Poll of the Day > Supreme Court Strikes down Conceal and Carry Law Bans...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-strikes-york-gun-143713084.html

In some states/cities like NY, LA, etc

Think it was the right thing to do? (Poll Question)

Good. That's what happens when states create convoluted hurdles towards people exercising their constitutional rights.

Rasmoh posted...

Good. That's what happens when states create convoluted hurdles towards people exercising their constitutional rights.

Convoluted hurdles like... Completing safety training before being handed a deadly weapon? Oh no, not that!

needing to pass a test to be able to drive

but not to own a small deadly concealable weapon is asinine

when are they gonna make drivers licenses not needed

adjl posted...

Convoluted hurdles like... Completing safety training before being handed a deadly weapon? Oh no, not that!

Convoluted hurdles like exorbitant fees, deliberately inflated processing times, ambiguous superfluous government criteria to determine "need", etc. States create these barriers in bad faith and it's coming back to bite them.

Adam_Savage posted...

needing to pass a test to be able to drive

but not to own a small deadly concealable weapon is asinine

Privilege vs right.

Rasmoh posted...

Privilege vs right.

Just swap the right for a privilege and solved.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Just swap the right for a privilege and solved.

Wow, who would have thought it would be so easy?

Chop chop, get to it then.

Rasmoh posted...

Convoluted hurdles like exorbitant fees, deliberately inflated processing times, ambiguous superfluous government criteria to determine "need", etc. States create these barriers in bad faith and it's coming back to bite them.

I'm pretty sure they created them to solve problems specific to their states, which federal oversight isn't the best remedy for.

Granted, gun control should be a federal issue anyway (at least so long as state borders are open enough that importing guns from uncontrolled states is as trivial as it is), so it seems like a moot point. Kind of undermines the "states' rights" argument in favour of ditching Roe v. Wade, too, which is always a plus (not that those using that argument actually care about abortion rights at a state level, that's just a convenient point to stand on before pushing for broader bans).

Rasmoh posted...

Privilege vs right.

no, guns aren't a right

the constitution clearly says bear arms, not guns

The constitution's also talking about a well-regulated militia, which is quite distinct from random people carrying them around everywhere without regulation.

For what it's worth, I do think a well-regulated concealed carry program isn't a bad idea and banning carrying outright risks doing more harm than good. Just not to the extent that the National Arms Manufacturer Propaganda Association promotes.

also, the founders designed the constitution to change in light of changing times

moreover, the second amendment is an amendment, it was not even originally in the constitution.

pretty funny to see people squirm when that's pointed out when they try and argue that the constitution can't be changed

Yeah, the original vision of the Founding Fathers was to have periodic revolutions shake things up, not stick with a single constitution indefinitely and aggressively stifle any attempts to change it.

Adam_Savage posted...

no, guns aren't a right

the constitution clearly says bear arms, not guns

Black or grizzly

brown

adjl posted...

The constitution's also talking about a well-regulated militia

Well-regulated militia at the time of the 2A's ratification did not mean what it means today.

Rasmoh posted...

Well-regulated militia at the time of the 2A's ratification did not mean what it means today.

Which is exactly why it should be open for a modern interpretation of what reality is now.

Rasmoh posted...

Well-regulated militia at the time of the 2A's ratification did not mean what it means today.

You mean the amendment was written for a different time period and may therefore not be easily transferable into the modern world without interpretive steps and modifications? Wild. I wonder if anyone else has considered this.

Destroy the Supreme Court

Adam_Savage posted...

needing to pass a test to be able to drive

but not to own a small deadly concealable weapon is asinine

when are they gonna make drivers licenses not needed

Okay, to suit your demand, it should be as difficult as a US driving test. Show an examiner what each action does, shoot a couple shots at a target and unload it. Congratulations! You are completely competent to travel in public with a dangerous object.

Adam_Savage posted...

no, guns aren't a right

the constitution clearly says bear arms, not guns

That's just an argument to lift ALL arms restrictions, and thus make missle bearing jets legal.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's just an argument to lift ALL arms restrictions, and thus make missle bearing jets legal.

A chicken in every pot, 2 cars in every garage, and a nuclear warhead in every shed.

I'm fine with that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's just an argument to lift ALL arms restrictions, and thus make missle bearing jets legal.

Alternatively, the amendment is satisfied if any arms are legal. So long as even a single weapon is legal, we're good.

Other countries: "Let's train this person to use firearms properly and restrict their use to appropriate cases."

USA: "LOCK N LOAD!!!! Training??? LIB!!!!!!!!!!"

ReturnOfFa posted...

Other countries: "Let's train this person to use firearms properly and restrict their use to appropriate cases."

USA: "LOCK N LOAD!!!! Training??? LIB!!!!!!!!!!"

Some lady online called me a leftist yesterday like it was supposed to offend me lmao

Yeah, I've never understood how accurately identifying somebody's political leanings is supposed to be insulting.

.. and Joe's not happy

No surprises there

adjl posted...

Yeah, I've never understood how accurately identifying somebody's political leanings is supposed to be insulting.

Right? Thank you for noticing I'm progressive I guess.

I don't have any guns, nor have I ever even shot one, but I feel like if the Supreme Court's job is to interpret and apply the constitution, it would be pretty difficult to justify if they didn't uphold the 2nd amendment. Changes to the constitution are not up to them. So as long as that 2nd amendment exists as is, they have to protect US citizens' ability to get and have them guns.

Voting as a right: "We should have zero to no obstacles."
Guns as a right: "We need as many obstacles as possible."

Y'all really won't like that comparison but it's valid. It's quite the double standard, which hopefully points out the real issue here: guns as a right. Tackle that problem, then you can put up obstacles to ownership.

beefcake71090 posted...

I feel like if the Supreme Court's job is to interpret and apply the constitution, it would be pretty difficult to justify if they didn't uphold the 2nd amendment.

This should be everyone's stance. Get on your congresspeople to effect change, not the court. I find it especially hypocritical that people are saying SCOTUS shouldn't overturn a decades old ruling because precedent, but believe they should overturn a centuries old amendment because feelings. Like damn.

Is voting a tool designed to injure, kill and maim things with no other purpose and I missed it

Classic facetious Jen.

State rights.

Veedrock- posted...

Classic facetious Jen.

What is facetious about my comment

Veedrock- posted...

Y'all really won't like that comparison but it's valid.

How many people are injured or killed by voting each year?

Veedrock- posted...

I find it especially hypocritical that people are saying SCOTUS shouldn't overturn a decades old ruling because precedent, but believe they should overturn a centuries old amendment because times change.

It's quite easily demonstrable that times have changed in ways that necessitate updates to the second amendment (namely advances in gun technology, which are pretty obvious). Can you demonstrate that times have changed such that banning abortion no longer infringes upon the bodily autonomy of women (which would be the basis for overruling Roe v. Wade due to the changing of times)?

It only seems hypocritical if you consider nothing below the most basic, surface-level analysis you can possibly perform on those two issues. Think about it at all (which is generally a good idea when dealing with serious issues with tremendous impact on society), and that accusation falls apart pretty much immediately.

Interesting that Scotus supports such a strong reading of the constitution

Wonder how they'll rule on this case

https://tinyurl.com/ycy9bd7w

Btw initially Veed said

but believe they should overturn a centuries old amendment because feelings.

You know, because not wanting children to be murdered is a matter of feelings.

Revelation34 posted...

Black or grizzly

Polar

Or Bi-Polar? Nah don't want those 'Bear'ing Arms...

it would almost certainly be civil war before conservatives would give up their guns, and nothing divides this country down party lines like gun ownership rights.

It is quite simply not going to happen no matter how much people scream, and the end result of trying is would be a hilariously one sided bloodbath.

LeggomyEggos posted...

it would almost certainly be civil war before conservatives would give up their guns, and nothing divides this country down party lines like gun ownership rights.

It is quite simply not going to happen no matter how much people scream, and the end result of trying is would be a hilariously one sided bloodbath.

Why is threatening civil war part of the conservative playbook? They already got annihilated once. It looks desperate.

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

Why is threatening civil war part of the conservative playbook? They already got annihilated once. It looks desperate.

Are you unfamiliar with the party lines during the civil war?

oh wait, its bligh. literally all he does is shitpost, so that was just a bad joke.

adjl posted...

It's quite easily demonstrable that times have changed in ways that necessitate updates to the second amendment

Cool, take it to lawmakers. I don't believe anything about the amendment is inherently wrong to justify overturning by the SCOTUS on current interpretation.

adjl posted...

Can you demonstrate that times have changed such that banning abortion no longer infringes upon the bodily autonomy of women

Nope, which is why it should remain in place.

papercup posted...

Btw initially Veed said...You know, because not wanting children to be murdered is a matter of feelings.

I listed that as an undue reason for granting SCOTUS undue powers, not to mock how people feel about gun violence. I changed it to a more rational reason that better paralleled the other end of the statement.

LeggomyEggos posted...

Are you unfamiliar with the party lines during the civil war?

oh wait, its bligh. literally all he does is shitpost, so that was just a bad joke.

You know the democrats and republicans of the 1860s aren't the same parties that exist today, right? Please tell me you understand that. Because the people that are waving nazi and confederate flags and storming capitol buildings certainly aren't democrats.

LeggomyEggos posted...

Are you unfamiliar with the party lines during the civil war?

Bruh just look at a fucking map

The awesome part it, there is no need to even defend the pro 2nd amendment stance.

Literally the only thing you are capable of here is ineffectual crying. Whatever argument you make, and whatever fake moral highroad you claim, The thing you want is simply not going to happen.

No matter how much you scream. No matter how much you tell me I am evil and you are good. No matter how angry it makes you, guns are here, and they are going to be here to stay. You have no actual power here.

papercup posted...

You know the democrats and republicans of the 1860s aren't the same parties that exist today, right? Please tell me you understand that. Because the people that are waving nazi and confederate flags and storming capitol buildings certainly aren't democrats.

Are you trying to tell me the dudes waving Confederate flags aren't the successors of the Union

papercup posted...

You know the democrats and republicans of the 1860s aren't the same parties that exist today, right? Please tell me you understand that. Because the people that are waving nazi and confederate flags and storming capitol buildings certainly aren't democrats.

Cool, so then we are acknowledging that the results of a previous civil war are pretty much irrelevant to one that would happen today?

And so instead, to predict a civil war today we could look at things like gun ownership and police and military membership which, as we all know, are SUPER evenly distributed across party lines

LOL

LeggomyEggos posted...

The awesome part it, there is no need to even defend the pro 2nd amendment stance.

Then why did you decide to look like a dumbass anyway

LeggomyEggos posted...

Cool, so then we are acknowledging that the results of a previous civil war are pretty much irrelevant to one that would happen today?

Incredible. It's almost as if that's the exact opposite of what I said.

God these gun humpers are just dying to kill their neighbors lol jeepers