inherited some and purchased some others. I have a CCW permit (which, thanks to our generously lax interpretations of the 2nd, my state is one of the diminishingly few that actually makes you show you can handle a gun properly before carrying).
I'd give them up in a heartbeat if it'd mean fewer deaths. I don't for one second think "I need a gun when the people with guns come for me!". If it's come to that, there are many other things that have failed.
The 2nd was created for militias in defense against the state and kings - honestly I simply disagree with the courts' interpretations for the past 30 years. It's nowhere near the 1st in terms of natural rights that we imbue on humans, but damned if you'd know it from looking at the way we worship and revere it.