Tbqh 2A is barely an obstacle. Plenty of states have laws nearly as restrictive or in some ways more restrictive than Canada until the handgun ban, like California. Every year more handguns drop off the registry because manufacturers decline to pay to keep them on and if they want to put a new one on IIRC two have to be taken off.
Pro control judges had zero issue twisting Heller to support gun control and they will have zero issue twisting Bruen to do it. They are just temporary stop gaps. If you want a liberal government they are going to take your guns and liberals are going to support it. Full stop, period, end of story.
States have police powers, and can make gun control laws, until they are found to be unconstitutional at one level or another.
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
I realize that once “liberals” regain control of SCOTUS, and/or lower federal courts, they will want to undo all the “stare decis” regarding the 2nd Amendment.
So the US Constitution is just a piece of paper then? I’m not sure why you disagree when you are making an argument for the states to infringe on the 2A. Because those states which do are going to have a hand in federal leadership and they are going to try and impose their values, including gun grabbing, on the other states. That’s just the inevitable conclusion.
Sure. Throwing your hands up and saying “well it is what it is, just leave me alone” is retarded and the wrong move. You will never be left alone because gun grabbing is a moral imperative for grabboids. It is inherent to the liberal project. The same as castrating your sons, making you wave the LGBTCIA flags, reciting the ritual phrases etc. Just as you would be required to recite the Shahada if you were living in Jerusalem 1400 years ago.
Authoritarian as a label is meaningless anymore. In the modern discourse it just means “someone who is going to get in the way of me gaining or maintaining power”. The use of state power is inherently authoritarian no matter how liberal the people doing it are.
Well I was told by an American that this was true. I don’t think it is. But then I would disagreeing with an American about American stuff. I’m not sure gonzo would approve of me having an opinion on the matter but…
I think the US Constitution is a masterful piece of legislation and historically significant achievement.
When people from other countries make rude or snarky remarks about the United States, they should expect rude and snarky comments back about their countries.
It is amazing how often they are surprised that they should expect quid pro quo rudeness in return, when they are rude.
It is difficult to understand the experience of a different place, or a different people merely by reading about it.
Likewise, virgins lecturing those that have lost their virginities many times over about the sexual experience, is ridiculous, but it still happens all the time.
Making unsolicited pronouncements about what other peoples and countries should do, is of course, rude and arrogant.
If people avoid trying to push their politics or religion on other people, then I am much less likely to casually piss on their shoes.
Probably the best way to understand it is a fight between one big faction of Liberals (Democrats or left libs are inner party, Republicans or right libs are outer party) vs two small coalitions of “Leftists” (Marxists, Maoists, Anarchists etc.) and “Rightists” (Monarchists, Fascists, Nationalists etc.).
Those are just labels of convenience because we are getting to a point that “Right” and “Left” are becoming meaningless too, as someone like a NazBol would be considered right wing by a Socialist but left wing by a Monarchist. That and ideology isn’t as meaningful when you’re talking about actually applying politics in the real world and not on Twitter or a college student union.
I’m not sure if your talking about the way the “freedom” protests were handled by his government or just Canada under the Trudeau government I’m general.