Good News!
16 Likes
16 Likes
From Australia, but equally relevant:
10 Likes
#This is political correctness gone mad!
7 Likes
I recommend following Hend Amry on Twitter, if Twitter is a thing that you do.
4 Likes
I guess what Paul Ryan meant by this tweet in late December was "Listen, boy, you donāt write laws. Daddy Trump can do it all he wants, though."
12 Likes
One said he wouldnāt because he couldnāt.
This one will because he can.
Neither is comforting. Agree that there seems to be a greater likelihood of personal affect now with Trump, but I donāt find either comforting.
Much of what is happening is words and fear, and it just feels like the frothing over of societal pressure and anxiety that has been building since the early 00s post Clinton, to me.
At no point did Obama say he was going to take anyoneās guns.
Nor did he say he wanted to take anyoneās land or civil rights away but ācouldnātā. Can you clarify?
11 Likes
The bold part of his words and sentiments are illustrative what underlies most modern gun control. āware guns donāt belong on our streets, and cheap handguns donāt eitherā and as much as they go on and on about protecting sportsmen, when you combine the fact that all firearms can be used for deadly affect, the threat to all firearms ownership is quite clear.
His team was much more careful with his speech after this, but given the looser lips of the party leadership who do discuss my straightforward outright restrictions it isnāt much of a leap.
Iād be happy to continue discussion over at š« Firearms: Why own them? Why ban them? - #41 by Mister44 so we donāt derail the thread here.
Thereās a huge, huge difference between gun control (preventing the sale of certain kinds of guns to certain kinds of people) and taking peopleās guns away. At no point, ever, did Obama even suggest taking away guns that people already own. Thatās a fiction that has spawned a lot of paranoia.
To be clear, Iām not interested in continued debate about gun control. I just want to clarify the facts.
15 Likes
So what does ādonāt belong on our streetsā mean?
There is only one strong way for the government to ensure there are no guns on the streets, and that is for only govt agents to have them (because magically those donāt count). In California we have enacted at the state level all of the ācommon senseā gun control tactics that are generally proposed and all conversations are ramped toward confiscation.
There is near zero indication that the rest of the nation would be any different.
He did not say that all guns ādonāt belong on our streets.ā
3 Likes
Again, in context, he was talking about preventing military-grade assault weapons from being sold to civilians, specifically people with criminal backgrounds or who have a history of mental illness. At no point did he even suggest taking anyoneās guns away, and when asked specifically, stated repeatedly that he has never had any intent to do so and thinks that the idea is absurd.
11 Likes
Agreed.
3 Likes
I read that Bannon wrote that speech, in which case itās not accidental.
9 Likes
Echoing this because once apparently wasnāt enough. This thread has been a concise stream of important (albeit depressing) news and diluting that stream with derailed discussion wonāt further its intended purpose.
12 Likes
8 Likes
Already travel ban is being enforced.http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-refugee-ban-airline-people-affected-oscars-1.3956842
The executive order issued Friday by Trump imposes a 120-day ban on refugees entering the U.S. and a 90-day ban on all entry to the U.S. from countries it considers to be compromised by terrorism. The three-month ban applies to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The order also halts entry by Syrian refugees until the president determines that changes to the refugee program ensure that admitting them wonāt compromise national security.
8 Likes
(Trump Has Suspended Due Process for Muslims in America. This Is a Constitutional Crisis.)
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides basic procedural guarantees to individuals detained in the U.S., prohibiting the government from depriving individuals of liberty without ādue process of law.ā Alshawi arrived in the country lawfully carrying the requisite documentation. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, he now has a right to apply for asylum and have his claims processed by federal authorities. But the government did not do that. Instead, it instantly placed him in detention, without a hearing or any kind of judicial oversight, and barred him from speaking with his attorneys.
That is an unconstitutional deprivation of Alshawiās liberty without due process of law. The federal government cannot indefinitely detain a lawful visitor without a hearing or any semblance of reasonable suspicion because the president signed an executive order. Nor, under the equal protection component of the amendmentās Due Process Clause, may the government discriminate against Alshawi because of his national origin or religion. Yet federal officers are currently ignoring these fundamental constitutional principles. And the entire illegal system is the handiwork of one manāTrumpāacting far beyond the bounds of his executive authority. His is a government of men, not of laws, and it apparently has no compunction about locking up perceived enemies based solely on their identity. The very concept of due process emerged from a desire to limit the kingās ability to order unlawful arrests. It appears we are returning to the days when the head of state can detain purported threats without a whiff of evidence that they have broken a law.
16 Likes
This fascist dumbass forgot (okay, doesnāt care) that the people in favour of it arenāt meant to call it a Muslim Banā¦
13 Likes
