6 ms·

Yes it's pretty plain to see which states are using the law to suppress the rights of many people. Also most suburbs even in blue states are conservative enoug

by fundad 3y ago

Yes it's pretty plain to see which states are using the law to suppress the rights of many people. Also most suburbs even in blue states are conservative enough, no need to go further MAGA.

refurb 3y ago
Which states? I mean, if you asked me, California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people, but I’m guessing you don’t agree? My point is, you have your own political views, but at the same time live in a country with a lot of differing views. You should feel free to live wherever you want but at the same time realize you’ll never find a place that 100% agrees with all your views.
- ovao 3y ago
  Oregon and Washington — both blue states — are examples of other states that have begun to lean more heavily into restricting gun rights (whether you agree or disagree with the motivation & justification). So, agreed, it’s accurate to say that there are examples of different states imposing legislation that restricts some sets of freedoms depending on the state’s political leaning.
- toss1 3y ago
  >>California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people Seriously? I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because... I've never seen any serious gun proposal that would actually infringe on any actual right. They are all about ensuring that background checks apply to all sales, waiting periods, red flags, etc. People seem to forget that allowing any mentally ill incompetent full and immediate access to the highest caliber and rate-of-fire weapons at any time is the exact opposite of "a well regulated militia" (citing the exact words of the Second Amendment which grants that right). Please cite some actual legislation entered for consideration (not right wing "They're coming for our guns" rhetoric) that would actually restrict that right for any sane, stable, and responsible citizen. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like to know if there is any actual such legislation proposed. And no, I don't consider restricting weapons above certain levels of high power, high caliber, high magazine capacity, high rate-of-fire, etc. to be illegitimate. I actually think it should be a sliding scale of qualifications according to the above criteria, e.g., kid's 22 requires a basic safety course and you're good to go, but semi-auto high-power require solid marksmanship skills, combat training, proof of mental stability from licensed psych, insurance, etc., and all qualifications mean you can be called up for militia service at any time. So, seriously, under "as part of a well regulated militia", what actual proposed legislation in any state would actually restrict such a right?
  - refurb 3y ago
    Hand gun roster and red flag laws are two good examples. Allowing the police to seize weapons based on suspicion is unconstitutional. CA only recently started allowing concealed carry after the Supreme Court forced them.
    - seanw444 3y ago
      There was just a vote in SCOTUS to attempt to put an end to NY and CA's last-ditch attempts to deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times. Also, yes, while you may be able to get ARs, you're subject to dumb arbitrary restrictions[1] on what you can put on that AR. And finally, CA and NY are doing their best to ban body armor. That makes me laugh, because now you can't even own methods of self-defense that aren't meant to injure anyone. I consider CA and NY foreign nations at this point[2] (among a few others). It seems they do whatever they can to keep the common man down. They're good at one thing though: making it easy to "cheat" your reproductive system, and evade the responsibility of parenting while maintaining your rabid degeneracy as much as you want. I'm not even religious, and I find the rise in abortion disturbing. Although I guess the demographic that tend to get abortions will just be unbreeding themselves out of plurality, by definition. [1] https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-california/ https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in... [2] Should not be construed as me implying that red states are great. They're simply the lesser of two evils. I at least feel comfortable in red, although there are many things I disagree with.
      - toss1 3y ago
        >>deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times. Again, in the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, what is the problem with qualifications and a wait time? (yes, if they are actually egregious, it can be an effective ban). Beyond that, what is so mandatory about concealed carry? It is the right to bear arms -in a well-regulated context- not the right of any mentally-ill person to sneak arms into any place at any time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by fundad 3y ago

Yes it's pretty plain to see which states are using the law to suppress the rights of many people. Also most suburbs even in blue states are conservative enough, no need to go further MAGA.

refurb 3y ago

Which states? I mean, if you asked me, California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people, but I’m guessing you don’t agree? My point is, you have your own political views, but at the same time live in a country with a lot of differing views. You should feel free to live wherever you want but at the same time realize you’ll never find a place that 100% agrees with all your views.

ovao 3y ago
Oregon and Washington — both blue states — are examples of other states that have begun to lean more heavily into restricting gun rights (whether you agree or disagree with the motivation & justification). So, agreed, it’s accurate to say that there are examples of different states imposing legislation that restricts some sets of freedoms depending on the state’s political leaning.
toss1 3y ago
>>California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people Seriously? I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because... I've never seen any serious gun proposal that would actually infringe on any actual right. They are all about ensuring that background checks apply to all sales, waiting periods, red flags, etc. People seem to forget that allowing any mentally ill incompetent full and immediate access to the highest caliber and rate-of-fire weapons at any time is the exact opposite of "a well regulated militia" (citing the exact words of the Second Amendment which grants that right). Please cite some actual legislation entered for consideration (not right wing "They're coming for our guns" rhetoric) that would actually restrict that right for any sane, stable, and responsible citizen. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like to know if there is any actual such legislation proposed. And no, I don't consider restricting weapons above certain levels of high power, high caliber, high magazine capacity, high rate-of-fire, etc. to be illegitimate. I actually think it should be a sliding scale of qualifications according to the above criteria, e.g., kid's 22 requires a basic safety course and you're good to go, but semi-auto high-power require solid marksmanship skills, combat training, proof of mental stability from licensed psych, insurance, etc., and all qualifications mean you can be called up for militia service at any time. So, seriously, under "as part of a well regulated militia", what actual proposed legislation in any state would actually restrict such a right?
- refurb 3y ago
  Hand gun roster and red flag laws are two good examples. Allowing the police to seize weapons based on suspicion is unconstitutional. CA only recently started allowing concealed carry after the Supreme Court forced them.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    There was just a vote in SCOTUS to attempt to put an end to NY and CA's last-ditch attempts to deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times. Also, yes, while you may be able to get ARs, you're subject to dumb arbitrary restrictions[1] on what you can put on that AR. And finally, CA and NY are doing their best to ban body armor. That makes me laugh, because now you can't even own methods of self-defense that aren't meant to injure anyone. I consider CA and NY foreign nations at this point[2] (among a few others). It seems they do whatever they can to keep the common man down. They're good at one thing though: making it easy to "cheat" your reproductive system, and evade the responsibility of parenting while maintaining your rabid degeneracy as much as you want. I'm not even religious, and I find the rise in abortion disturbing. Although I guess the demographic that tend to get abortions will just be unbreeding themselves out of plurality, by definition. [1] https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-california/ https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in... [2] Should not be construed as me implying that red states are great. They're simply the lesser of two evils. I at least feel comfortable in red, although there are many things I disagree with.
    - toss1 3y ago
      >>deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times. Again, in the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, what is the problem with qualifications and a wait time? (yes, if they are actually egregious, it can be an effective ban). Beyond that, what is so mandatory about concealed carry? It is the right to bear arms -in a well-regulated context- not the right of any mentally-ill person to sneak arms into any place at any time.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]