楼下很多人没有搞清楚Gun Control，就瞎嚷嚷！ ????的是certain firearms 肯定包括打死柯克的枪械！ The Democratic position: More regulation to reduce gun violence
The Democratic platform generally favors stricter gun control measures, viewing gun violence as a public health crisis that requires government action.
Key Democratic proposals include:
Universal background checks: Expanding background checks to cover all gun sales, including those at gun shows and private online sales.
Bans on certain firearms: Prohibiting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
"Red flag" laws: Creating and expanding laws that allow temporary firearm removal from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others.
Addressing the gun industry: Ending the gun industry's immunity from liability and holding gun owners liable for failing to practice safe storage.
Funding gun violence research: Providing federal funding for research through agencies like the CDC and NIH.
Federal versus state law: Working to enact stronger federal gun laws, though some states have already passed their own stricter measures.
The Republican position: Prioritizing gun rights and less government intervention
Republicans generally oppose new gun control measures, emphasizing the protection of Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.
Key Republican positions include:
Opposition to new restrictions: Rejecting bans on assault weapons, red flag laws, and expanded background checks.
Focus on enforcement and mental health: Calling for better enforcement of existing laws and addressing the mental health aspects of gun violence, rather than restricting access to guns.
Repeal of gun laws: Advocating for the repeal of existing gun-related restrictions and attempting to defund federal agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Concealed carry reciprocity: Promoting legislation that would require all states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states, effectively overriding more restrictive state laws.
Interpreting the Second Amendment: Interpreting the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a broad, individual right to own firearms for self-defense.
The 1987 Supreme Court case involved Ardith McPherson, a clerical employee in a Texas constable's office, who was fired for saying she hoped President Reagan would be killed. The case, Rankin v. McPherson, centered on whether her comments were protected by the First Amendment.
Here are the key details of the case:
The remark: In 1981, following an assassination attempt on President Reagan by John Hinckley Jr., McPherson told a co-worker, "if they go for him again, I hope they get him".
Her firing: After Constable Walter Rankin learned of the comment, he fired her, stating he had lost confidence in her and citing the public-facing nature of the law enforcement office.
The lawsuit: McPherson sued, arguing that her First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. She claimed the remark was a personal expression of her political views rather than a serious threat.
Supreme Court ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of McPherson, holding that her comment was a matter of public concern and did not impede the office's function. The Court found that a statement amounting to a direct threat would not be protected, but McPherson's remark, made in a private conversation, did not rise to that level.
Significance: The decision confirmed that public employees retain free speech rights related to matters of public concern, so long as their speech does not disrupt workplace operations.
Bernie Sanders:
I want to say a few words regarding the terrible murder yesterday of Charlie Kirk — someone whom I strongly disagreed with on almost every issue but who was clearly a very smart and effective communicator and organizer — and someone unafraid to get out into the world and engage the public. My condolences go out to his wife and family.
A free and democratic society, which is what America is supposed to be about, depends upon the basic premise that people can speak out, organize and take part in public life without fear — without worrying that they might be killed, injured or humiliated for expressing their political views. In fact, that is the essence of what freedom is about and what democracy is about. You have a point of view, that’s great. I have a point of view that is different than yours, that’s great. Let’s argue it out. We make our case to the American people at the local, state and federal level, and we hold free elections in which the people decide what they want. That’s called freedom and democracy. And I want as many people as possible to participate in that process without fear.
Freedom and democracy is not about political violence. It is not about assassinating public officials. It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue. Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice. It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force. Every American, no matter what one’s political point of view may be, must condemn all forms of political violence and all forms of intimidation. We must welcome and respect dissenting points of view. That’s what our Constitution is about. That’s what our Bill of Rights is about. That, in fact, is what freedom is about.
The murder of Charlie Kirk is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out public life and make people afraid of participating. From the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol, to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, to the attack on Paul Pelosi, to the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to the murder of Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, to the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, to the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson and the shooting several years ago of Rep. Steve Scalise, this chilling rise in violence has targeted public figures across the political spectrum.
Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. We all remember the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy, John Lennon, Medgar Evers and the attempted assassinations of President Ronald Reagan and Alabama Governor George Wallace.
This is a difficult and contentious moment in American history. Democracy in our country and throughout the world is under attack. And there are a lot of reasons for that, which need serious discussion. But, bottom line: If we honestly believe in democracy, if we believe in freedom, all of us must be loud and clear. Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned.
Charlie talks more about the need not just for mass deportation of illegals, but for cuts to legal immigration to preserve America's cultural cohesion. He warns of what could happen to American cities you love if this advice isn't followed.
