The gun laws that enabled those murders are white supremacist.
Yes, make them illegal.
Australia did it after Port Arthur. New Zealand did it after the Christchurch massacre by a white supreamacist.
Whatâs your solution? Oh, to continue to have gun homicides at an already sky high, ever increasing rate.
Thatâs not a solution.
Be some craic here in the next few days if they uphold Roe v Wade
Making guns illegal would do absolutely nothing to reduce the carnage. Australia and New Zealand have very low violent crime rates. Do you think gang members in Oakland and other US cities care about the law? Also, who is going to enforce the law? The defunded police?
You live in a safe relatively crime free city in a relatively crime free country. Go live in a US city for a few years and see what life is actually like.
Of course it would.
Itâs deluded to think otherwise.
How do you propose getting the millions of illegally held guns out of the hands of gang members?
I donât know. I simply said if you banned guns, you would have less carnage. And you would.
Just because something is a big problem doesnât mean you shouldnât tackle it. The alternative is to let the problem of gun violence spiral out of control forever.
The US wonât do that because half of it is bizarrely emotionally attached to an utterly ludicrous centuries old constitutional provision rooted in white supremacist colonial frontier society, and also thinks AR-15s are the same as muskets.
So the US will never solve the problem of gun violence.
You wouldnât, for the simple reason the majority of guns held by violent criminals and gang members are illegally held. They donât give a fuck about laws, real or imagined.
The only way to tackle it is to tackle the gangs and violent crime, but no âwokeâ politician wants to do that.
Of course you would reduce carnage. I didnât say you would eliminate it. And knowing America and the insanity that pervades it, it would be along term problem reducing it. But you definitely would reduce it.
What you could also do is bring in sensible policies across a range of areas which address the reason people want to hold guns in the first place.
A couple of classics here
If the man had spoken like that for his four years in office, heâd still be president so he would
Whose hands is he on about? People with bigger hands than him?
Oh my. How embarrassing for a sitting US Senator, grovelling at the feet of a TV host. But then we know who is really pulling the strings of the GOP
Roe v Wade is going to be overturned. The so called âhysterical womenâ who have warned for years about this were correct again. They always are.
The freaks will be delighted.
Thread. The implications of this are pretty terrifying for America.
Roe v. Wade is based on the âright to privacy.â If the majority opinion by SCOTUS suggests that the constitution does not protect the right to privacy⌠that affects a WHOLE lot of other decisions. Buckle up - this is the beginning of a lot of potential ugliness.
A thread.
Lawrence v. Texas: Decided in 2003, the court used the Right to Privacy to determine that itâs unconstitutional to punish people for committing sodomy. The Roe ruling could open the door for criminalizing homosexuality.
Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Griswold v. Connecticut: Decided in 1965, this case protects the ability of married couples to buy contraceptives without government restriction. This isnât just about abortion. Next up, contraceptives.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
Loving v. Virginia: This 1968 case, which threw out laws banning interracial marriages, was decided based on the right to privacy. If a state wanted to prohibit who people could marry â there is no protection from that without a right to privacy.
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Stanley v Georgia: This 1969 case found that there was a right to privacy around possession pornography. If a state wants to outlaw pornography or certain forms of adult pornography, it could do that without the right to privacy.
Stanley v. Georgia - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia
Obergefell v. Hodges: The 2015 opinion that legalized same sex marriage used the right to privacy and the equal protection clause to do so. This could open the door for a state to try to test same sex marriage laws.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
Meyer v. Nebraska: This 1923 ruling allows families to decide for themselves if they want their children to learn a language other than English. This could open the door for racist states to try to outlaw learning their familyâs languages.
Meyer v. Nebraska - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska
Skinner v Oklahoma: This 1942 ruling found that itâs unconstitutional to forcibly sterilize people. The Roe ruling could open the door for criminals, disabled people or BIPOC folks to be forcibly sterilized.
Skinner v. Oklahoma - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
Okay. Thatâs a quick overview of the judicial chaos that could occur in the aftermath of striking down Roe v Wade. All of these decisions might no longer be settled law and states could try to test them by creating laws designed to test the courts.
Judge Alito is a constitutional âoriginalistâ and that means that he believes the constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was created. That means that he likely doesnât believe there is a right to privacy in the constitution.
Judge Thomas, Judge Barrett and Judge Gorsuch are also originalists. They donât see themselves responsible for the chaos that ensues after Supreme Court decisions. They donât believe past precedent matters. Only the original meaning.
This is a good background on originalism. Whatâs especially scary is how the 14th amendment (now used to support the right to privacy) was once used to strike down minimum wage laws, make unionization illegal, and take away limits on working hours.
Originalism, Amy Coney Barrettâs approach to the Constitution, explained Originalism sells itself as a way of constraining judges. But itâs more often a way of unleashing them.https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court
Anyways⌠shit is fucked up and bullshit.
ADDING: Here is another article that looks at the complexities of originalism. It lists Kavanaugh as an originalist. Alitoâs originalism is more complicated. He has called himself a âpractical originalistâ and cares more about precedent than the others.
This thread is not meant to say that overturning Roe v. Wade isnât bad enough. I was tweeting about the horrors of that b4 writing this thread. I think these ramifications are not as well known and wanted to make sure the broader impact was understood.
People reading the full draft are tweeting about the horrors within it. My thread wasnât hyperbolic. Alito specifically refers to Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage. Fuck.
The history of mankind has been a constant and consistent marginalisation and degradation of the female of our specie. Religion seems to have been set up purely to marginalise and degrade them. I hope this leads to an uprising of sorts. They are the better of us.
Oh my God, this is going to break TFK. Itâs the perfect storm weâve been dreading.
