It’s my understanding that gun advocates sometimes use the 1857 *Dred Scott v. Sandford* ([link](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/#tab-opinion-1964281)) decision to make the argument that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns.  Just a few examples of 2A advocates making this argument are [this video](https://youtu.be/2W8sppSylVU?si=Nc8sFW1RGujByEjl&t=129), [this video](https://youtu.be/neLdsW7XZSM?si=5wz8HCrInl1s6KCi&t=605), and [this video](https://youtu.be/6vglHW9q2Ek?si=DUs36IP8dXJ6Sp6G&t=101), as well as written examples such as these: [link 1](https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=345),[ link 2](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/mcrp-journal/blog/the-second-amendment-is-racist-why-bruen-should-have-been-decided-on-equal-protection-grounds/),[ link 3](https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-135/racist-gun-laws-and-the-second-amendment/).  In fact, even Justice Clarence Thomas connects *Dred Scott* to the second amendment in his opinion for *NYSRPA vs Bruen* ([link](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/#tab-opinion-4600259)).  Most of their argument seems to stem from this excerpt from the opinion in that case written by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney:

>More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. **It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.** And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

The portion I’ve put in bold appears to be what some argue is a synopsis of the federal Bill of Rights, and the statement saying “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” appears to be a reference to the second amendment.  Gun advocates would argue that if the Supreme Court in 1857 believed that the second amendment guaranteed a citizen an individual right to keep and carry a gun, then this must also have been the traditional and authentic interpretation of that amendment.

However, I don’t understand how this argument is valid.  It seems to me that one could only come to the aforementioned conclusion if one has not actually read the context in which the above paragraph appears.  Earlier, Justice Taney had begun his opinion by presenting a list of state laws which placed explicit restrictions upon the rights and privileges of the black populations of the respective states.  These laws dated from colonial times through to the then-present day.  Taney’s reasoning was essentially that it made no sense for a “negro” that was a slave or a descendant of slaves imported from Africa to become a citizen, because the sum of all of the discriminatory and prohibitive laws that had been passed against the black populations strongly indicates that it had been the general will of the individual states to subjugate the black populations in the interest of public peace and security.  And when the individual states ratified the Constitution in order to join into a union under a federal government, the individual states vested to the federal government the protection of their peace and safety; and thus, it would be inappropriate for the federal government to betray this trust by giving citizenship to a demographic which the individual states themselves had seen fit to subjugate.

 Among the list of discriminatory laws he mentions, the first is a 1717 law from Maryland which declared

>”that if any free negro or mulatto intermarry with any white woman, or if any white man shall intermarry with any negro or mulatto woman, such negro or mulatto shall become a slave during life, excepting mulattoes born of white women, who, for such intermarriage, shall only become servants for seven years, to be disposed of as the justices of the county court where such marriage so happens shall think fit, to be applied by them towards the support of a public school within the said county. And any white man or white woman who shall intermarry as aforesaid with any negro or mulatto, such white man or white woman shall become servants during the term of seven years, and shall be disposed of by the justices as aforesaid, and be applied to the uses aforesaid."

 Then he mentions a 1705 Massachusetts law which declared that

>"if any negro or mulatto shall presume to smite or strike any person of the English or other Christian nation, such negro or mulatto shall be severely whipped, at the discretion of the justices before whom the offender shall be convicted."

 And another law from the same state declares

>"that none of her Majesty's English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto; nor shall any person, duly authorized to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in marriage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pounds; one moiety thereof to her Majesty, for and towards the support of the Government within this province, and the other moiety to him or them that shall inform and sue for the same, in any of her Majesty's courts of record within the province, by bill, plaint, or information."

 He later on mentions a 1774 Connecticut provision

>by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged without a written pass such as is therein described was made liable to be seized by anyone, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master -- who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent section of the same law provides that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that, up to that time, free negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State.

 And then another Connecticut law in 1833 which…

>made it penal to set up or establish any school in that State for the instruction of persons of the African race not inhabitants of the State, or to instruct or teach in any such school or institution, or board or harbor for that purpose, any such person without the previous consent in writing of the civil authority of the town in which such school or institution might be.

 Justice Taney mentions a provision in New Hampshire  in 1815, in which

>no one was permitted to be enrolled in the militia of the State but free white citizens, and the same provision is found in a subsequent collection of the laws made in 1855. Nothing could more strongly mark the entire repudiation of the African race. The alien is excluded because, being born in a foreign country, he cannot be a member of the community until he is naturalized. But why are the African race, born in the State, not permitted to share in one of the highest duties of the citizen? The answer is obvious; he is not, by the institutions and laws of the State, numbered among its people. He forms no part of the sovereignty of the State, and is not therefore called on to uphold and defend it.

 And finally he mentions an 1822 Rhode Island law

>forbidding persons who were authorized to join persons in marriage from joining in marriage any white person with any negro, Indian, or mulatto, under the penalty of two hundred dollars, and declaring all such marriages absolutely null and void, and the same law was again reenacted in its revised code of 1844. So that, down to the last-mentioned period, the strongest mark of inferiority and degradation was fastened upon the African race in that State.

 It is after his list of such restrictive and discriminatory laws that Justice Taney extrapolates that if it was the will of the states to exclude the black population from the status of citizenship within each of their respective dominions, then it is only appropriate that the same demographic be excluded from citizenship by the national government into which the respective states had vested their collective interests.  As Taney states,

>For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety.

 And then it is here where Taney states the excerpt which pro-gun advocates so often emphasize:

>It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, *and to keep and carry arms wherever they went*.

Upon looking at the larger context of this excerpt, it would seem that the excerpt doesn’t actually mean what the pro-gun advocates interpret it to mean.  First of all, it would seem that some of the items within this excerpt correlate with the prohibitive laws previously mentioned.  The first is when he mentions “the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased . . . without pass or passport . . . .”  This correlates with the aforementioned 1774 Connecticut provision that required people of color to carry a pass when wandering outside the town of their residence.  And the second correlated item is -- in my interpretation -- the infamous line “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went”.   I understand this line to be an allusion to the 1815 New Hampshire law which limited the right of militia duty to only free white citizens of the state.

Gun-rights advocates would likely interpret the latter line to refer to the text of the second amendment, and to refer to an individual right to own and carry guns for private purposes, such as self defense or sport.  However, it makes no sense for the line “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” to refer to the text of the second amendment.  Even though this line may sound similar to the line “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, they are not the same, and the differences between the two are not at all negligible.  First of all, the second amendment refers to the right to “bear arms”, while the line from *Dred Scott* says “carry arms”.  The modern reader may simply see these two phrases as synonymous, but they are not.  The meaning of “carry arms” is straightforward, consisting of a transitive verb acting upon a noun; but the phrase “bear arms” does not actually refer to the carrying of arms, but rather is itself a phrasal verb and an idiomatic expression.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary -- the most authoritative resource on the English language -- the expression “bear arms” originated around AD 1325, and is correlated with the Latin phrase *arma ferre*, likely being simply a direct translation of the Latin.  Also according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase is defined simply as “To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc.).”  The sense of the phrase "the right to bear arms" in the sense that pro-gun advocates typically use the phrase is, according to the Oxford dictionary, an originally and chiefly American re-definition of the phrase, originating circa 1776.  Hence, the second amendment references the right of the people to keep arms and *to fight* and/or *serve as a soldier*; while the *Dred Scott* line instead references the right to keep arms and carry arms.

Furthermore, the *Dred Scott* line also differs from the second amendment by including the modifier “wherever they went”.  No such modifier exists in the second amendment.  In fact, the second amendment is merely a prohibitive provision, one which is applied against Congress itself, and does not directly apply any affirmative granting of rights to the people.  It makes no sense to interpret an absolute prohibition against Congress as somehow establishing a modified affirming of rights to the people.  Because of these linguistic and textual details, it is, at best, quite a stretch to claim that the phrase “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” is somehow a meaningful reference to the second amendment.

Some might alternatively argue that the line, rather than referring to the text of the second amendment specifically, is instead referring to the liberty of private gun use in general.  But what makes much more sense is that the line “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went”, instead of referring to private gun use, actually refers to militia duty.  It was customary in early America for militiamen to possess arms -- such as muskets or rifles -- in their personal custody (i.e. “to keep arms”), and to literally carry them wherever they went.  We can see evidence of this from numerous militia-related laws from early America from colonial times until the 20th century.  On example is a New York law from 1640:

>ORDINANCE

>Of the Director and Council of New Netherland, providing for the Arming and mustering of the Militia in case of danger. Passed 9 May, 1640.

>\[N.Y. Col. MSS. IV. 61.\]

>The Honble Director and Council have considered it advisable to ordain that the Inhabitants residing at and around Fort Amsterdam, of what state, quality or condition soever they be, *shall each provide himself with a good gun and keep the same in good repair and at all times ready and in order*; and as they live at a distance the one from the other, every warned person is placed under his Corporal in order that in time of danger he may appear at his post with his gun. Should it happen, which God forbid, that any mischief occur either from enemies or traitors at night, the people will be notified by the discharge of three cannon fired in quick succession; and if by day, means will be found to give warning to every one, who is commanded thereupon to repair instantly to his Corporal at the place appointed and then to adopt such measures as the exigency of the case shall require, on pain of being fined Fifty guilders. \[[link](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1640-n-y-laws-23-ordinance-of-the-director-and-council-of-new-netherland-providing-for-the-arming-and-mustering-of-the-militia-in-case-of-danger)\]

 A Delaware law from 1782:

>And be it Enacted, That every Person between the Ages of eighteen and fifty, or who may hereafter attain to the Age of eighteen Years (Clergymen and Preachers of the Gospel of every Denomination, Judges of the Supreme Court, Sheriffs, Keepers of the public Gaols, School-Masters teaching a Latin School, or having at least twenty English Scholars, and indented Servants bona Fide purchased, excepted) who is rated at Six Pounds, or upwards, towards the Payment of public Taxes, shall, at his own Expence, provide himself; and every Apprentice, or other Person, of the Age of eighteen and under twenty-one Years who hath an Estate of the Value of Eighty Pounds, or whose Parent is rated at Eighteen Pounds towards the public Taxes, shall, by his Parent or Guardian, respectively, be provided with a Musket or Firelock with a Bayonet, a Cartouch-Box to contain twenty-three Cartridges, a Priming-Wire, a Brush and six Flints, all in good Order, on or before the first Day of June next, *and shall keep the same by him at all Times, ready and fit for Service*, under the Penalty of Twenty Shillings for every two Months Neglect or Default, to be paid by such Person, if of full Age, or by the Parent or Guardian of such as are under twenty-one Years, the same Arms and Accoutrements to be charged by the Guardian to his Ward, and allowed at settling the Accounts of his Guardianship. \[[link](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1782-del-acts-3-an-act-for-establishing-a-militia-within-this-state-c2a7-6)\]

 Here is the first section of a 1770 Georgia law related to the carrying of arms in church:

>Whereas it is necessary for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections, that all persons resorting to places of public worship shall be obliged to carry fire arms:

>I.  Be it enacted, That immediately from and after the passing of this act, every male white inhabitant of this province, (the inhabitants of the sea port towns only excepted, who shall not be obliged to carry any other than side arms) who is or shall be liable to bear arms in the milita, either at common musters or times of alarm, and resorting, on any Sunday or other times, to any church, or other place of divine worship within within the parish where such person shall reside, *shall carry with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gunpowder and ball, and shall take the said gun or pistols with him to the pew or seat where such person shall sit, remain, or be, within or about the said church or place of worship*, under the penalty of ten shillings for every neglect of the same, to be recovered by warrant of distress and sale of the offender's goods, under the hand and seal of any justice of the peace for the parish where such offence is committed, one half to be paid into the hands of the church wardens, or where there is no church wardens to any justice, for the use of the poor of the said parish, and the other half to him or them that shall give imformation thereof. \[[link](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-the-better-security-of-the-inhabitants-by-obliging-the-male-white-persons-to-carry-fire-arms-to-places-of-public-worship-1770-reprinted-in-1775-1770-georgia-colonial-laws-471-1932)\]

 A 1779 law from Vermont:

>That every listed soldier and other householder, *shall always be provided with, and have in constant readiness*, a well fixed firelock, the barrel not less than three feet and a half long, or other good firearms, to the satisfaction of the commissioned officers of the company to which he doth belong, or in the limits of which he dwells; a good sword, cutlass, tomahawk or bayonet; a worm, and priming wire, fit for each gun; a cartouch box or powder and bullet pouch; one pound of good powder, four pounds of bullets for his gun, and six good flints; on penalty of eighteen shillings, for want of such arms and ammunition as is hereby required, and six shillings for each defect; and like sum for every weeks he shall remain unprovided\[.\] \[[link](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1779-vt-acts-and-for-encouragement-of-military-skill-for-the-better-defense-of-this-state)\]

 An 1805 law from New Orleans:

>And be if further enacted, That each non-commissioned officer and private of the infantry, *shall constantly keep himself provided with good musket or guns*, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints and a knapsack, a cartridge box or pouch, with box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges… \[[link](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1804-la-acts-284-an-act-for-regulating-and-governing-the-militia-of-the-territory-of-new-orleans-c2a7-13)\]

And here are a few more links to other similar militia laws:

[1786 New Hampshire](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7)

[1631 Virginia](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1631-va-acts-173-acts-of-february-24th-1631-acts-xlvii-xlviii-li)

[1632 Virginia](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1632-va-acts-198-acts-of-september-4th-1632-act-xlv)

[1642 Virginia](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1642-va-acts-263-acts-of-march-2nd-1642-act-xli)

So it would seem that with a deeper understanding of the workings of the militia during early American history, the modifier “wherever they went” should more sensibly be correlated with the common practices surrounding compulsory militia service, rather than being correlated with any sort of voluntary liberty of carrying arms for private purposes.

The connection that the pro-gun community makes between *Dred Scott* and the second amendment is tenuous at best.  Within the passage in bold from *Dred Scott*, there are four stated civil rights: the right to travel freely without a pass, the right to freedom of speech, the right to hold public meetings on political issues, and the right to keep and carry arms.  Of these four rights, only one of them can be said to correlate directly to the Bill of Rights: the right of freedom of speech.  The rest have no connection to the Bill of Rights.  And to assume that the phrase “to keep and carry arms” is directly related to the second amendment is a stretch, since the language between the two statements has only a superficial correlation.  These stated civil rights in bold do not represent the contents of the Bill of Rights, and thus cannot be interpreted as a general reference to that document; and the phrase “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” does not represent the second amendment directly; for these reasons, there is simply no argument that this passage from *Dred Scott* supports second amendment rights.

Of the four stated civil rights, it would appear that Justice Taney mentions two of them as allusions to previously mentioned statutes: the line “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” correlates to the aforementioned 1815 New Hampshire militia law which excluded black people from militia service; and an even more obvious connection is made between the line “the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased . . . without pass or passport” and the 1774 Connecticut law requiring black people to carry a pass while traveling.

The other two stated civil rights -- freedom of speech and the right to hold public meetings -- appear to be outliers of this pattern, as they appear to have been mentioned without any aforementioned precedent in state law.  However, there might still be a particular reason why Justice Taney saw fit to mention these particular rights.  It so happens that most of the items listed in the bolded excerpt are also stipulated in the Declaration of Rights in the 1820 Missouri State Constitution.  This is especially relevant since the *Dred Scott* case centered on whether the plaintiff was still considered a slave in the slave state of Missouri after having gained his freedom after traveling to the free state of Illinois.  Notably, the two outlier items are also addressed in the Missouri Constitution.

The statement from *Dred Scott* which says “and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak” appears to correlate with Article 13, Clause 16:

>That the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and that every person may freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

 And the statement “to hold public meetings upon political affairs” appears to correlate with Article 13, Clause 2:

>That the people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering and abolishing their constitution and form of government, whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness.

Furthermore, in addition to their connection to the discriminatory laws already established within the text of *Dred Scott*, the remaining two items from the excerpt also appear to have correlates in the Missouri Constitution as well.  The statement about the right of a citizen “to enter every other State whenever they pleased” appears to correlate with a clause in Article 3, section 26:

>It shall be their \[the general assembly’s\] duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary--1. To prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in this State, under any pretext whatsoever;

 And it also seems to correlate with Article 13, Clause 21:

> That migration from this state cannot be prohibited.

And the statement “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” appears to correlate with the state arms provision in part of Article 13, Clause 3:

>that their right to bear arms, in defense of themselves and of the state, cannot be questioned.

Compared to the second amendment, this arms provision in the Missouri Constitution seems more pertinent to the arms statement mentioned in the *Dred Scott* decision, since this provision specifically qualifies the lawful purposes for which the right to bear arms may be exercised, which the second amendment does not do.

**Conclusion**

Some might say that it only makes sense that Justice Taney is referring to the federal Bill of Rights in the bolded excerpt because he is speaking on behalf of the United States Supreme Court, which is a federal body.  However, this interpretation is uninformed.  When we look at the actual context of the *Dred Scott* decision, it is clear that the particular point that Justice Taney is making in that excerpt pertains much more to state law than to federal law.  Even though the decision that Justice Taney is making is a federal decision, he is clearly making this federal decision based on state premises.

It has never been the primary prerogative of the federal government to grant rights to American citizens.  It is state governments that have the primary authority and function of specifying and granting civil rights.  Hence, Justice Taney wasn't saying that making black people into citizens -- at the federal level -- would give them rights; his point was that federally making black people into citizens would effectively negate the prohibitive laws that the states have established in order to subjugate their black populations.  In other words, making black people into citizens would create a kind of "double negative" whose effect is a positive: it would not actually give them anything, but instead would *take away* the laws that *take away* their liberties.  The verbiage "it would *give* to persons of the negro race..." is hence metaphorical rather than literal.  It's like if a judge were to exonerate a convicted prison inmate through DNA evidence: the judge isn't actually *giving* the inmate his freedom; the judge is just *removing* his incarceration.  Thus, it is merely the result of a quirk of language and rhetoric that Justice Taney *appears* to be affirming that American citizens are entitled to the liberty to keep and carry arms wherever they go.  But for gun advocates to take this rhetoric literally, as they often do, is simply a wrong conclusion to draw

As for the content of the bolded excerpt, I can’t say how purposeful or how arbitrary this particular assortment of rights was meant to be.  At least two of the four items appear to be references to state laws which he had previously referenced, yet he breaks this pattern with the other two items, which do not have any statutory precursor in *Dred Scott*; and there are even more state laws referenced earlier that he *does not* allude to in the bolded list.  And furthermore, all of the items in the list could be said to have correlates in the 1820 Missouri Constitution; but it is not clear whether Justice Taney was actually alluding to that constitution in particular -- because of its relevance to the case at hand, or if he was referencing any other state constitution.  In summary, I don’t know exactly why Justice Taney chose the particular list of items that he chose in the bolded excerpt of his majority opinion in *Dred Scott*; however, I can say with much more confidence what this excerpt *does not* indicate.  He is not referencing the federal Bill of Rights as a whole; he is not referencing the second amendment in particular; and he is likely not referencing the general liberty of private firearm rights.  Therefore, there is no basis for pro-gun advocates to use this case as a means to argue for firearm rights.

What are your thoughts about my argument?

The Dred Scott case has no relevance to the second amendment

It’s my understanding that gun advocates sometimes use the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford (link) decision to make the argument that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns.  Just a few examples of 2A advocates making this argument are this video, this video, and this video, as well as written examples such as these: link 1, link 2, link 3.  In fact, even Justice Clarence Thomas connects Dred Scott to the second amendment in his opinion for NYSRPA vs Bruen (link).  Most of their argument seems to stem from this excerpt from the opinion in that case written by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney:

More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

The portion I’ve put in bold appears to be what some argue is a synopsis of the federal Bill of Rights, and the statement saying “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” appears to be a reference to the second amendment.  Gun advocates would argue that if the Supreme Court in 1857 believed that the second amendment guaranteed a citizen an individual right to keep and carry a gun, then this must also have been the traditional and authentic interpretation of that amendment.

However, I don’t understand how this argument is valid.  It seems to me that one could only come to the aforementioned conclusion if one has not actually read the context in which the above paragraph appears.  Earlier, Justice Taney had begun his opinion by presenting a list of state laws which placed explicit restrictions upon the rights and privileges of the black populations of the respective states.  These laws dated from colonial times through to the then-present day.  Taney’s reasoning was essentially that it made no sense for a “negro” that was a slave or a descendant of slaves imported from Africa to become a citizen, because the sum of all of the discriminatory and prohibitive laws that had been passed against the black populations strongly indicates that it had been the general will of the individual states to subjugate the black populations in the interest of public peace and security.  And when the individual states ratified the Constitution in order to join into a union under a federal government, the individual states vested to the federal government the protection of their peace and safety; and thus, it would be inappropriate for the federal government to betray this trust by giving citizenship to a demographic which the individual states themselves had seen fit to subjugate.

 Among the list of discriminatory laws he mentions, the first is a 1717 law from Maryland which declared

”that if any free negro or mulatto intermarry with any white woman, or if any white man shall intermarry with any negro or mulatto woman, such negro or mulatto shall become a slave during life, excepting mulattoes born of white women, who, for such intermarriage, shall only become servants for seven years, to be disposed of as the justices of the county court where such marriage so happens shall think fit, to be applied by them towards the support of a public school within the said county. And any white man or white woman who shall intermarry as aforesaid with any negro or mulatto, such white man or white woman shall become servants during the term of seven years, and shall be disposed of by the justices as aforesaid, and be applied to the uses aforesaid.&quot;

 Then he mentions a 1705 Massachusetts law which declared that

&quot;if any negro or mulatto shall presume to smite or strike any person of the English or other Christian nation, such negro or mulatto shall be severely whipped, at the discretion of the justices before whom the offender shall be convicted.&quot;

 And another law from the same state declares

&quot;that none of her Majesty&#39;s English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto; nor shall any person, duly authorized to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in marriage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pounds; one moiety thereof to her Majesty, for and towards the support of the Government within this province, and the other moiety to him or them that shall inform and sue for the same, in any of her Majesty&#39;s courts of record within the province, by bill, plaint, or information.&quot;

 He later on mentions a 1774 Connecticut provision

by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged without a written pass such as is therein described was made liable to be seized by anyone, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master -- who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent section of the same law provides that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that, up to that time, free negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State.

 And then another Connecticut law in 1833 which…

made it penal to set up or establish any school in that State for the instruction of persons of the African race not inhabitants of the State, or to instruct or teach in any such school or institution, or board or harbor for that purpose, any such person without the previous consent in writing of the civil authority of the town in which such school or institution might be.

 Justice Taney mentions a provision in New Hampshire  in 1815, in which

no one was permitted to be enrolled in the militia of the State but free white citizens, and the same provision is found in a subsequent collection of the laws made in 1855. Nothing could more strongly mark the entire repudiation of the African race. The alien is excluded because, being born in a foreign country, he cannot be a member of the community until he is naturalized. But why are the African race, born in the State, not permitted to share in one of the highest duties of the citizen? The answer is obvious; he is not, by the institutions and laws of the State, numbered among its people. He forms no part of the sovereignty of the State, and is not therefore called on to uphold and defend it.

 And finally he mentions an 1822 Rhode Island law

forbidding persons who were authorized to join persons in marriage from joining in marriage any white person with any negro, Indian, or mulatto, under the penalty of two hundred dollars, and declaring all such marriages absolutely null and void, and the same law was again reenacted in its revised code of 1844. So that, down to the last-mentioned period, the strongest mark of inferiority and degradation was fastened upon the African race in that State.

 It is after his list of such restrictive and discriminatory laws that Justice Taney extrapolates that if it was the will of the states to exclude the black population from the status of citizenship within each of their respective dominions, then it is only appropriate that the same demographic be excluded from citizenship by the national government into which the respective states had vested their collective interests.  As Taney states,

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety.

 And then it is here where Taney states the excerpt which pro-gun advocates so often emphasize:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Upon looking at the larger context of this excerpt, it would seem that the excerpt doesn’t actually mean what the pro-gun advocates interpret it to mean.  First of all, it would seem that some of the items within this excerpt correlate with the prohibitive laws previously mentioned.  The first is when he mentions “the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased . . . without pass or passport . . . .”  This correlates with the aforementioned 1774 Connecticut provision that required people of color to carry a pass when wandering outside the town of their residence.  And the second correlated item is -- in my interpretation -- the infamous line “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went”.   I understand this line to be an allusion to the 1815 New Hampshire law which limited the right of militia duty to only free white citizens of the state.

Gun-rights advocates would likely interpret the latter line to refer to the text of the second amendment, and to refer to an individual right to own and carry guns for private purposes, such as self defense or sport.  However, it makes no sense for the line “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” to refer to the text of the second amendment.  Even though this line may sound similar to the line “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, they are not the same, and the differences between the two are not at all negligible.  First of all, the second amendment refers to the right to “bear arms”, while the line from Dred Scott says “carry arms”.  The modern reader may simply see these two phrases as synonymous, but they are not.  The meaning of “carry arms” is straightforward, consisting of a transitive verb acting upon a noun; but the phrase “bear arms” does not actually refer to the carrying of arms, but rather is itself a phrasal verb and an idiomatic expression.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary -- the most authoritative resource on the English language -- the expression “bear arms” originated around AD 1325, and is correlated with the Latin phrase arma ferre, likely being simply a direct translation of the Latin.  Also according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase is defined simply as “To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc.).”  The sense of the phrase &quot;the right to bear arms&quot; in the sense that pro-gun advocates typically use the phrase is, according to the Oxford dictionary, an originally and chiefly American re-definition of the phrase, originating circa 1776.  Hence, the second amendment references the right of the people to keep arms and to fight and/or serve as a soldier; while the Dred Scott line instead references the right to keep arms and carry arms.

Furthermore, the Dred Scott line also differs from the second amendment by including the modifier “wherever they went”.  No such modifier exists in the second amendment.  In fact, the second amendment is merely a prohibitive provision, one which is applied against Congress itself, and does not directly apply any affirmative granting of rights to the people.  It makes no sense to interpret an absolute prohibition against Congress as somehow establishing a modified affirming of rights to the people.  Because of these linguistic and textual details, it is, at best, quite a stretch to claim that the phrase “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” is somehow a meaningful reference to the second amendment.

Some might alternatively argue that the line, rather than referring to the text of the second amendment specifically, is instead referring to the liberty of private gun use in general.  But what makes much more sense is that the line “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went”, instead of referring to private gun use, actually refers to militia duty.  It was customary in early America for militiamen to possess arms -- such as muskets or rifles -- in their personal custody (i.e. “to keep arms”), and to literally carry them wherever they went.  We can see evidence of this from numerous militia-related laws from early America from colonial times until the 20th century.  On example is a New York law from 1640:

ORDINANCE

Of the Director and Council of New Netherland, providing for the Arming and mustering of the Militia in case of danger. Passed 9 May, 1640.

[N.Y. Col. MSS. IV. 61.]

The Honble Director and Council have considered it advisable to ordain that the Inhabitants residing at and around Fort Amsterdam, of what state, quality or condition soever they be, shall each provide himself with a good gun and keep the same in good repair and at all times ready and in order; and as they live at a distance the one from the other, every warned person is placed under his Corporal in order that in time of danger he may appear at his post with his gun. Should it happen, which God forbid, that any mischief occur either from enemies or traitors at night, the people will be notified by the discharge of three cannon fired in quick succession; and if by day, means will be found to give warning to every one, who is commanded thereupon to repair instantly to his Corporal at the place appointed and then to adopt such measures as the exigency of the case shall require, on pain of being fined Fifty guilders. [link]

 A Delaware law from 1782:

And be it Enacted, That every Person between the Ages of eighteen and fifty, or who may hereafter attain to the Age of eighteen Years (Clergymen and Preachers of the Gospel of every Denomination, Judges of the Supreme Court, Sheriffs, Keepers of the public Gaols, School-Masters teaching a Latin School, or having at least twenty English Scholars, and indented Servants bona Fide purchased, excepted) who is rated at Six Pounds, or upwards, towards the Payment of public Taxes, shall, at his own Expence, provide himself; and every Apprentice, or other Person, of the Age of eighteen and under twenty-one Years who hath an Estate of the Value of Eighty Pounds, or whose Parent is rated at Eighteen Pounds towards the public Taxes, shall, by his Parent or Guardian, respectively, be provided with a Musket or Firelock with a Bayonet, a Cartouch-Box to contain twenty-three Cartridges, a Priming-Wire, a Brush and six Flints, all in good Order, on or before the first Day of June next, and shall keep the same by him at all Times, ready and fit for Service, under the Penalty of Twenty Shillings for every two Months Neglect or Default, to be paid by such Person, if of full Age, or by the Parent or Guardian of such as are under twenty-one Years, the same Arms and Accoutrements to be charged by the Guardian to his Ward, and allowed at settling the Accounts of his Guardianship. [link]

 Here is the first section of a 1770 Georgia law related to the carrying of arms in church:

Whereas it is necessary for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections, that all persons resorting to places of public worship shall be obliged to carry fire arms:

I.  Be it enacted, That immediately from and after the passing of this act, every male white inhabitant of this province, (the inhabitants of the sea port towns only excepted, who shall not be obliged to carry any other than side arms) who is or shall be liable to bear arms in the milita, either at common musters or times of alarm, and resorting, on any Sunday or other times, to any church, or other place of divine worship within within the parish where such person shall reside, shall carry with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gunpowder and ball, and shall take the said gun or pistols with him to the pew or seat where such person shall sit, remain, or be, within or about the said church or place of worship, under the penalty of ten shillings for every neglect of the same, to be recovered by warrant of distress and sale of the offender&#39;s goods, under the hand and seal of any justice of the peace for the parish where such offence is committed, one half to be paid into the hands of the church wardens, or where there is no church wardens to any justice, for the use of the poor of the said parish, and the other half to him or them that shall give imformation thereof. [link]

 A 1779 law from Vermont:

That every listed soldier and other householder, shall always be provided with, and have in constant readiness, a well fixed firelock, the barrel not less than three feet and a half long, or other good firearms, to the satisfaction of the commissioned officers of the company to which he doth belong, or in the limits of which he dwells; a good sword, cutlass, tomahawk or bayonet; a worm, and priming wire, fit for each gun; a cartouch box or powder and bullet pouch; one pound of good powder, four pounds of bullets for his gun, and six good flints; on penalty of eighteen shillings, for want of such arms and ammunition as is hereby required, and six shillings for each defect; and like sum for every weeks he shall remain unprovided[.] [link]

 An 1805 law from New Orleans:

And be if further enacted, That each non-commissioned officer and private of the infantry, shall constantly keep himself provided with good musket or guns, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints and a knapsack, a cartridge box or pouch, with box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges… [link]

And here are a few more links to other similar militia laws:

1786 New Hampshire

1631 Virginia

1632 Virginia

1642 Virginia

So it would seem that with a deeper understanding of the workings of the militia during early American history, the modifier “wherever they went” should more sensibly be correlated with the common practices surrounding compulsory militia service, rather than being correlated with any sort of voluntary liberty of carrying arms for private purposes.

The connection that the pro-gun community makes between Dred Scott and the second amendment is tenuous at best.  Within the passage in bold from Dred Scott, there are four stated civil rights: the right to travel freely without a pass, the right to freedom of speech, the right to hold public meetings on political issues, and the right to keep and carry arms.  Of these four rights, only one of them can be said to correlate directly to the Bill of Rights: the right of freedom of speech.  The rest have no connection to the Bill of Rights.  And to assume that the phrase “to keep and carry arms” is directly related to the second amendment is a stretch, since the language between the two statements has only a superficial correlation.  These stated civil rights in bold do not represent the contents of the Bill of Rights, and thus cannot be interpreted as a general reference to that document; and the phrase “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” does not represent the second amendment directly; for these reasons, there is simply no argument that this passage from Dred Scott supports second amendment rights.

Of the four stated civil rights, it would appear that Justice Taney mentions two of them as allusions to previously mentioned statutes: the line “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” correlates to the aforementioned 1815 New Hampshire militia law which excluded black people from militia service; and an even more obvious connection is made between the line “the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased . . . without pass or passport” and the 1774 Connecticut law requiring black people to carry a pass while traveling.

The other two stated civil rights -- freedom of speech and the right to hold public meetings -- appear to be outliers of this pattern, as they appear to have been mentioned without any aforementioned precedent in state law.  However, there might still be a particular reason why Justice Taney saw fit to mention these particular rights.  It so happens that most of the items listed in the bolded excerpt are also stipulated in the Declaration of Rights in the 1820 Missouri State Constitution.  This is especially relevant since the Dred Scott case centered on whether the plaintiff was still considered a slave in the slave state of Missouri after having gained his freedom after traveling to the free state of Illinois.  Notably, the two outlier items are also addressed in the Missouri Constitution.

The statement from Dred Scott which says “and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak” appears to correlate with Article 13, Clause 16:

That the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and that every person may freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

 And the statement “to hold public meetings upon political affairs” appears to correlate with Article 13, Clause 2:

That the people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering and abolishing their constitution and form of government, whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness.

Furthermore, in addition to their connection to the discriminatory laws already established within the text of Dred Scott, the remaining two items from the excerpt also appear to have correlates in the Missouri Constitution as well.  The statement about the right of a citizen “to enter every other State whenever they pleased” appears to correlate with a clause in Article 3, section 26:

It shall be their [the general assembly’s] duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary--1. To prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in this State, under any pretext whatsoever;

 And it also seems to correlate with Article 13, Clause 21:

 That migration from this state cannot be prohibited.

And the statement “and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” appears to correlate with the state arms provision in part of Article 13, Clause 3:

that their right to bear arms, in defense of themselves and of the state, cannot be questioned.

Compared to the second amendment, this arms provision in the Missouri Constitution seems more pertinent to the arms statement mentioned in the Dred Scott decision, since this provision specifically qualifies the lawful purposes for which the right to bear arms may be exercised, which the second amendment does not do.

Conclusion

Some might say that it only makes sense that Justice Taney is referring to the federal Bill of Rights in the bolded excerpt because he is speaking on behalf of the United States Supreme Court, which is a federal body.  However, this interpretation is uninformed.  When we look at the actual context of the Dred Scott decision, it is clear that the particular point that Justice Taney is making in that excerpt pertains much more to state law than to federal law.  Even though the decision that Justice Taney is making is a federal decision, he is clearly making this federal decision based on state premises.

It has never been the primary prerogative of the federal government to grant rights to American citizens.  It is state governments that have the primary authority and function of specifying and granting civil rights.  Hence, Justice Taney wasn&#39;t saying that making black people into citizens -- at the federal level -- would give them rights; his point was that federally making black people into citizens would effectively negate the prohibitive laws that the states have established in order to subjugate their black populations.  In other words, making black people into citizens would create a kind of &quot;double negative&quot; whose effect is a positive: it would not actually give them anything, but instead would take away the laws that take away their liberties.  The verbiage &quot;it would give to persons of the negro race...&quot; is hence metaphorical rather than literal.  It&#39;s like if a judge were to exonerate a convicted prison inmate through DNA evidence: the judge isn&#39;t actually giving the inmate his freedom; the judge is just removing his incarceration.  Thus, it is merely the result of a quirk of language and rhetoric that Justice Taney appears to be affirming that American citizens are entitled to the liberty to keep and carry arms wherever they go.  But for gun advocates to take this rhetoric literally, as they often do, is simply a wrong conclusion to draw

As for the content of the bolded excerpt, I can’t say how purposeful or how arbitrary this particular assortment of rights was meant to be.  At least two of the four items appear to be references to state laws which he had previously referenced, yet he breaks this pattern with the other two items, which do not have any statutory precursor in Dred Scott; and there are even more state laws referenced earlier that he does not allude to in the bolded list.  And furthermore, all of the items in the list could be said to have correlates in the 1820 Missouri Constitution; but it is not clear whether Justice Taney was actually alluding to that constitution in particular -- because of its relevance to the case at hand, or if he was referencing any other state constitution.  In summary, I don’t know exactly why Justice Taney chose the particular list of items that he chose in the bolded excerpt of his majority opinion in Dred Scott; however, I can say with much more confidence what this excerpt does not indicate.  He is not referencing the federal Bill of Rights as a whole; he is not referencing the second amendment in particular; and he is likely not referencing the general liberty of private firearm rights.  Therefore, there is no basis for pro-gun advocates to use this case as a means to argue for firearm rights.

What are your thoughts about my argument?


so Latinos are either criminals or farm workers to the Trump administration, got it
[https://apnews.com/article/trump-white-house-spanish-language-website-62224890c5b05c8ce0878358ba4a5266?utm\_source=firefox-newtab-en-us](https://apnews.com/article/trump-white-house-spanish-language-website-62224890c5b05c8ce0878358ba4a5266?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us)

Conservatives accuse liberals of being racist for associating Latinos with labor, but Trump’s administration just wiped most .gov en Español pages, leaving only Labor, Justice, and Agriculture

so Latinos are either criminals or farm workers to the Trump administration, got it

https://apnews.com/article/trump-white-house-spanish-language-website-62224890c5b05c8ce0878358ba4a5266?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us


I know 20+ liberals who own Teslas or Starlink, with a few Powerwalls in Phoenix, etc. etc. If you’re a liberal and own a Tesla or any Elon Musk product, it’s time to sell it—and any shares you hold in Elon Musk companies—to someone whose political ideology is more aligned with his.

When you meet the buyer to complete the transaction, I suggest adopting the emerging conservative salute: raise your hand to your chest and then extend it outward at a 45-degree angle, aggressively yet straight. This reassures the potentially autistic buyer that you are familiar with the long-established and frequently cited (at least in America) norms and salutations of the Roman Republic.

Joking aside, Elon causes harm to marginalized and vulnerable communities and remains unapologetic when it’s brought to his attention. He has the capacity to do significantly more harm if he chooses—and it seems he does. This divestment isn’t about “sending a message” though it may; it’s about finding peace of mind. Should significant harm befall his perceived enemies, at least you can say you had no part in it.

To help you get in the right mindset, here’s an artist’s interpretation of this Nazi-lover returning your money:

卐 (ಠ益ಠ)つ💰 --> (ಥ‿ಥ)

It is time to sell your Tesla and divest of Elon Musk companies for real now.

I know 20+ liberals who own Teslas or Starlink, with a few Powerwalls in Phoenix, etc. etc. If you’re a liberal and own a Tesla or any Elon Musk product, it’s time to sell it—and any shares you hold in Elon Musk companies—to someone whose political ideology is more aligned with his.

When you meet the buyer to complete the transaction, I suggest adopting the emerging conservative salute: raise your hand to your chest and then extend it outward at a 45-degree angle, aggressively yet straight. This reassures the potentially autistic buyer that you are familiar with the long-established and frequently cited (at least in America) norms and salutations of the Roman Republic.

Joking aside, Elon causes harm to marginalized and vulnerable communities and remains unapologetic when it’s brought to his attention. He has the capacity to do significantly more harm if he chooses—and it seems he does. This divestment isn’t about “sending a message” though it may; it’s about finding peace of mind. Should significant harm befall his perceived enemies, at least you can say you had no part in it.

To help you get in the right mindset, here’s an artist’s interpretation of this Nazi-lover returning your money:

卐 (ಠ益ಠ)つ💰 --&gt; (ಥ‿ಥ)


Meta admits some people can’t unfollow Donald Trump on Instagram


Trump BS aside, as thats an entirely different conversation. If were going to talk shit about trump and say he should "know the science" then the people making that comment should "know the science".

We used to believe this was true. however we now know it is not. Embryos start out "undifferentiated" and then become male or female depending on chromosome content.

Here is a video by a Dr describing how the process works. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW1TVaEFLcI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW1TVaEFLcI)

Just so were all clear, human embryos do NOT start out female

Trump BS aside, as thats an entirely different conversation. If were going to talk shit about trump and say he should &quot;know the science&quot; then the people making that comment should &quot;know the science&quot;.

We used to believe this was true. however we now know it is not. Embryos start out &quot;undifferentiated&quot; and then become male or female depending on chromosome content.

Here is a video by a Dr describing how the process works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW1TVaEFLcI


Few support ICE arrests in schools, churches


When a citizen has more respect for the laws in this country than the sitting US President...

Convicted US Capitol rioter Pam Hemphill turns down Trump pardon


Title says it. I’ve used Google News for years. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Best News aggregate app, in the age of tech oligarchy?


I know the 2nd amendment can at times be a very sensitive topic, and it's one I totally understand.

But in times like these it's best to remember we are Americans(those of us who's right to bear arms is outlined in the American constitution)

And as such we should not be ashamed or afraid of exercising our right as American citizens.

I think the 2nd amendment is pretty based. And as someone who leans left, think more left leaning people should engage in our constitutional rights.

I know the 2nd amendment can at times be a very sensitive topic, and it&#39;s one I totally understand.

But in times like these it&#39;s best to remember we are Americans(those of us who&#39;s right to bear arms is outlined in the American constitution)

And as such we should not be ashamed or afraid of exercising our right as American citizens.


I believe that, even after all these years, the GOP is still mad, angry, or even humiliated by this very comment: “I’m speaking.” And she was speaking. I saw on the news today that DT even mentioned something to the effect of “he’s speaking.” 🙄 It feels like the right is still trying to make us pay for that moment and for her voice.

That said, I absolutely love Kamala Harris and am so thankful for her voice. I hope that we, as liberals, always remain united—because we are speaking. We still have a voice, and no matter how much they try to shut us down, we are unapologetically, truly courageous, this isn’t fabricated, bought, or an act, courage is who we are.

I think during her campaign she was definitely trying to warn us— what was to come, if he were elected. And here we are— it has begun.

Peace, love, & light.

Kamala’s ‘I’m Speaking”

I believe that, even after all these years, the GOP is still mad, angry, or even humiliated by this very comment: “I’m speaking.” And she was speaking. I saw on the news today that DT even mentioned something to the effect of “he’s speaking.” 🙄 It feels like the right is still trying to make us pay for that moment and for her voice.

That said, I absolutely love Kamala Harris and am so thankful for her voice. I hope that we, as liberals, always remain united—because we are speaking. We still have a voice, and no matter how much they try to shut us down, we are unapologetically, truly courageous, this isn’t fabricated, bought, or an act, courage is who we are.

I think during her campaign she was definitely trying to warn us— what was to come, if he were elected. And here we are— it has begun.

Peace, love, &amp; light.


I am stirring trying to understand how to fight back. What organizations can I give my time, effort and financial support to make legitimate impact? I don’t want to join a virtue signaling circle j***. I want to do something that is going to bring the political resistance to the forefront. Anyone have suggestions? I need to preface, I don’t seek violence, but I do want civil disobedience, something to the effect of great disrupters like the freedom riders. We need to build a movement, something definitively more targeted and serious than the attitude taken during the last 8 years.

How do we Resist?


His executive order says your sex at conception determines your gender/sex

All embryos are female at conception male characteristics don’t develop until 8 weeks or so.

That’s makes everyone in the us female according to Cheeto

We’re all women now according to Cheeto


The Trickster Archetype of Trump is an old tale. We've got tools to work through this.


Anyone else have friends or family whose Instagram accounts have unexpectedly followed trump, melania, and vance? My wife had to unfollow the group multiple times today when she never initiated it.

Unexpected follows


Doctors Without Borders: 'Trump’s new executive orders on migration are a devastating step backward'


How many of us will quit Instagram, facebook, and stop using/watching Amazon? I never post on Instagram, only use it to see potters (many of whom use it for their living), I do use Amazon, am not on Facebook. The billionaires are influencing everything, the only way to affect them is in the pocketbook, but how many of us will actually do it? Myself included. That’s the thing with Americans, we’re too comfortable to create real change.

Will we put our money where our mouth is?


Some have defended Elon’s Sieg Heil at the White House as being a "Roman salute." Right. Even some very liberal people are tired of hearing the Nazi comparisons. I strongly agree, and when these men stop acting like Nazis, we can stop making the comparisons.

Fascism is a virus that exploits a decent person’s good nature and desire for patience and understanding. It twists your desire for normalcy into a weapon and turns it back on you. If you do not speak out or act against it, you are complicit in it. It cannot be voted away (if that’s not already obvious). Patience and “understanding” are its fuel. The Nazi does not speak in your language; its only form of communication is fear and violence. You cannot “wait it out,” as no amount of blood can satiate it. It isn’t tied to a single person or party—though it often prefers the right—it will inhabit whatever host isn’t actively fighting it. It is, in effect, a living, breathing villain with unlimited time and resources at its disposal—like Satan.

Four hundred thousand American grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and others gave their lives fighting fascism, with many millions more gravely injured or scarred by trauma. Many of us have seen the legacy of this damage firsthand. The absurdity of a man now making the hand gesture meant to praise Hitler and swear loyalty to him spits on that sacrifice. In fact, “spits on” is an understatement; it’s the biggest “fuck you” I can imagine being made to a veteran of that era.

And because no block of text on an issue of this magnitude is complete without an adjoining quote:
“If there are nine people and one Nazi at a table, there are ten Nazis at the table.”

It was a Nazi salute full stop.

Some have defended Elon’s Sieg Heil at the White House as being a &quot;Roman salute.&quot; Right. Even some very liberal people are tired of hearing the Nazi comparisons. I strongly agree, and when these men stop acting like Nazis, we can stop making the comparisons.

Fascism is a virus that exploits a decent person’s good nature and desire for patience and understanding. It twists your desire for normalcy into a weapon and turns it back on you. If you do not speak out or act against it, you are complicit in it. It cannot be voted away (if that’s not already obvious). Patience and “understanding” are its fuel. The Nazi does not speak in your language; its only form of communication is fear and violence. You cannot “wait it out,” as no amount of blood can satiate it. It isn’t tied to a single person or party—though it often prefers the right—it will inhabit whatever host isn’t actively fighting it. It is, in effect, a living, breathing villain with unlimited time and resources at its disposal—like Satan.

Four hundred thousand American grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and others gave their lives fighting fascism, with many millions more gravely injured or scarred by trauma. Many of us have seen the legacy of this damage firsthand. The absurdity of a man now making the hand gesture meant to praise Hitler and swear loyalty to him spits on that sacrifice. In fact, “spits on” is an understatement; it’s the biggest “fuck you” I can imagine being made to a veteran of that era.

And because no block of text on an issue of this magnitude is complete without an adjoining quote:

“If there are nine people and one Nazi at a table, there are ten Nazis at the table.”


Supreme Court rejects Republican-backed Montana case based on controversial election law theory


AITOO?

I have no emotions left...I skipped the entire inauguration and coverage yesterday until late evening when I caught the late night host reactions. I went to bed feeling weird, but still "here".

today I woke up and caught up on all the "real" reaction videos and read articles from sources I still trust (somewhat) and I'm just numb. I'm done being mad, sad, disgusted, enraged, depressed or motivated. I feel nothing atm.

I'm currently looking for a job and have been out of work for months, I can't do manual labor or gig work because a surgeon fucked my hands and nerves up, not because I don't want to (my career field is tech and I was already being aged out of my sector by AI) my last hope was Harris and the tech sector she was going to bring in...now I find out trump just deleted all that with a fucking sharpie.

I've been depressed and unmotivated for a while bc I couldn't find a lawyer willing to take me on as a med-mal or PI case when I have proof from other Drs saying he did the wrong surgery and today just pushed me over, I'll never get anything into any court now and I'll never get insurance to pay for the corrective surgeries.

but even MORE than myself, I have family and friends who are now a **direct target** of trump.I guess the *one* emotion I do have left is fear for them.

**NO, I don't have SI. i'd never put my family thru that and I'd never leave my dog IYKYK**

**maybe just vent along with me?**  let's collectively cry about it and find some support and motivation from empathetic internet strangers who get it.

I am alone here in how I'm feeling?

I've passed rage and moved on to apathy. vent with me.

AITOO?

I have no emotions left...I skipped the entire inauguration and coverage yesterday until late evening when I caught the late night host reactions. I went to bed feeling weird, but still &quot;here&quot;.

today I woke up and caught up on all the &quot;real&quot; reaction videos and read articles from sources I still trust (somewhat) and I&#39;m just numb. I&#39;m done being mad, sad, disgusted, enraged, depressed or motivated. I feel nothing atm.

I&#39;m currently looking for a job and have been out of work for months, I can&#39;t do manual labor or gig work because a surgeon fucked my hands and nerves up, not because I don&#39;t want to (my career field is tech and I was already being aged out of my sector by AI) my last hope was Harris and the tech sector she was going to bring in...now I find out trump just deleted all that with a fucking sharpie.

I&#39;ve been depressed and unmotivated for a while bc I couldn&#39;t find a lawyer willing to take me on as a med-mal or PI case when I have proof from other Drs saying he did the wrong surgery and today just pushed me over, I&#39;ll never get anything into any court now and I&#39;ll never get insurance to pay for the corrective surgeries.

but even MORE than myself, I have family and friends who are now a direct target of trump.I guess the one emotion I do have left is fear for them.

NO, I don&#39;t have SI. i&#39;d never put my family thru that and I&#39;d never leave my dog IYKYK

maybe just vent along with me?  let&#39;s collectively cry about it and find some support and motivation from empathetic internet strangers who get it.

I am alone here in how I&#39;m feeling?


They assaulted cops and tried to overturn an election. What to know about Trump’s mass pardons for January 6 rioters


This week has been rough on all of us. As much as the next four years are going to be train wreck and heartbreak, I’m trying to look at better days ahead.

So tell me, if we actually do have a free and fair election in 2028 and the left-liberal side wins, who do you want to see in the administration? Give me some names of some good people from politics, the private sector, academia, etc to make up your dream administration for January, 2029.

Some offices to fill:

President:

Vice-President:

Chief of Staff:

Secretary of State:

Secretary of the Treasury:

Secretary of Defense:

Attorney General:

Secretary of the Interior:

Secretary of Agriculture:

Secretary of Commerce:

Secretary of Labor:

Secretary of HHS:

Secretary of HUS:

Secretary of Transportation:

Secretary of Energy:

Secretary of Education:

Secretary of Veterans Affairs:

Secretary of Homeland Security:

Feel free to add or subtract to this.

A Dream Administration for 2029


My cousin posted an imagine of a trash man taking out trash with Kamala and Biden’s face. Can someone help me craft the perfect clap back?

For context we are immigrants, he has a son that gained citizenship through birthright.

Thanks in advance!

Help with confronting a family member


Volunteer. It will help you meet other people who volunteer, and remind you that there are still kind people left on earth.

Invite friends to a board games night. Cultivate a community of people you like, and try to spend as much time as you can with those people. That way your idle hours will be filled more with memories of those people, and less with arguments you've had with strangers on the internet.

Set up recurring donations to local organisations. Invest locally. If we all invest locally, we'll gradually build a large network of small communities that are closer knit. Donate money to your local homeless shelter or domestic violence shelter. Buy from a local business. Buy art from a local artist.

Take up a new hobby. Get off the internet. Things will always seem worse online than they really are. Find something engrossing you can do away from the computer. A new hobby is also a great way to make new friends and cultivate a community.

Send a physical letter to someone.

"Like" a post on LinkedIn by someone you like but haven't spoken to in a while.

Volunteer with a local climate change organization. Climate change can happen at a local level as well. Go to their next meetup and figure out what policies they are pushing for locally, and help push for them. They probably organize trash pickup days. Go to the next one.

Book a vacation for yourself. Leaving your physical space also helps you leave your headspace, and recognize that there are still plenty of good things in life.

Things you can do right now.

Volunteer. It will help you meet other people who volunteer, and remind you that there are still kind people left on earth.

Invite friends to a board games night. Cultivate a community of people you like, and try to spend as much time as you can with those people. That way your idle hours will be filled more with memories of those people, and less with arguments you&#39;ve had with strangers on the internet.

Set up recurring donations to local organisations. Invest locally. If we all invest locally, we&#39;ll gradually build a large network of small communities that are closer knit. Donate money to your local homeless shelter or domestic violence shelter. Buy from a local business. Buy art from a local artist.

Take up a new hobby. Get off the internet. Things will always seem worse online than they really are. Find something engrossing you can do away from the computer. A new hobby is also a great way to make new friends and cultivate a community.

Send a physical letter to someone.

&quot;Like&quot; a post on LinkedIn by someone you like but haven&#39;t spoken to in a while.

Volunteer with a local climate change organization. Climate change can happen at a local level as well. Go to their next meetup and figure out what policies they are pushing for locally, and help push for them. They probably organize trash pickup days. Go to the next one.

Book a vacation for yourself. Leaving your physical space also helps you leave your headspace, and recognize that there are still plenty of good things in life.


How Trump’s immigration plans could affect care for your elderly parents


Trump signs executive actions on Jan. 6, TikTok, immigration and more


Why the FUCK are any of us still using X? Or instagram or facebook or amazon or TikTok? Be serious. It’s time we remove ourselves.

It’s time to go


Trump signed an [executive order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/) designating Cartel as global terrorists. When (predictably) asked if they will target Cartel in Mexico, Trump said "Maybe" and that "stranger things have happened" along with a promise "to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gang criminal networks."  When asked how México may feel about it, Trump said to ask them how they feel (I am anxiously awaiting Sheinbaum's response).

I personally have been keeping up with Sheinbaum as a president, and she is very serious. She is Mexico's 2nd leftist president in decades, the first being her predecesor Obrador (AMLO). The interesting thing is that Obrador cleaned up a ton of government corruption and illegal activity, embezzlement etc. The Cartel is still active (in some areas more than others) but it's not close to how bad it was 30+ years ago. Sheinbaum is more leftist than he is and is furthering what he started. But make no mistake she is very no-nonsense and has clearly been preparing for whatever the U.S. may try once Trump took office. They have been moving Mexico to be less dependent on the U.S. by increasing domestic productions and trading with europe

So, *when* the U.S. inevitably kills Mexican citizens in Mexico because the U.S. has designated them terrorists, what happens next? Mexico very well could consider it an act of terrorism themselves, or just an act of outright war.

What Happens When The U.S. Attacks Cartel in Mexico

Trump signed an executive order designating Cartel as global terrorists. When (predictably) asked if they will target Cartel in Mexico, Trump said &quot;Maybe&quot; and that &quot;stranger things have happened&quot; along with a promise &quot;to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gang criminal networks.&quot;  When asked how México may feel about it, Trump said to ask them how they feel (I am anxiously awaiting Sheinbaum&#39;s response).

I personally have been keeping up with Sheinbaum as a president, and she is very serious. She is Mexico&#39;s 2nd leftist president in decades, the first being her predecesor Obrador (AMLO). The interesting thing is that Obrador cleaned up a ton of government corruption and illegal activity, embezzlement etc. The Cartel is still active (in some areas more than others) but it&#39;s not close to how bad it was 30+ years ago. Sheinbaum is more leftist than he is and is furthering what he started. But make no mistake she is very no-nonsense and has clearly been preparing for whatever the U.S. may try once Trump took office. They have been moving Mexico to be less dependent on the U.S. by increasing domestic productions and trading with europe

So, when the U.S. inevitably kills Mexican citizens in Mexico because the U.S. has designated them terrorists, what happens next? Mexico very well could consider it an act of terrorism themselves, or just an act of outright war.


I, like everyone else here, feel like shit today. So I’m hoping I can find a small glimmer of hope; has anyone considered running for local/state/federal office? Can we help get signatures for you if so? I so badly want more young, idealistic folks in office who care more about making some lasting changes than taking billionaire money and phoning it in.

Anybody here ever considered running for office?


My guess is no. What do you think?

If this country wasn't a total right-wing hellscape and some level of decency still existed, the board of Tesla would immediately fire him, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Will Elon Musk Face Any Consequence for Performing the Sieg Heil?

My guess is no. What do you think?

If this country wasn&#39;t a total right-wing hellscape and some level of decency still existed, the board of Tesla would immediately fire him, but we all know that&#39;s not going to happen.


Videos are being taken down, ppl are being shadow banned, won appealed videos are being surpassed , keywords are being censored , CEO shou reposted Charlie Kirk ( took down after backlash). Ig & twitter are right leaning and that helped get a lot of the youth vote.  A youth myself , I’m telling you we will lose so much more with tiktok . I would say someone please do something but I know they won’t. Whelp.

Well TikTok has fallen - the last major platform that didn’t suppress Dems.

Videos are being taken down, ppl are being shadow banned, won appealed videos are being surpassed , keywords are being censored , CEO shou reposted Charlie Kirk ( took down after backlash). Ig &amp; twitter are right leaning and that helped get a lot of the youth vote.  A youth myself , I’m telling you we will lose so much more with tiktok . I would say someone please do something but I know they won’t. Whelp.


From a rural southern town and raised conservative. I’ve had to re-learn so many things that weren’t ok. Sometimes it feels like I’m a little blue dot in a very red state. It’s a weird experience on good days. On the bad days, I’m forced to question loved ones’ values. I know I’m not the only one. Is there a space for this?

Subreddit recommendations for southern liberal?


Just noticed the craziest coincidence that Elon spoke out very opinionated on “lazy, selfish people thinking they can work at home when other people can’t” and now President Musk, uh I mean Trump, signs an executive order day 1 to ban working from  home from under the entirety of his authority (the federal government.)

Elon advocated for this just a couple of years ago 🤔


I am an amateur writer so please don’t judge but…here goes nothing.

“We Are the Shield”

When the world feels heavy and shadows draw near, I channel the strength of heroes I hold dear. Like Captain Marvel, I rise, bold and free; like Black Panther, I claim the power in me. As a trans, disabled warrior, my spirit won’t yield—Avengers assemble, We are the shield.

A fight poem to help us stay strong these next 4 years


Senate confirms Marco Rubio to lead the State Department


Gg yall. See yall in 4 years


Can we get a list going of all the Trump affiliates doing the "strange" gestures?

List of salutes

Can we get a list going of all the Trump affiliates doing the &quot;strange&quot; gestures?


I listen to a lot of independent media and some MSNBC stuff, but I have the NBC app and get notifications from it just to get the “updates” as soon as something happens. I want to start using something else because I am TIRED of them covering things that aren’t important or not covering things that are. I’m tired of getting “Elon Musk pisses of gamers” etc. What are some good apps for real news?

Best news sources?


Time to get back to work. Fuck Facism and fuck oligarchs. 86 weeks until midterms.

The time of mourning is over.


I know we're exhausted, so if you're like me, you took a break from the news today. Me? I'm knitting and listening to Billy Joel.

What are you doing instead of watching the inauguration?

I know we&#39;re exhausted, so if you&#39;re like me, you took a break from the news today. Me? I&#39;m knitting and listening to Billy Joel.


Trump's authoritarian and jingoistic inaugural remarks make it clear that he intends to steer the country down the path to a less free, less tolerant and imperial future where only people who are ultra conservative socially, politically and religiously will be afforded the freedoms once ensured for all Americans. To a future where other countries will fear us because we will take what we want because "Macht ist Recht", and where they no longer respect us or look up to us for our democratic institutions and ideals and commitment to them.

Dark times are ahead and we must resist them lest society's privileges are enjoyed only by card carrying MAGATs, and the words "USA" become scorned and despised like "Nazi" by future generations around the world. We who do so are true to the vision of America's Founding Fathers, not those loud-mouthed, gun brandishing, flag waving self proclaimed patriots of the right who want their freedoms at the expense of others.

Keep the faith and continue to vote against the dark side (hopefully that is never taken away).  Educate your children, family and friends to know what American democracy is and do all they can to maintain it.

Today We're on the Road to a Fascist Imperial America

Trump&#39;s authoritarian and jingoistic inaugural remarks make it clear that he intends to steer the country down the path to a less free, less tolerant and imperial future where only people who are ultra conservative socially, politically and religiously will be afforded the freedoms once ensured for all Americans. To a future where other countries will fear us because we will take what we want because &quot;Macht ist Recht&quot;, and where they no longer respect us or look up to us for our democratic institutions and ideals and commitment to them.

Dark times are ahead and we must resist them lest society&#39;s privileges are enjoyed only by card carrying MAGATs, and the words &quot;USA&quot; become scorned and despised like &quot;Nazi&quot; by future generations around the world. We who do so are true to the vision of America&#39;s Founding Fathers, not those loud-mouthed, gun brandishing, flag waving self proclaimed patriots of the right who want their freedoms at the expense of others.

Keep the faith and continue to vote against the dark side (hopefully that is never taken away).  Educate your children, family and friends to know what American democracy is and do all they can to maintain it.


President Biden pardons family members in final minutes of presidency


In honor of the late, great Dr. MARTIN Luther King Jr.

I have a dream that one day Donald Trump will not be judged for the hue of his orange skin, but for the content of his shithole character.


I refuse to stream the inauguration, to turn on news, or to see it anywhere online. I will not watch one of the darkest days in our nation's history. I will not be counted in the numbers of those that support that hate and his ego.

Instead, I choose to celebrate MLK Jr only. Today is his day to be remembered and honored. I will cling to an America that was about advancement and equal rights, not one about hate and greed.

Today will not be about watching our nation fall, but it will be about celebrating MLK Jr (a wonderful man/leader).

I refuse to stream the inauguration, to turn on news, or to see it anywhere online. I will not watch one of the darkest days in our nation&#39;s history. I will not be counted in the numbers of those that support that hate and his ego.

Instead, I choose to celebrate MLK Jr only. Today is his day to be remembered and honored. I will cling to an America that was about advancement and equal rights, not one about hate and greed.


I’m absolutely disgusted and heartbroken that today is the day Trump starts another term. How did we let this happen again? After all the lies, the chaos, the blatant disrespect for democracy... This feels like a nightmare we can’t wake up from. It’s not just politics anymore; it’s personal! This man stands for everything hateful and divisive, and now he’s back in power to do even more damage. What happens to our rights? To the progress we’ve fought so hard for? It’s terrifying to think about what’s coming next.

We can’t sit back and let this break us. We have to keep fighting for what’s right. They want us to give up, but we won’t. Not now. Not ever.

A Devastating Step Backwards


President Biden pardons Fauci, Milley and members of Jan. 6 panel


I'm a history buff and out of curiosity surfed the internet today for key events that happened 100 years ago.  Here's the search result:

Dictator Benito Mussolini rose to power in Italy.

Hitler published Mein Kampf, his propaganda manifesto that culminated in the Holocaust.

The Scopes Monkey Trial. A Tennessee public school teacher was tried and convicted in a criminal court for teaching science (Darwin's Theory of Evolution) in school.

Interesting Historical Facts 1925

I&#39;m a history buff and out of curiosity surfed the internet today for key events that happened 100 years ago.  Here&#39;s the search result:

Dictator Benito Mussolini rose to power in Italy.

Hitler published Mein Kampf, his propaganda manifesto that culminated in the Holocaust.

The Scopes Monkey Trial. A Tennessee public school teacher was tried and convicted in a criminal court for teaching science (Darwin&#39;s Theory of Evolution) in school.


The situation on Tik Tok is the biggest psyop right now. The content is suspiciously more right-wing considering many people are seeing Charlie Kirk on their FYP. The CEO of Tik Tok (maybe former CEO now) reposted Charlie Kirk content yesterday before removing it today, and he's even attending Trump's inauguration tomorrow. There isn't a single popular, widespread social media app in the US that is safe from the hands of Trump and his toadies now. You will now get banned for trashing Cuckerberg, Leon Skum, or Trump. If you post anything related to Luigi Mangione, your content will be under review or banned within a minute. This was not the case before. Instagram and Facebook also have Tik Tok accounts now and there are even Instagram ads popping up on Tik Tok (and more ads in general).

Tik Tok is the latest platform to bend the knee

The situation on Tik Tok is the biggest psyop right now. The content is suspiciously more right-wing considering many people are seeing Charlie Kirk on their FYP. The CEO of Tik Tok (maybe former CEO now) reposted Charlie Kirk content yesterday before removing it today, and he&#39;s even attending Trump&#39;s inauguration tomorrow. There isn&#39;t a single popular, widespread social media app in the US that is safe from the hands of Trump and his toadies now. You will now get banned for trashing Cuckerberg, Leon Skum, or Trump. If you post anything related to Luigi Mangione, your content will be under review or banned within a minute. This was not the case before. Instagram and Facebook also have Tik Tok accounts now and there are even Instagram ads popping up on Tik Tok (and more ads in general).


'Not going anywhere': President Biden says he's 'passionate about our work' on final full day as President


I am going to keep fighting, but right now I just want to feel the grief. So many things have already happened. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg formulating their social media into rightwing platforms. TikTok soon to follow maybe. It's already shelling out Trump propoganda. Musk is set to take up residence IN the white house—not even Russian oligarchs do that.

I can't see how we are going to get past this sort of cultural inflammation. I want to keep hoping for the future but the next gen seems conservative and pro-Trump. And the American people have proved themselves to be extremely vulnerable to misinformation and psyop to a frightening degree.

I think it is going to get worse before it gets better. Might delete this post later.

2024 was the most important election of our generation and we fumbled it

I am going to keep fighting, but right now I just want to feel the grief. So many things have already happened. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg formulating their social media into rightwing platforms. TikTok soon to follow maybe. It&#39;s already shelling out Trump propoganda. Musk is set to take up residence IN the white house—not even Russian oligarchs do that.

I can&#39;t see how we are going to get past this sort of cultural inflammation. I want to keep hoping for the future but the next gen seems conservative and pro-Trump. And the American people have proved themselves to be extremely vulnerable to misinformation and psyop to a frightening degree.

I think it is going to get worse before it gets better. Might delete this post later.


Why is there so much misinformation and propaganda being spread so rapidly?

Why is Tik Tok thanking someone who isn't President yet?


I find myself mourning as if I've lost a good friend or loved one today.  I just can't shake the funk.

The news and posts on Reddit are already full of bad actors doing bad things.

How do you feel?

Anyone else mourning what we've lost as a nation and what we are about to face?

I find myself mourning as if I&#39;ve lost a good friend or loved one today.  I just can&#39;t shake the funk.

The news and posts on Reddit are already full of bad actors doing bad things.

How do you feel?


I sure hope folks will be tracking and documenting every promise Trump breaks during his administration and keep a running scorecard for American voters. We can already start with ending the war in Ukraine Day 1.

Start Tracking Trump Broken Promises Day 1


Bannon calls Zuckerberg ‘a criminal’


Biden to sign order to prioritize distressed 'left-behind communities'


Could Identity Politics Help Democrats Engage Men?


I find myself struggling to be upset that Trump might do these mass deportations.

I care greatly that they are done within the law and in a compassionate manner, but I don't think it is wrong to deport people who came here illegally or overstayed a visa.

DACA and asylum are different for the sake of this post.

I was never open borders, but I used to be a bit of the "people can't be illegal" type.

As I have seen more of the reality of barely checked immigration on local governments and economies (i.e. companies paying lower wages to illegals), i have shifted positions some.

I want more legal immigration and better border processes, and I think illegal immigration is a bad hill to die on for the left.

Feeling like a failed lib/progressive.

Anyone else?

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who responded. I found it valuable and enlightening. You reminded me of the many nuances around this issue that make it nearly impossible to have a cut and dried position.

What is liberal view on illegal immigration? I feel like a republican about it.

I find myself struggling to be upset that Trump might do these mass deportations.

I care greatly that they are done within the law and in a compassionate manner, but I don&#39;t think it is wrong to deport people who came here illegally or overstayed a visa.

DACA and asylum are different for the sake of this post.

I was never open borders, but I used to be a bit of the &quot;people can&#39;t be illegal&quot; type.

As I have seen more of the reality of barely checked immigration on local governments and economies (i.e. companies paying lower wages to illegals), i have shifted positions some.

I want more legal immigration and better border processes, and I think illegal immigration is a bad hill to die on for the left.

Feeling like a failed lib/progressive.

Anyone else?

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who responded. I found it valuable and enlightening. You reminded me of the many nuances around this issue that make it nearly impossible to have a cut and dried position.


House conservative defies Johnson over remote voting for new moms in Congress, turning to Democrats for help


Indo wonder if all the junk Trump sells will be tariff free? After all, it's all made in China.

Trump's tariffs.

Indo wonder if all the junk Trump sells will be tariff free? After all, it&#39;s all made in China.


New Improved Headline:
TRUMP WORRIED MUSHROOM MICROPENIS WILL BECOME INNIE WITH INAGURATION WEATHER FORECAST. MOVES INDOORS.

Trump’s inauguration to be moved indoors | CNN Politics


Trump threats prompt talk of boosting Greenland security


Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban


'One of the great tragedies of American politics': President Biden ends 5 decades in public life


Trump inauguration to be moved indoors due to freezing temperatures, CNN reports

William Henry Harrison didn't move his inauguration indoors because of freezing temperatures. Trump should be more like him.

https://ground.news/article/trumps-inauguration-moving-indoors-due-to-weather-sources?utm_source=mobile-app&utm_medium=newsroom-share

Trump moves inauguration indoors

Trump inauguration to be moved indoors due to freezing temperatures, CNN reports

William Henry Harrison didn&#39;t move his inauguration indoors because of freezing temperatures. Trump should be more like him.

https://ground.news/article/trumps-inauguration-moving-indoors-due-to-weather-sources?utm_source=mobile-app&amp;utm_medium=newsroom-share


I just watched an amazing documentary on the armed municipal coup in Wilmington, NC in 1898. I would highly recommend watching it.

I am deeply saddened that this country seems intent on repeating the mistakes of the past, over and over again. There is rarely anything novel in this country without precedent. Yet I am inspired by what our ancestors have overcome and what we can do as well, if only we have the clarity, purpose, and courage to do better.

Kudos to PBS, American Experience, and other associates for bringing this hidden history to light.

[https://www.pbs.org/video/american-coup-wilmington-1898-u9qwb9/](https://www.pbs.org/video/american-coup-wilmington-1898-u9qwb9/)

American Coup: Wilmington 1898

I just watched an amazing documentary on the armed municipal coup in Wilmington, NC in 1898. I would highly recommend watching it.

I am deeply saddened that this country seems intent on repeating the mistakes of the past, over and over again. There is rarely anything novel in this country without precedent. Yet I am inspired by what our ancestors have overcome and what we can do as well, if only we have the clarity, purpose, and courage to do better.

Kudos to PBS, American Experience, and other associates for bringing this hidden history to light.

https://www.pbs.org/video/american-coup-wilmington-1898-u9qwb9/


If you haven't already, please sign these petitions!