XaiJu
law
law

patreon


OA586: CA Uses TX Abortion Ban Trick but for Gun Control

It's a question a lot of you posed after Texas banned abortion by completely cheating the Constitution: what if a liberal state did the same thing but for gun control? Well, CA has done exactly that. Hear the breakdown and Andrew prediction for what will happen to this bill. After that, we've got really bad news. Remember how Democrats had almost forced a level playing field nationally by gerrymandering aggressively in Maryland and New York? Well, some fair minded judges just undid that.

Links: 36 QAnon candidates, QAnon supporters running for Congress, How QAnon Became Obsessed With 'Adrenochrome,', MD Redistricting injunction, revised map approved, NY order stayed in the 4th appellate division

Appearances

None. Invite us on!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

OA586: CA Uses TX Abortion Ban Trick but for Gun Control

Comments

If I were seriously pondering QAnon, I'm not sure "that's not what adrenochrome is" would sway me. For that matter, True Believers would be happy to explain to Uncle Frank how Andrew is a dupe (at best) and nothing he said is inconsistent with the theory being true: * One of the "adrenochrome"s was named that precisely so people like Andrew would say "you can get it in any chemical supply catalog (or, sure, the synthetic stuff is readily available, but it's not the same) * Thompson was exposing it, but he had to call it fiction and They eventually got him anyway (or, They let/made him mention it because They like to flaunt what They're doing) Etc

California SB 1327 has value only in hopefully forcing review of Texas SB8: as gun control, it is not evidence-based policy. Consider what worthwhile outcomes that are intended from this law. Is there evidence that "assault weapon bans" such as what California is trying leads towards the outcomes you want? You all may find RAND's meta-analyses interesting: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html At 04:00, Thomas says "don't know, don't care" -- why is that? Have you tried approaching firearms with an open mind, and understanding why people choose to purchase firearms, and why they disagree with these laws? Before you take such a privileged position, and strip people of their ability to defend themselves and their communities, you should consider those viewpoints. Similarly, at 21:04: Andrew: "... depriving people of their precious, precious guns" Thomas: "something that really matters: having access to just unfettered death machines for no reason" Andrew: "grenade launchers, flash suppressors, yeah." This is such a flippant approach to people's rights. Why do Democrats, including Progressives, choose to die on this hill? Gun owners don't need a reason to justify access, instead the state must provide sufficient reasons to justify restrictions. Andrew says at 12:20, "I would like a world in which individuals who are pregnant had full access to their constitutional rights and reproductive health, and also, we had a strong ban in areas that support it, on possessing semi-automatic assault weapons." Both the right to make medical decisions for one's self, and the right to one's own self defense are borne of the same underlying right: the right of self-ownership. Just like Republicans like to police people's abilities to make decisions of their own bodies, many Democrats too like to restrict people's rights. Both are illiberal positions, and must be resisted. These sort of laws do nothing significant to address gun violence: they just help ensure that Democrats lose close elections, and put our most vulnerable and marginalized groups at even further risk.


More Creators