https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-hunter-biden-verdict-democrats-republicans-justice-b2560949.html
The New York congresswoman, who is known for her liberal stance and activism, blasted previous accusations of a ‘two-tiered justice system’ from the GOP
The GOP is right, there is a 2 tiered justice system. It tilts in their favor at the moment. Look at all the shit Trump has gotten away with. Look at the light sentences handed down for a majority of the Jan 6 traitors. And they are still bitching about it.
Look at the illegitimate, corrupt, terrorists in SCOTUS currently ruling this country by fascist fiat.
Okay, yes, under the law that currently exists, Hunter Biden was absolutely guilty.
On the other hand...
Doesn't it strike people as just a little bit fucked up that you can lose a fundamental constitutional right that easily? Should you lose the right to, say, vote if you smoke pot (which is still illegal under federal law!)? Should you lose the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, with legal representation, if you're addicted to Oxy? Should you be forced to go to an evangelical, Christian nationalist church if you're an alcoholic? There's a pretty decent argument that conviction of a violent crime--including misdemeanor domestic battery--should cause you to lose your 2A rights. But this isn't a case of someone being convicted of anything.
More specifically, Republicans are coming after the guns of people that aren't white christian nationalists.
They're fine with Republicans being armed.
They're not fine with their intended victims being armed.
Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every "fundamental constitutional right." Freedom of speech does not include slander or inciting violence. Freedom of religion does not protect abuse or acts of violence. Freedom to bear arms does not include weapons of war or negligent behavior.
Addiction is a medical condition, and should not be treated by criminal courts. On the other hand, addiction does undermine an individual's rational thinking. Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms? I don't think that is an unreasonable restriction.
The problem with my argument is that I don't think our restrictions on gun ownership go nearly far enough. Addiction is a problem, but it's not the most pressing problem we have related to gun violence.
Freedom of speech does include slander; slander (and all other defamation) is not a criminal matter, it's purely tort.
Freedom of religion does not protect abuse
Oh buddy... Have I got some really, really bad news for you. SCOTUS has been continually carving out exceptions for both criminal and civil law for religions for decades.
Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms?
I think that it's a very, very slippery slope to try and traverse. I've known people that were entirely functional alcoholics; they were entirely sober all day, but started drinking the second they got home, and all weekend. I know a guy that holds a solid six figure job at a major US company that has spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on drugs, and tanked multiple marriages because he couldn't straighten his shit out in his personal life, but he is solid for his rationality as long as he's sober. Which is pretty much only when he's on the clock. I know people that are straightedge that are less able to think rationally than either of those people. So, should we have a rationality survey prior to someone purchasing a firearm, voting, getting legal representation, refusing to talk to cops, and so on?
But here's an even bigger problem for you: barring addicts from owning firearms--or people that have been committed to a mental institution for any reason--is actively dissuading people from getting help. If you are, for instance, a cop, you will lose your job if you can't own a firearm. The result is that cops don't get help when they need it. Many gun owners feel the same way, and there are grass-roots organization that will hold parts of guns for you (non-serialized but essential parts) for people that are having a hard time but can't seek help without losing their rights.
The problem with my argument is that I don’t think our restrictions on gun ownership go nearly far enough.
No, the problem is that you're treating a symptom--violence--as though it was caused by the tool used to commit it. The problems are things like systemic racism, chronic underfunding of essential services, shitty public education (that's been made intentionally shitty to try and steer the "right" people into charter and private schools), lack of economic empowerment, wealth inequality, lack of reasonable access to healthcare, and so on. It's treating pneumonia with cough syrup, and then wondering why shit doesn't get better. (And, BTW, despite the massive uptick in firearm ownership that happened in 2020/2021, violent crime, including gun crime, continues to decline.)
Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every "fundamental constitutional right."
Further to that point, rights come with responsibilities. If you are going to forfeit those responsibilities to society then you are going to also forfeit some of the associated rights granted by society.
Counter-counterpoint: restricting rights after completion of a judicial sentence prevents convicts from reintegrating into society, which increases the odds of recidivism. If you want people to choose to act responsibly, they need to have the opportunity to do so.
Counter counterpoint. Some rights absolutely should be. The fact that a person's vote can be taken away. Is the entire reason we have such sentencing disparity. It along with speech are two fundamental rights that shouldn't.
Your first argument is the phrase: my freedom ends where yours begins. That's perfectly good and acceptable. However, someone using drugs (which almost everyone uses, though some the government decided to target) does not interfere with anyone else's rights. A person who uses alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, Marijuana, cocaine, or whatever else does not necessarily effect anyone else. They should lose rights if it does, not matter the drug, but not for the use of whatever drug alone.
Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms? I don't think that is an unreasonable restriction.
A majority of Americans are addicted to caffeine, alcohol, and/or nicotine. Sure, addiction can be an issue. Addiction is not the issue though. Many people live perfectly healthy lives while addicted to drugs. It's an issue when it interferes with someone else and should be addressed then. Not every caffeine addict should lose their right to firearms (assuming it's a right, which I would posit the 2nd amendment does not actually say).
I think that Hunter was only prosecuted for this crime because of who his father is. A real witch hunt. But at the same time, I'm not losing any sleep over it. He broke the law, and he's someone with a lot of resources at his disposal and should have known better.
As for the law itself, I think the law should exist, but the potential punishment of 25 years is absurd.
I do think that keeping guns out of easy, legal, access of active drug abusers is appropriate. But as you say, without a conviction, the scope of those restrictions should be narrow and appeal-able.
And the punishment for being untruthful on a checkbox of an application should be a slap on the wrist. Confiscation of the firearm(s), and maybe community service. It should be the governments job to do proper screening, not the applicants job to screen themselves out.
But like I said before, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, even if I do think it's an unfair punishment for an arbitrarily enforced law, on someone targeted by a cult simply because of his family.
I do think that keeping guns out of easy, legal, access of active drug abusers is appropriate. But as you say, without a conviction, the scope of those restrictions should be narrow and appeal-able.
Considering that the form 4473 that you have to sign to purchase a firearm makes no mention of alcohol, I think this is hypocritical, at best. What's the difference between alcoholics owning a firearm, and heroin addicts owning a firearm? All I know is that I would be way less worried about the junkie gun owner than a raging alcoholic gun owner.
Its a dumb law, that was probably spawned from racism. Nobody should have their gun rights removed if they did not do or threaten anything violent.
I mean, I'd like guns to be inaccessible (legally) to raging alcoholics too. You're right that a crackhead and alcoholic can both be very destructive. But that doesn't mean I want crackheads to have guns just because an alcoholic without a felony can own one.
That's fair and reasonable. I just think that the fact that alcohol use is so common, it makes it very unfair to pick on other drug users as if they are somehow worse or more prone to violence than alcoholics are.
I don't think drug use by itself should be enough to take away your gun rights, personally. I do believe mental health reasons are acceptable, though, and if the drug a person is using is making them mentally unstable, then that should be the main reason their gun rights are removed.
I absolutely disagree with keeping guns away from drug users (edit: for using drugs alone). Almost every American has a drug addiction, to caffeine at a minimum. Drugs can be safely handled as well as firearms. I believe that courses should be required that include training on proper safety and storage of firearms before purchase though, which should include warning about handling a firearm while intoxicated.
I was drinking with friends one time a while ago and one of my close friends, who's in the navy, had his handgun with him. He didn't see an issue with getting drunk with his gun on him. Luckily we all convinced him to put it aside somewhere safe until he's sober, which he argued about but conceded. Why is it legal to use alcohol and have a firearm (and be in the military even) but not something like pot?
You should be considered for losing access to a firearm upon abusing that right by endangering someone or mishandling one. You shouldn't lose it because the government decided to target a certain segment of society to disarm.
Doesn’t it strike people as just a little bit fucked up that you can lose a fundamental constitutional right that easily?
Google "the Mulford Act". Republicans loved chasing poc around for owning or displaying guns, all up and down California, back in the 60s and 70s when the Civil Rights Movement was at its peak.
Its definitely fucked up. But its all part of the grand kabuki theater of criminal justice in our country. Build up a hysterical fear of Other People so you can give the police something to do. Then use the parade of prosecutions as proof that (a) crime is out of control and (b) we absolutely need to gut more public services so we can put a bigger and more heavily armed police force on the street.
Should you lose the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, with legal representation, if you’re addicted to Oxy? Should you be forced to go to an evangelical, Christian nationalist church if you’re an alcoholic? There’s a pretty decent argument that conviction of a violent crime–including misdemeanor domestic battery–should cause you to lose your 2A rights. But this isn’t a case of someone being convicted of anything.
You can find instances of all of the above tried by various state and local courts in the US.
Oh, I'm very, very familiar with what Reagan did as the governor of California. The Black Panthers were absolutely in the right to resist the abuses of power by the white establishment cops, and banning the open carrying of firearms was expressly intended to prevent their oversight of the police. Even the idea that drug abusers would be banned from owning firearms directly stems from trying to prevent minority groups from being armed.
But its all part of the grand kabuki theater of criminal justice in our country.
Indeed. If we really cared about criminal justice, we'd focus on prevention by correcting root causes, and using proven methods to reduce recidivism. But we do none of those things.
You can find instances of all of the above tried by various state and local courts in the US.
I'm definitely aware of cases of convicted felons having their parole conditioned on attending Christian religious services, and the FFRF sues the shit out of states--and wins!--when state do shit like that. But yes, states can and do use every tool at their disposal, legal or otherwise, to remove constitutionally guaranteed rights. And I think that's a huge problem regardless of which right it is.
While some of the posters are tackling the loss of constitutional rights through judicial limitations of those rights... Which is part of the design of those rights... I would like to highlight that you are correct in pointing out some unique flaws in the American system. Utilizing non-violent drug convictions to deny voting rights targets vulnerable populations and make your voting base generally comprised of wealthier individuals and exaggerates the power of racialized police targeting. Both the US and the UK have this... But not all democracies practice this. Many countries have zero restrictions based on felony conviction or imprisonment. The intersection of drug use, rights and the churches involvement in 12 step programs are also not living up to a lot of modern discussions of ethics or the separation of church and state implied in the design of the US.
Practice and design are two different things. Canada does not have a specific division of Church and state anywhere in the body of law. On paper its got an official religion. In practice however it is incredibly secular and most of the citizens believe whole heartedly that religion has no business in government which is backed by a constitutional freedom of religion. The use of 12 step programs is being challenged and dismantled as a breech of these rights. ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5391650 )
The 2A rights particularly are more difficult to engage with using international comparison because there are only four democratic countries that have a specific constitutional right to bear arms and two impose further restrictions and deference to law inside the body of right itself. The only countries with so broad a written constitutional right to bear arms is the US and Guatemala. Other countries that guarantee those rights do so inside their body of regular law which means that right is not elevated. It can be more easily ammended and changed by sitting bodies and it interacts with criminal law and licencing programs more fluidly.
This structural difference is important. It is supposed to provide additional protections. However the cultural nature of guns is under public challenge. The US isn't nessisarily playing by it's intended design because in part from a written standpoint the 2A is a mess. The issue with old democracies is that they were kind of in Beta and the wording of those laws do not match the modern standardized code that comprises the body of active civil and criminal law and that leaves more than normal room for personal interpretation. The cultural nature to hold the constitution as a holy document that cannot be updated for function sake for mostly sentimental reasons means that you basically don't get the last word on these things or a solid grasp of whether something is constitutional until a Supreme Court majority interprets the archaic document in basically whichever way they please. There are logistical issues with treating law like a precious artwork instead of a practical tool.
I do not think that we should tolerate any slavery, including those convicted of a crime. Nor should we remove the rights of those convicted of crimes. Incarceration as a profit mechanism only leads to exploitation.
Agree on all points. I'll go farther and say that we need to be working towards rehabilitating people, rather than just warehousing them. The way we handle felons now encourages recidivism.
IMO the criteria should be if you are too dangerous to own a gun you are too dangerous to be free in society. You should be locked in whatever institution is most appropriate for your particular situation until it is resolved.
Bitch THIS is what the bias news is at work.
Aoc is dumbing it down way too much but yes it is great that sometimes the system works.
It is AWFUL it only works when it is in the favor of one side and that side is NEVER held accountable.
So fucking weird that these Holy Christians are convinced their Christain republican figureheads and leaders are righteous, when everything about our current situation can equally biblically paint them as followers of the antichrist. but what do I know.
I assure you, Hunter Biden will not receive my vote for President of the United States
How about they review FFL applications and see what box Don Jr checked when he bought his guns.
Well yeah…the problem is that the republicans don’t accept when it works. We’ve know this for years now, some dem leader gets accused of something and they most often step down or get charged it was legit. Republicans get accused of something they actually did and praise lawd Jesus Christ sowhatifidid and they stay put.
It's also yet another example of how hard and fast the right will pivot to spin reality into more insane propaganda.
Faux News Before: Hunter will never be indicted because Daddy Joe is corrupt!
Faux News Now: Hunter is taking a fall for Daddy Joe to distract us all!
See how that works. Not to mention their doublethink, such as Biden is "an evil mastermind" but he's also a doddering old man who can't spell his own name." And their faithful flock eat it up and believe it all, because it reinforces their expectations while wrapping their understanding of reality so much that they're expectations become what the propaganda tells them they should be.
Is Hunter Biden even relevant to anything political? Are the Dems as a whole actually losing anything by letting him face this conviction?
He's relevant in that this is the first time the child of a sitting president has been convicted of a felony, but I highly doubt that this will dissuade anyone who would have voted for Biden from doing so. Most people who say otherwise weren't voting for him anyway. NOT letting him face the conviction would certainly have had a negative impact, though!
Yeah that was pretty much my thoughts on it. He's already done all the damage he's going to do to Biden's rep. Beyond that they don't lose anything by letting him face consequences. Which didn't seem too severe for the crime he was charged with from what I read. It's not really comparable to the situation with Trump considering Trump is the front-runner for the republicans. Not that I think either of them should get off just saying this is kind of a stupid thing to grandstand over.
Honestly, him facing it very well could win votes I expect. It shows that he isn't using the powers of the presidency to interfere with this, which is something Trump accuses him of, and also we all know Trump would do. It makes Biden the candidate of allowing the law to apply to people near the president and Trump the candidate who will use the office to protect himself and his "friends." He's already used it to pardon many who do his bidding.
Only thing I can think of is among low information voters it sort of looks like both democrats and republicans are charging one another with crimes
Not this election.
Last election Hunter's laptop was leaked containing an email that possibly incriminated a presidential candidate. That story was then falsely labeled as Russian Propaganda by the FBI directly influencing the election
But this election there is nothing linked to Joe except for family ties.
Since when are all politicians just three letter abbreviations? AOC, DJT, MTG, where did this come from I hate it
Since when are all politicians just three letter abbreviations? AOC, DJT, MTG, where did this come from I hate it
Where? Because... No, they didn't.
Because it's a political tradition since 1932?
Sort of sounds to me like asking why saying "God bless America" is so prevalent now. Because it's standard political stuff.
Ah yes, who could forget president GRFJ?
I don’t know if you’re being purposefully dense or just ignorant but there’s definitely an uptick in politicians and public figures being referred to by their initials in the media for the last 20 years.
Of fucking course I realize it’s not the first time in history it’s been done.
Aren’t immigrants the vast majority of people that run for office. The people on the ballot are rarely Native Americans
Dems: if our representative is guilty, get rid of them! Repubes: if our representative is guilty, forgive them!
Al should run again.
He's got a pretty good podcast btw. Always jokes that each guest that comes on makes that particular show "a good one, for a change."
While not convicted of a crime, I still believe that Al Franken did commit some non censual sexual acts, unwanted sexual advances and generally unprofessional conduct. He's a funny and ascerbic comic, and I celebrate that, but I think I have a higher standard for someone who would advocate for everyone in my particular geographic region. Regrettably, he might actually be better than all the politicians in my whole state. That's a sad thing to say.
It's strange that people really believed anybody on the left would oppose some random corporate businessman's sentencing.
Or proof they're willing to throw someone under the bus to further a narrative, they're all corrupt as far as I'm concerned.
And those of you down voting are horrifically naive if you genuinely believe the people on top of the heap actually have your best interests in mind, you don't get into positions of power by being nice.
Your both sides bullshit is designed to keep people away from the polls and I see right through it.
Your behavior seems calibrated to suppress people's desire to vote and engage. Very suspicious in the current situation.
I assumed you were getting downvoted initially for the disingenuous "both sides" rhetoric which is a non-point that has been gone over in detail here ad nauseum, and then subsequently because you doubled down by implying if people downvoted your first point, it means they think politicians have their best interests in mind. I don't think anyone believes that, so it kind of reads like you're tilting at windmills.
AOC is dumber than a sack of bricks. Where are the business collusion charges then?
The gun charges should have been brought years ago, this is such an obvious attention redirection it's pathetic. But then the people who listen to mold like AOC don't have any brain cells either.
Where are the business collusion charges then?
Likely where the mishandling classified documents charges for Trump ended up.
The gun charges should have been brought years ago
Or not at all, because they're bad laws that are capriciously enforced by Police/DAs/Judges more interested in chasing the media spotlight than any kind of public safety standard. Hunter go thrown to the wolves in order to prove the court system is fair, because he was any serious safety risk.
people who listen to mold like AOC don’t have any brain cells either.
The fixation on trashing a junior house rep with good fundraising numbers above any number of USAs, police chiefs, and judicial appointees with actual power is curious. People lose their fucking minds any time AOC gets handed a mic in a way I never see aimed at a Gavin Newsom or Ron DeSantis or Eric Adams.
One almost begins to wonder if this outrage is manufactured by the Two Minute Hate mass media. Are you in any way sincere in your anger, or are you just passing down what you heard on the AM Radio this morning?
Or not at all, because they’re bad laws
Fucking lol. ALL leftist claim they want more gun laws. But for Hunter "they're bad laws".
What a joke. Democracy is dead, Democrats killed it. (then blamed white men)
Let not forget Biden specifically campaigned for more gun laws.
Whatever you call them, pretending that now, suddenly, they're 'bad laws' is yet another example of how The Left(tm) says one thing then does another. Without double-standards they'd have none at all.
Why do you think the guy who gave the eulogy at Strom Thurmond's funeral is farther to The Left than the guy who signed the Mulford Act in California?
Without double-standards they’d have none at all.
Tough on Crime Conservatives have been carving away at gun rights for over 80 years. Whether it was the National Rifle Association, condemning the Smith & Wesson Magnum revolver as a weapon that should be exclusively carried by the police or the Klu Klux Klan's gun-grabbing Jim Crow laws passed in the Deep South, or the Gun Free School Zone Act (what a fucking joke) that was championed and signed by George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990 or the Trump militarization of the US-Mexico border under the pretext of halting gun traffic, Republicans have always staunchly defended the right of state governments to take your firearms.
Biden might be President of the liberal party, but he's played up his "centrist" credentials through his championship of conservative gun control measures. He is right in line with the Republican mainstream on this subject.
There are no leftists. Only liberals pretending they're something they're not. Humm, why does that sounds familiar?
Why isn't the NRA defending Hunter Biden against this unjust law? Same or different reason they didn't defend Philando Castile?
Do you ever wonder why you almost always have negative down votes? Maybe you should get checked for brain worms
