4 ms·

Do you believe there should be any limit to who can own or carry a gun? As an analogy, felons have free-speech and every other constitutional right, but they c

Do you believe there should be any limit to who can own or carry a gun? As an analogy, felons have free-speech and every other constitutional right, but they can't own certain guns. Do you think the Constitution confers unfettered gun ownership rights, in a similar manner as other rights? Do you think every Supreme Court, since the founding (gun regulation is that old), was wrong about gun regulation and the Constitution, and this particular Supreme Court was right?

injb 4y ago
>> As an analogy, felons have free-speech and every other constitutional right That's not completely true - felons lose the right to vote. Historically being convicted of a felony meant that you had forfeit your life. According to the principle that "he who may do more may do less", the government that chose to spare your life could certainly impose any punishment less than death, including the loss of any right whatsoever.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chroma 4y ago
For most of the US's history, felons were allowed to own firearms. The law banning felons from owning guns was passed in 1968.
remarkEon 4y ago
>Do you think every Supreme Court, since the founding (gun regulation is that old), was wrong about gun regulation and the Constitution, and this particular Supreme Court was right? It's worth noting here that past cases before the Court referenced the idea that blacks could be allowed to carry fire arms if citizenship (pre-civil war) was interpreted more broadly, and that that fact was a reason to restrict it. So, yes, the Court has certainly erred in the past ... multiple times. 2A has been recognized as an individual and enumerated right for a long time. It's somewhat an invention of modern media that it isn't an individual right, and lots of people have been summarily gaslit into thinking it has something to do with membership in a (state run) militia.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  "It's worth noting here that past cases before the Court referenced the idea that blacks could be allowed to carry fire arms if citizenship (pre-civil war) was interpreted more broadly, and that that fact was a reason to restrict it." Worth even more noting that's a finding in Dred Scott and Clarence Thomas quoted it in his opinion today.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    Didn't realize that, and you are correct, see page 52 (or 58 in the .pdf viewer). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Today's decision, by Clarence Thomas, mentions Dred Scott in particular, and then-Chief Justice Taney's great fear of black citizens with the same freedom to carry weapons as whites.

injb 4y ago

>> As an analogy, felons have free-speech and every other constitutional right That's not completely true - felons lose the right to vote. Historically being convicted of a felony meant that you had forfeit your life. According to the principle that "he who may do more may do less", the government that chose to spare your life could certainly impose any punishment less than death, including the loss of any right whatsoever.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

chroma 4y ago

For most of the US's history, felons were allowed to own firearms. The law banning felons from owning guns was passed in 1968.

remarkEon 4y ago

>Do you think every Supreme Court, since the founding (gun regulation is that old), was wrong about gun regulation and the Constitution, and this particular Supreme Court was right? It's worth noting here that past cases before the Court referenced the idea that blacks could be allowed to carry fire arms if citizenship (pre-civil war) was interpreted more broadly, and that that fact was a reason to restrict it. So, yes, the Court has certainly erred in the past ... multiple times. 2A has been recognized as an individual and enumerated right for a long time. It's somewhat an invention of modern media that it isn't an individual right, and lots of people have been summarily gaslit into thinking it has something to do with membership in a (state run) militia.

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
"It's worth noting here that past cases before the Court referenced the idea that blacks could be allowed to carry fire arms if citizenship (pre-civil war) was interpreted more broadly, and that that fact was a reason to restrict it." Worth even more noting that's a finding in Dred Scott and Clarence Thomas quoted it in his opinion today.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Didn't realize that, and you are correct, see page 52 (or 58 in the .pdf viewer). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
cryptonector 4y ago
Today's decision, by Clarence Thomas, mentions Dred Scott in particular, and then-Chief Justice Taney's great fear of black citizens with the same freedom to carry weapons as whites.