• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    She touched on a few good focuses - by my reading her top priorities were:

    1. The middle class

    2. Voting rights

    3. Reproductive rights (limited to a bill, no mention of stuffing the Supreme Court)

    4. Justice Reform

    Not as heavy on climate change as I’d like but it’s good to see her starting to declare policy focuses

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      we will work to pass universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban.

      She just cannot avoid the third rail that is gun bans. It’s been about a day and already she is going for it.

      • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I would guess the logic is that anyone who would demand guns not be touched at all would never vote for a woman, a liberal, or a democrat.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Considering people of all stripes (including Democrats) own guns and appreciate the right to keep and bear arms, that is a very odd idea.

      • RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not gun ban. Assault weapons ban.

        You literally quoted it. Also, give me one good reason you would need a fucking assault rifle? A pistol? Sure i guess. But an assault rifle?

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          give me one good reason you would need a fucking assault rifle

          Assault rifles have been banned from manufacture for civilians since 1986. Meaning the only people who can afford the few there are are the rich.

          No, Harris is talking about banning arms in common use, which are explicitly protected by the right of the people to keep and bear arms. (Re: Heller) One does not need to justify their use of their rights. They simply have it. Just like every other right.

          Harris is attacking rights, is grasping the third rail, as one of the first things she says on her campaign trail.

          • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            You don’t have rights, which can’t be taken away. You have privileges.

            Ask any women who used to have the ‘right’ of privacy with her medical professional(s) to choose if and when she could terminate a pregnancy what the difference is.

            Our constitution grants us the privilege of privacy, but the courts didn’t see it that way, on this specific topic, so women no longer have that privilege in some locations.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            “They’ve been coming for our guns” my entire 47 years of existence. I wish they’d hurry up already, because this is a near half-century of diabolical planning.

        • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          “The deer had a rocket launcher, so I dove and hit the dirt and just started spraying with my AR”

        • dhhyfddehhfyy4673@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Assault weapon is a made up propaganda term created to trick people into thinking assault rifle, a military rifle with select fire, which is not currently legal to own for the vast majority. And as you’ve demonstrated here, it works brilliantly.

    • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Some on the court are old. Unfortunately chief Justice isn’t near retirement and he will pick the docket. It’s possible that some of the court will be fixed in 4 years so that the textualists who don’t read the text will be out, but it isn’t likely that enough of them will leave to create a sane majority. I’m thinking we won’t be able to let up for the next four years either. The world is tiring.