The Supreme Court just proved that its gun rulings have been a disaster(www.motherjones.com)

posted 3 months ago

jeffw@lemmy.world

politics@lemmy.world

50 commentshide report

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments View context

[ - ]

Proteish@awful.systems

15 points

3 months ago

Deleted by creator

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

SupraMario@lemmy.world

-14 points

3 months ago

I read the article, it’s exactly as I described it, bitching from the anti-2a crowd about Bruen

You all can down vote me all you want. That’s literally what the article is. The 2nd isn’t going anywhere, you’re a minority of people who want it repealed. And your group got even smaller now that people on the left are becoming gun owners more and more.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

turmacar@lemmy.world

4 points

3 months ago

People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.

Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

SupraMario@lemmy.world

-3 points

3 months ago

People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.

Lol no that’s bullshit. Plenty want it repealed, usually the loudest do. It’s also not an insane precedent, there has been zero gun control laws that have actively helped drive down crime. It’s all been feel good legislation that’s done nothing but try and kick the can down the road for meaningful progress.

Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

They’re really short because convoluted laws don’t do shit but target those who can’t hire expensive lawyers and lobbiest to avoid them. They’re rules for the working class not for the ruling class.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

turmacar@lemmy.world

1 point

3 months ago

Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

“Everyone should have the tools to defend themselves from aggressors” is a good sentiment.

This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns. It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

SupraMario@lemmy.world

1 point

3 months ago

Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

People can be complicated all they want, actions are what are judged not how complex a person is. It’s literally why we have a judicial system. So people can be judged on their actions.

This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

What are you talking about? The ruling here is exactly that, if you’re a criminal, you can’t own firearms.

There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns.

No there has not, mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should.

It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

It actually does mean exactly that. The revolution was fought using mainly private arms. There wasn’t even a standing navy, we literally had people who owned the equivalent of a battle ship today. To act like the founders didn’t realize technology was going to advance is ridiculous.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

turmacar@lemmy.world

1 point

3 months ago

The justice system is not vibe based. It’s ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

The ruling here is exactly that

Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should

Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don’t stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn’t mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

The revolution was fought using mainly private arms.

And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change. The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It’s not that they didn’t realize technology was going to advance, it’s that you can’t write laws for things or situations that don’t exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of “the founders wanted it that way”.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News