They are for the death penalty as long as the condemned is still in the womb. Other wise they are totally against putting a person to death. Kind of seems backwards to me, willing to condemn the innocent but protecting the life of the guilty.
They fight tooth and nail against voter ID laws, claiming it imposes undue hardships on the poor. I guess that the poor can not afford a picture ID. Yet they have never proposed legislation that would provide a photo ID at taxpayer expense for the poorest. I can not understand why they never propose such legislation especially when they believe that government is always the solution. I also wonder why the republicans never propose this.
They are for religious expression as long as Christianity is not the religion being expressed. They are for free speech as long as everyone is saying what they are saying or what they want to hear. If it goes against what they say, think or believe then they call it hate speech. They demand to be heard while demanding others be silent. They don’t really have to worry about the press, the press is in their corner. They would rather have the First Amendment repealed than have to contend with differing view points.
They support the Second Amendment as it pertains to hunting, except for those that have come right and said the Second Amendment should be repealed. Problem with that cupcake is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow hunting. You can read the Second Amendment forwards, backwards and even upside down and you will not find the words hunting, target practice or sports shooting. The Second Amendment was written for a specific purpose and reason.
They only want to ban scary looking rifles and high-capacity magazines. They even come up with new words, their new one is military grade. The old one was assault weapon. They say no one should be allowed to have military grade weapons but the military and law-enforcement. I believe the correct term would be Mil-Spec(Military Specification). But you could not call the AR-15 a Mil-Spec weapon could you? The AR-15 is not made to Military Specifications, it is a modern sporting rifle made for civilian use.
But then that is what you do you use words, more accurately use a play on words. You cant really come out and say you are pro-abortion, can you? That would equate to being pro-death. So you use the phrase pro-choice, by using the word choice it gives the impression that what happens was the choice of all. The truth of the matter is that the one directly effected by the “choice” had no “choice” in the matter. So lets look at some of your other plays on words.
When it comes to gun-control you use phrases like;
End gun-violence. Why do you never speak of ending violence? The U.K. banned guns and that did not end or stop crimes committed with a firearm, they still happen. They may have lees crimes committed with a firearm than here in the U.S., but for two straight months this year(Feb and Mar)the murder rate in London surpassed the murder rate in N.Y. City. The residents of London now have to contend with knife-crimes and acid-crimes(violent acts committed with a knife or acid). So the U.K. stopped the mass shootings, sort of, and now they face the possibility of mass stabbings and acid attacks. Now London lawmakers are having to come up with laws to control knives and acid. They now have to end knife-violence and acid-violence. Our northern neighbors had an act of violence that involved a man driving a van on a sidewalk and mowing down pedestrians, 10 dead and 15 injured. He used neither a gun, knife or acid his weapon of choice was a motor vehicle. A person intent on killing or maiming will use whatever tool is available. Neither the gun, the knife, the acid nor the motor vehicle is violent on its own in each case it takes a human to use those items in a violent manner. For you it is not about ending violence, it is about ending guns in the hands of the citizens(law-abiding citizens). If your gun-control measures worked the most violent cities in this land would be the safest, but it is the exact opposite.
We have to do it for the children. You really expect me to believe that you care about children when far more are murdered by abortion. Enough said on this one.
If it saves just one life it is worth it. My question is worth what? You and I both know that there is no way to prove that even one life was saved. This simply can not be measured. Besides some in your camp(cult)have come out and said that no legislation could have prevented______(fill in the blank).
And then there is everyone’s favorite. We just did not go far enough.
Now that the gun-control cult has been outed, your far enough in that matter is the repeal of the Second Amendment and banning all firearms from the public. You are okay with the military and law-enforcement having all of the guns, well all of them but what the criminals have. The criminals will still have guns. Maybe you should look back in history, not that far back either, and see what happens to the civilian population when they are deprived of the tools to defend themselves. There was a reason that the Founders and Framers included a Bill of Rights, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Read about Boston, Lexington Green and Concord. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution, there was a reason the Founders and Framers did not want a full-time standing army, if they did not want a full-time army they certainly had no intention of giving them all of the guns. Since law-enforcement is part of the government local, state and federal they certainly never meant for government to have all of the guns either. They also never meant for the people to be deprived of arms, if they had they would have said so.
Speaking of the Constitution you use it to your advantage when it suits your agenda. Take the Electoral College for instance, when your guy wins the Electoral vote you shout to the world that the system works, you do not mention the popular vote unless you by chance get both. When your guy, or in this case gal, loses the Electoral vote but wins the popular vote you scream that the election was illegitimate the Electoral College is outdated and does not represent America. When it comes to the Second Amendment you say the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have _____(fill in the blank). You use the equal protection clause for every group but Christians and gun owners.
They want every person in this country to vote in the elections regardless of citizenship. I guess not enough legal citizens supported your candidate, you need some illegal support. Win any way you can, right? You really are an obstructionist when it comes to securing the border. Would you act the same if those coming here illegally were apt to vote republican? While on this subject, you are having a “kitten” over the citizenship question being talked about when the new census comes out. You want to count heads not citizens. Why? Seats in the house are based on population, the number of citizens not heads. You could stand to lose some House seats, reports have it that there has been an exodus of citizens from your liberal leftist states. Not to mention the money that flows to states is also based on population. If it was the way it was you would have to send money to D.C. based on the census, you would kick the illegals out so fast and hard they would bounce three times before coming to a rest on the other side of the border and build a wall a hundred feet tall and ten feet thick with a minefield to keep them out.
What is going to happen on your march to go far enough? This question sets up another post.