🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@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

@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

@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

@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

@weepjp yea i can understand that. Its a lot of work and the network just keeps growing. Youve done amazing so far!

@DaveFernig

Nope, while those measures can reduce the spread and are fine measures to take. They would not, unfortunately eliminate it.

@britishtechguru @auscandoc @auscovid19 @DenisCOVIDinfoguy

@weepjp No ;)

@realcaseyrollins

Probably because they felt they had a right to choose for themselves and were willing to try any angle they could to make that happen.

I highly doubt anyone thought it was truely a religious requirement of their religion.

@garyackerman It depends, if true then yes, if not then no.

@sr3

And just so you are clear, what I said was that both were "like that bully on school that doesn't care about anything but causing chaos"

How you can take that to mean I implied they are equivelant in every way, and thus if one does X then other must do X is just a complete failure on your part to discuss faithfully, because we both know what I said and that your comparisons are just trolling at best.