Is slapping down unconstitutional laws that haven’t been around very long really “expanding” 2a rights? It’s not like these rulings are allowing me to mail order machine guns like people use to. If by expanding the mean restore rights, sure.
The rulings just allow people to continue to own things in common use or do things that are legal in a vast majority of states. Keep in mind some of the laws in California involve things like demanding firearms have tech in them that doesn’t exist.
Good. Gun “control” is an ineffective bandaid solution for large societal problems that politicians refuse to tackle because it’ll hurt their doners pocket this quarter.
This guy gets it. Gun Control has only been passed in this country in response to minority gun ownership. They have been poorly conceived at make no sense from the get go. It is near impossible to control inexpensive technologies and banning those technologies is a waste of time. We talk about gun violence but that's the wrong conversation. We should be talking about violence and why that occurs. The gun is just a multiplier of violence not the actual problem. Guns just as or much more dangerous were readily available by mail order in the 70's and back so why weren't these problems more profound then? For one at the end of the 70's we did away with our entire mental health system and never replaced it. People seeking mental healthcare have few options in this country even with insurance as insurers have figured out if the neglect there provider lists then they pay less overall with zero ramifications and little to no loss in sales from large employer plans (who don't prioritize the issue). Mental Health education and health education overall is severely lacking in this country most people don't know the signs to identify a mental health problem or how to handle it even professionals did you know that males most commonly display signs of schizophrenia at 18 but women most often start to display signs at 27? Poverty and Economic disparity though likely play the largest role. This country is quickly devolving due to rampant poverty and resources are flooding to the top with no stop in sight. I really tie both economic poverty and lack of access to reasonable education as both impact the country in relatively the same way. The major contributing factors are market monopolies, regulatory capture, over representation of corporations in our electoral system, and a broken electoral system. I won't go through all of these and there are absolutely more. The good news is that the two things that would do the most to alleviate these things are possible. A move to ranked choice voting and a push for a single payer system for healthcare. The path may seem indirect but a ranked choice system would resolve the all or nothingness of our system and make it harder for corporations to fully corrupt our electoral process as they would need to do far more than simply push for a single side. a single payer system would eliminate insurers that have an incentive to avoid paying for mental healthcare and sever health and well-being as a reason to be a wage slave.Pretty much exactly what I’ve been thinking put into words. Thank you.
Oh sure, it’s ineffective in Iceland, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Romania, The UK, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Vietnam, New Zealand, and a hundred other countries around the world.
The amount of guns per 100 people in the US is 120 and the next highest is Yemen at 49. This isn’t a cultural issue, it’s a gun control issue.
No other country in the world has nearly the same number of guns in its borders.
Australia did not experience a significant drop in homicides when they banned guns
What about homicides due to guns? Mass shootings?
So its the tool, not the crime that matters? Its totally fine if I stab someone, but not if I shoot them?
Notice how many of the countries you describe have more than two political parties, universal healthcare, and aren’t the world’s superpower.
Violence largely happens due to stress, stress comes from poor living conditions, financial constraints and cultural issues(and more). Considering more than half of Americans are paycheck to paycheck, that we have to pay hundreds for medical care and that the average income is somewhere in the 40k range it’s pretty easy to see why so many people are mentally ill, violent and politically extreme.
On top of this you also have the hard to quantify issue of foreign powers attempting to influence, degrade, or propagand to the citizens of world’s main power which is another issue that adds an additional layer.
You need to understand the reasons for unreasonable actions to actually prevent them. Attack the source causes and not throw out a core part of the American identity because our shit ass politicians can’t be assed to think beyond the next election cycle.
If it was the guns, and not socioeconomic conditions as described in the post above, why does Mexico and 53(!!) other countries have a higher murder rate than the US?
Because they buy their guns in the US! no lie, the drugs come here and the guns go back. No question cartels have a huge interest in eliminating gun control.
Boooo paywalled article! Can we get a rule to either post a non subscription link or require OP’s to post the text?
Sorry, I have a pretty robust suite of extensions and paywall blockers so I didn’t even notice.
Thank you OP!
Do you have to get permission from the government to exercise free speech outside your home? Can you be denied your right to remain silent based on what state you live in? What other right can simply be denied to adults?
Treating the 2nd Amendment like a first-class right is hardly ‘expanding’ it.
Iirc there was already some cases that decided that the government does have to right to decide what types of weapons you can own.
And what kind of speech you can say. For example, hate speech, incitements to violence, and of course yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
yelling “fire” in a crowded theater
Is part of an overturned court case. And even before it was overturned, the limit wasn’t that you couldn’t yell ‘fire’, the limit was you couldn’t create harm people via your actions. (Ex, if there was a fire, you did nothing illegal by saving others).
To circle this back to the 2nd Amendment. One can own and carry a gun, one can even save others with their firearm, one cannot murder people.
Hate speech is legal and incitement to violence has to be imminently dangerous. AFAIK all limitations of speech have to do with immediate public safety
And numerous forms of protest too. Anything that gains traction is then declared a “riot” or “illegal assembly” and dealt with harshly.
None of these 2A supporters seem to care that you need a permit to protest or register to vote, but ask for people to get even the most basic of training before purchasing an object specifically designed to kill people and suddenly its “but muh rights!”
You can still see consequences from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Let’s not pretend that there can be no reasonable constraints on these things.
Ps. WHERE IS THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA?
With respect to yelling “fire” - you’re not charged with the speech, you’re charged with inciting the ensuing panic.
With respect to the militia - the words “the people” are used in several places in close proximity to the usage in the Second Amendment. The meaning of “the people” in the Second Amendment can’t be construed to mean “the militia” without some serious mental gymnastics.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I am just courious. What does that whole statement mean to you?
Why did you add a comma between Arms and shall?
Also basic grammar. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Is an independent clause. This is the right.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is a dependent clause and just provides reasoning.
Thats how I interpret it it too, If they only wanted just the militias to be armed they would have said the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, but they said the right of the people. This is and was intended to be the most prestigious legal document in their proto-country. I have to assume they used the language they did on purpose.
Except that every able bodied man was assumed to be a member of the militia. This is because the idiots who wrote the 2nd amendment didn’t want a standing army.
Then the war of 1812 happened and everyone was like “oh shit, maybe there was a reason why standing armies exist” and then the 2nd amendment was forgotten for a century. A bad idea that didn’t work out.
It’s kind of like the 3rd amendment. Important at the time, but actually meaningless in practice.
You say it was forgotten for a century as if people stopped buying guns for 100 years because there was a standing army. If the government wanted to get rid of it in favor of a standing army they would have done that, or at least tried. There’s no indication it’s a failed amendment because the US needed an army too. And in fact if it was a failed amendment, where was the uproar at the time? I don’t really recall any historical fight against that amendment.
It was forgotten. Just like the 3rd amendment was.
People kept buying guns, but everyone sort of assumed (and rightly so) that the government could ban guns.
Hell, the shoot out at the O.K. Corral was over gun control, and the Cowboys gang was clearly in the wrong, and all of them were wanted criminals before the shootout.
But more to the point, the gun ban for Tombstone, Arizona was completely legal.
All of that is while militias still technically existed. After 1903, militias did not. Which is why the National Firearms Act of 1934 was ruled fully constitutional.
And that was the final word on the 2nd amendment until a convicted murderer in partnership with gun manufacturers decided that guns for everyone should be the goal of the NRA.
The NFA was to curtail gang violence when organized crime was near its peak, not to mention the prohibited items on it are still prohibited today. You still need tax stamps for silencers, automatic weapons, short barrel rifles, and anything else the government decided to classify there. I don’t know what you think changed legally since then.
That was decided by a different SCotUS before I was born. Quite literally doesn’t matter what it mean to us.
POV: You don’t know what the words “well-regulated” mean
What other right can simply be denied to adults?
The right to life and liberty, by any gun owner, at any moment, for any reason.
What the hell are you talking about? Murder is illegal.
Murder is illegal, but the supreme court has said that it’s okay to sell murder weapons to people who are obviously going to commit murder.
Because the right-wing nutjobs hate background checks, and red flag laws and anything else that slows down the constant murder.
it’s okay to sell murder weapons to people who are obviously going to commit murder
Planning to murder someone is not only illegal but also a felony, which bars gun ownership. If we have evidence someone is going to commit murder, arrest, charge, and convict them.
That’s very specific… what 1st degree? What about 2nd degree murder (heat of the moment kills)?
Should we keep people from buying cars, hammers, and kitchen knives?
Should we allow overweight, insecure men with a long history of red flags to buy hand grenades, land mines and machine guns?
Some people with NRA induced brain damage will of course say yes but the reality is that we’ve already decided that there are weapon that are too dangerous to indiscriminately hand out.
And what do you know? We’re able to keep them out of the hands of domestic terrorists just fine.
Is the sole purpose for any of those items “killing people”?
Don’t waste your time with GOP/Nazi members. They are a death cult. Killing others is what they love more than anything in this world.
You’re in for a rude awakening if you believe that only GOP and Nazis own guns. There’s a reason Reddit has a liberal gun owners sub. Lefties just tend to be less vocal about it.
I bought a gun in CA and people who think CA has gun control laws are completely uninformed.
A Chinese national bought a brand new AR-15 right before my eyes in La Mesa, CA. Completely LEGAL. Wasn’t even a citizen.
People who don’t understand guns make your laws for the industry leaders.
And voters argue over ineffective, waste of money policies because they don’t know much.
Bullshit. California explicitly bans AR-15s from sale. Here is californias own website on the matter. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf
And if somehow it wasn’t on that list, heres the other law that bans it. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#2
I expect nothing less from this corrupt court.
Just because they don’t rule the way you’d like, doesn’t make them corrupt.
What’s the cases they’ve ruled on that show you their corruption?
@MasterObee @MyOpinion Citizens United is but one example. The shadow docket is another.
Citizens united is a good example. Where do you think they got their law wrong?
@MasterObee Trick question. Courts don’t write laws.
Yeah, they interpret it.
You said they got it wrong and it was a corrupt ruling. I’m curious where you think the law went against what they ruled, in other words, how did they interpret the law ‘corruptly’
@MasterObee No.
I don’t find your argument convincing if you can’t find any ‘corrupt’ court cases then.
