> minor painting around the edges of trying to implement sensible gun restrictions to mitigate the onslaught of mass murders is somehow implementing authoritarianism.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
Also on the gerrymandering, here, also from a source you’ll probably like: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho.... Don’t pretend the dems would change anything about this.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
Also on the gerrymandering, here, also from a source you’ll probably like: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho.... Don’t pretend the dems would change anything about this.