3 ms·

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 requir

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.
- seanw444 3y ago
  The well-regulated militia part is an example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the sole reason for its existence. Also, well-regulated in the context of the time of its passing was "well-equipped and organized." Not our current usage of the word, which means "added layers of bureaucracy and restriction." It makes zero sense to have a militia capable of maintaining a free state that's entirely at the behest of the state it's trying to keep free. For the same reason we laugh at internal investigations: "we launched an internal investigation, and found we did nothing wrong." Otherwise, it's just a second military. Which wasn't the point of it. It's been ruled this way in the courts, and it's also just kind of obvious if you're reading it with no anti-individual prejudice/bias.
  - toss1 3y ago
    Ummm, that's not the definition of a militia. The definition of a militia is a body of non-professional (ordinary citizen) soldiers not part of the regular army, who stand ready to be called up in an emergency. Notice the being called up part - the militia is to be SERVING IN and to be UNDER THE COMMAND of the ordinary military hierarchy. A militia is NOT as you are implying, some kind of batch of citizens ready to raise an insurrection to fight against the army. That is the exact opposite of "being necessary to the security of a free State". While I'm not for bureaucracy, even the Army has qualification standards of who can join. While militia standards should be lower, we cannot argue that they should be zero, enshrining some "right" for any mentally-incompetent and/or skilled-incompetent person to buy any armament and carry it in any situation. If you are a sane, competent, and responsible citizen, no one is even proposing a law infringing your right. (and FTR, I used to argue a "gun control is using two hands" approach. But accumulation of facts and a bit of thinking has changed my mind.)
    - seanw444 3y ago
      This country recognizes state-affiliated militias, and independent militias, both in law and court precedent. The state-affiliated militia would effectively be the national guard in modern times. That is not what I am talking about. Nor is it explicitly the kind mentioned in the 2A, which was clearly intentional. The fall of nearly all great nations of this magnitude in history have been due to internal corruption and decay of the institutions. You don't protect against that with state-affiliated paramilitary organizations. You end up being the one protecting the decayed institutions and corruption. And if you refuse, and join a group of people trying to fight against it, then what? Oh interesting, an independent militia. Your side's arguments really make the founders sound like idiots. They were not. They considered all of this. And they made a pretty simple and clear statement about it: it's a right of the people, to keep and bear arms. And it shall not be infringed. If you don't like it, then amend the Constitution. That's how this place was supposed to work. But I guess society has decided we can forgo that step entirely.
      - toss1 3y ago

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.

seanw444 3y ago
The well-regulated militia part is an example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the sole reason for its existence. Also, well-regulated in the context of the time of its passing was "well-equipped and organized." Not our current usage of the word, which means "added layers of bureaucracy and restriction." It makes zero sense to have a militia capable of maintaining a free state that's entirely at the behest of the state it's trying to keep free. For the same reason we laugh at internal investigations: "we launched an internal investigation, and found we did nothing wrong." Otherwise, it's just a second military. Which wasn't the point of it. It's been ruled this way in the courts, and it's also just kind of obvious if you're reading it with no anti-individual prejudice/bias.
- toss1 3y ago
  Ummm, that's not the definition of a militia. The definition of a militia is a body of non-professional (ordinary citizen) soldiers not part of the regular army, who stand ready to be called up in an emergency. Notice the being called up part - the militia is to be SERVING IN and to be UNDER THE COMMAND of the ordinary military hierarchy. A militia is NOT as you are implying, some kind of batch of citizens ready to raise an insurrection to fight against the army. That is the exact opposite of "being necessary to the security of a free State". While I'm not for bureaucracy, even the Army has qualification standards of who can join. While militia standards should be lower, we cannot argue that they should be zero, enshrining some "right" for any mentally-incompetent and/or skilled-incompetent person to buy any armament and carry it in any situation. If you are a sane, competent, and responsible citizen, no one is even proposing a law infringing your right. (and FTR, I used to argue a "gun control is using two hands" approach. But accumulation of facts and a bit of thinking has changed my mind.)
  - seanw444 3y ago
    This country recognizes state-affiliated militias, and independent militias, both in law and court precedent. The state-affiliated militia would effectively be the national guard in modern times. That is not what I am talking about. Nor is it explicitly the kind mentioned in the 2A, which was clearly intentional. The fall of nearly all great nations of this magnitude in history have been due to internal corruption and decay of the institutions. You don't protect against that with state-affiliated paramilitary organizations. You end up being the one protecting the decayed institutions and corruption. And if you refuse, and join a group of people trying to fight against it, then what? Oh interesting, an independent militia. Your side's arguments really make the founders sound like idiots. They were not. They considered all of this. And they made a pretty simple and clear statement about it: it's a right of the people, to keep and bear arms. And it shall not be infringed. If you don't like it, then amend the Constitution. That's how this place was supposed to work. But I guess society has decided we can forgo that step entirely.
    - toss1 3y ago