7 ms·

Sigh Sad and disappointing, but not unexpected. Good ol' US of A, where constant massacres of children makes us decide we need more lethal weapons available in

Sigh Sad and disappointing, but not unexpected. Good ol' US of A, where constant massacres of children makes us decide we need more lethal weapons available in public. The "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" fantasy is as prevalent as the American Dream myth, and more acutely dangerous. (Both are dangerous, to be clear, one is just a more chronic issue compared to the other.)

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide things based on the headlines, but based on the Constitution. (If you want to argue that the Supreme Court decided wrongly, go for it, but that wasn't what you complained about.) Look, gun violence is a real problem - I'm with you there. But if you want to limit guns, find ways to do it that are within the bounds of the Constitution. You don't just get to ignore the Constitution because you think fighting gun violence is important. (Or, change the Constitution. That's an option too.) I'm hoping that the new federal legislation (with bipartisan support) will think carefully about Constitutional limits, and will find ways to be within bounds and still limit gun access.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  I do disagree that the Constitution prohibits limits on public gun availability, in fact. That said, to pretend the Supreme Court here wasn't influenced by the massacres in the news would be naive. Of course they were. Their job is to interpret the Constitution to come to conclusions about what is or isn't in line with it; they are human, so their interpretations will always be colored by context.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  While I agree, I think that the Supreme Court often times delays decisions and rulings to coincide with issues that will ramp up outrage for elections.
- suture 4y ago
  The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today. The Supreme Court is on a clear path to destroy the mechanisms by which a modern state can function. We will soon live in a country where a legal act in one city will warrant the death penalty in another. A state that cannot adequately regulate weapons is not functional. What worked 250 years ago no longer works today. The Constitution isn’t going to be changed because there is too much divisiveness. SCOTUS is doing what it can to foment this divisiveness. It’s time to be like Lincoln and ignore the Supreme Court. Strict adherence to words written 250 years ago is not a good way forward for the country. The U.S. is badly in need of reform for how its federal government works.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    "The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia" As a subordinate clause; what follows is independent of it. Read the book I recommended in another comment for how it came about, as a political sop to those who wanted to flatly forbid standing armies and/or regulars, which those actually experienced in the Revolutionary War starting with the indispensable man Washington were not about to accept. "and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today." You ready to surrender your assault ink jet and laser printers?? For that matter, the lethality of the huge hunks of lead shot by the common muskets and rifles of the day was pretty serious. "It’s time to be like Lincoln" And there is goes, we get our war or we'll have a civil war. Well, that's implicitly true in what you're saying, trying to confiscate the 600 million or so guns owned by the US people will most certainly result in another civil war. But you should think harder about this; to quote Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds: "Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess. "So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say."
newaccount2021 4y ago
your comment is just so vacuous and low-effort all this ruling stipulates is that jurisdictions are barred from employing arbitrary standards as a means of gatekeeping access to a Constitutional Right (like it or not, that has already been established in Heller) so in California, it won't be fair game for the Sheriff to ask for campaign contributions in exchange for a favorable CCW consideration...and in NY you won't have to exploit political connections for merit of the same
- suture 4y ago
  That is not all the ruling implies or will lead too. You are badly distorting the impact this ruling will have.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  Heller intentionally made no mention of public carrying of weapons, only private carrying on private property. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. So, no, Heller did not establish a Constitutional right to carry weapons in public.
proc0 4y ago
The glaring problem is that police can't stop crime from happening. Some cities have rampaging gang violence, which often are gun-free zones. It seems to me this is a higher priority problem to solve before attempting to disarm everyone... which would encourage the existing law breakers to break the law even more and to claim many more victims. It's setting people up for much more suffering, and also no guarantee that the "bad guys" will never acquire guns. Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal. This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  "Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal." AKA Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" policy. Pretty sure that's already illegal/unconstitutional. "This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power." "The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting."
- krapp 4y ago
  >The glaring problem is that police can't stop crime from happening. Some cities have rampaging gang violence, which often are gun-free zones. It's not a glaring problem that police can't stop crime from happening - that isn't their purpose, and barring the use of Minority Report style telepaths in jars of goo, not even feasible. >Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal. We do, after they commit crimes. What legal means are you suggesting to take guns away from people before they commit crimes?
  - proc0 4y ago
    > We do, after they commit crimes. I would be surprised if most gun violence is first time offenders that don't repeat because their gun was taken away. I would guess they keep getting illegal guns and continue living that life and putting everyone around them at risk. > What legal means are you suggesting to take guns away from people before they commit crimes? More prison time, perhaps, but not without prison reform of some kind, which is another problem. However, removing people from society for long enough time should make everyone else think twice. Granted, first time offenders who go insane is a different problem. My point is there are other bigger problems, and the fact those are not solved by gun control suggests it won't solve it for these other edge cases.
injb 4y ago
This decision has no bearing on what kinds of weapons are available to the public.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide things based on the headlines, but based on the Constitution. (If you want to argue that the Supreme Court decided wrongly, go for it, but that wasn't what you complained about.) Look, gun violence is a real problem - I'm with you there. But if you want to limit guns, find ways to do it that are within the bounds of the Constitution. You don't just get to ignore the Constitution because you think fighting gun violence is important. (Or, change the Constitution. That's an option too.) I'm hoping that the new federal legislation (with bipartisan support) will think carefully about Constitutional limits, and will find ways to be within bounds and still limit gun access.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
I do disagree that the Constitution prohibits limits on public gun availability, in fact. That said, to pretend the Supreme Court here wasn't influenced by the massacres in the news would be naive. Of course they were. Their job is to interpret the Constitution to come to conclusions about what is or isn't in line with it; they are human, so their interpretations will always be colored by context.
encryptluks2 4y ago
While I agree, I think that the Supreme Court often times delays decisions and rulings to coincide with issues that will ramp up outrage for elections.
suture 4y ago
The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today. The Supreme Court is on a clear path to destroy the mechanisms by which a modern state can function. We will soon live in a country where a legal act in one city will warrant the death penalty in another. A state that cannot adequately regulate weapons is not functional. What worked 250 years ago no longer works today. The Constitution isn’t going to be changed because there is too much divisiveness. SCOTUS is doing what it can to foment this divisiveness. It’s time to be like Lincoln and ignore the Supreme Court. Strict adherence to words written 250 years ago is not a good way forward for the country. The U.S. is badly in need of reform for how its federal government works.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  "The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia" As a subordinate clause; what follows is independent of it. Read the book I recommended in another comment for how it came about, as a political sop to those who wanted to flatly forbid standing armies and/or regulars, which those actually experienced in the Revolutionary War starting with the indispensable man Washington were not about to accept. "and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today." You ready to surrender your assault ink jet and laser printers?? For that matter, the lethality of the huge hunks of lead shot by the common muskets and rifles of the day was pretty serious. "It’s time to be like Lincoln" And there is goes, we get our war or we'll have a civil war. Well, that's implicitly true in what you're saying, trying to confiscate the 600 million or so guns owned by the US people will most certainly result in another civil war. But you should think harder about this; to quote Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds: "Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess. "So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say."

newaccount2021 4y ago

your comment is just so vacuous and low-effort all this ruling stipulates is that jurisdictions are barred from employing arbitrary standards as a means of gatekeeping access to a Constitutional Right (like it or not, that has already been established in Heller) so in California, it won't be fair game for the Sheriff to ask for campaign contributions in exchange for a favorable CCW consideration...and in NY you won't have to exploit political connections for merit of the same

suture 4y ago
That is not all the ruling implies or will lead too. You are badly distorting the impact this ruling will have.
IceMetalPunk 4y ago
Heller intentionally made no mention of public carrying of weapons, only private carrying on private property. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. So, no, Heller did not establish a Constitutional right to carry weapons in public.

proc0 4y ago

The glaring problem is that police can't stop crime from happening. Some cities have rampaging gang violence, which often are gun-free zones. It seems to me this is a higher priority problem to solve before attempting to disarm everyone... which would encourage the existing law breakers to break the law even more and to claim many more victims. It's setting people up for much more suffering, and also no guarantee that the "bad guys" will never acquire guns. Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal. This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power.

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
"Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal." AKA Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" policy. Pretty sure that's already illegal/unconstitutional. "This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power." "The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting."
krapp 4y ago
>The glaring problem is that police can't stop crime from happening. Some cities have rampaging gang violence, which often are gun-free zones. It's not a glaring problem that police can't stop crime from happening - that isn't their purpose, and barring the use of Minority Report style telepaths in jars of goo, not even feasible. >Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal. We do, after they commit crimes. What legal means are you suggesting to take guns away from people before they commit crimes?
- proc0 4y ago
  > We do, after they commit crimes. I would be surprised if most gun violence is first time offenders that don't repeat because their gun was taken away. I would guess they keep getting illegal guns and continue living that life and putting everyone around them at risk. > What legal means are you suggesting to take guns away from people before they commit crimes? More prison time, perhaps, but not without prison reform of some kind, which is another problem. However, removing people from society for long enough time should make everyone else think twice. Granted, first time offenders who go insane is a different problem. My point is there are other bigger problems, and the fact those are not solved by gun control suggests it won't solve it for these other edge cases.

injb 4y ago

This decision has no bearing on what kinds of weapons are available to the public.