Supreme Court expands gun rights in major decision

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,481
7,891
136
It was thought of as constitutional at the time and for nearly half of the country's history - that's why they were on the books across the country.

What you mean is that despite people considering it constitutional for nearly half our historical legacy someone TODAY decided it was unconstitutional the whole time so it no longer counts as part of our historical legacy. Therefore logically our 'historical legacy' is whatever someone today decides it is, which is no standard at all.

Pure Calvinball.


Since the Supreme Court is establishing this standard for the entire country and we know that people in the country as a whole are less safe for owning a gun, we therefore know that the average gun owner is not rationally assessing their risk.

So if you're looking for rationality then you agree with me.

It really is. Once you throw out meaningful precedent, and start coming up with new things to hang your argument (opinions) on, then there are no rules anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,729
47,423
136
I don’t know about that. Just doing a quick Google search for articles in the past year, it looks like black people are buying more guns. let the gov’t distribute to everyone - why does it have to be just blacks? You and the ladies from The View have a similar opinion - if black people buy more guns, the conservatives will get scared and change gun laws. The only ones trying to change gun laws to be more restricted are the Dems.

I don’t consider myself far right so there are probably nut jobs on the right that will think to restrict laws if more black people buy them but I bet that would be the minority of Republicans. I am all for more gun ownership by black, Hispanic or asian.


edit: added link for The View

and no, I don’t usually check Newsweek but they seem to have the info for me when searching Google
I'm just referencing US history on the subject.

.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,016
19,450
136
Yeah, if somebody stayed home instead of voting for Clinton and they're unhappy with how things are going I won't hesitate to tell them this is personally their fault.

Also anybody who voted Green can get fucked sideways.

Yep. I was a Sanders guy in that two-way race of him vs Hilary, but even though I live in a very blue state, I went out to vote Hilary because, ummm, Trump was so clearly evil, and also at the end of the day, Hilary is a skilled politician that does share some of my values, and ultimately I was proud to vote for a woman for president who shared those values. It was a no brainer.

All the Bernie Bros that stayed home could have probably changed the outcome of that election no problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,720
136
And this right after another school shooting?
The Supreme Court Justices really feel untouchable dont they…
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,655
2,402
126
Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court and the young ages of most of the extremists, it is pretty safe to say that we are going to have the same perverted construction of the Second Amendment (and little effective gun control) for at least the next several decades. If there is a God I hope he/she protects our citizens and children more than our politicians will do.

Edit-I'm seeing less and less reason why the public should bear the extra protection expenses these Justices want us to bear. They make far more money than most Americans and they have-on their own-created this problem. Let them live with it-as the rest of us are being forced to by their actions.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Its time to impose "a Trump". That is, what would Donald Trump do? Trump would just ignore whatever and however this fake court rules if the tide had turned and this was a liberal court instead.

New York, just say to everyone that nothing will change and, people can and will still be arrested and prosecuted just as before this ruling. And treated the same despite this ruling or any future ruling from this corrupt and illegitimate court.

Folks, this Trump court has gone bat-shet nutz, and so its time to simply ignore it. For local government to ignore, for state government to ignore, and for federal government to ignore. Simply allow lower court rulings to stand, period.

Frankly, Thomas Gorsuch Barrett should not be on the court or making any decissions in the first place because they were installed using an underhanded corrupted process i.e. via Mitch McConnell. And Kavanugh should also be deemed null and void because he is a rapist.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,335
6,043
126
It was thought of as constitutional at the time and for nearly half of the country's history - that's why they were on the books across the country.

What you mean is that despite people considering it constitutional for nearly half our historical legacy someone TODAY decided it was unconstitutional the whole time so it no longer counts as part of our historical legacy. Therefore logically our 'historical legacy' is whatever someone today decides it is, which is no standard at all.

Pure Calvinball.


Since the Supreme Court is establishing this standard for the entire country and we know that people in the country as a whole are less safe for owning a gun, we therefore know that the average gun owner is not rationally assessing their risk.

So if you're looking for rationality then you agree with me.
It is not rational to apply statistics based gathered from groups of people to which you may bear little semblance. One's notions of risk are personal. As a liberal I have a high tolerance for novelty of opinion. And I would especially appreciate doing my own analysis rather than having somebody else impose theirs on mine. I figure I am more likely to be killed by an insane person than I am to die by my own gun with the probability of either being extremely low such that either opinion would be OK in the long run.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,729
47,423
136
It is not rational to apply statistics based gathered from groups of people to which you may bear little semblance. One's notions of risk are personal.

So first I assume we now agree that the whole history thing is nonsense?

It is absolutely rational to use population level statistics when making policy for an entire population. In fact it is irrational to do otherwise.

As a liberal I have a high tolerance for novelty of opinion. And I would especially appreciate doing my own analysis rather than having somebody else impose theirs on mine. I figure I am more likely to be killed by an insane person than I am to die by my own gun with the probability of either being extremely low such that either opinion would be OK in the long run.
It's pretty common for people to overrate their own competence. That's why the most common stated reason for owning a gun is safety despite owning a gun making the average person less safe. People aren't very rational and I'm sure lots and lots of people who are now dead because of those guns thought exactly the same as you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
8,940
4,265
136
because they were installed using an underhanded corrupted process i.e. via Mitch McConnell.
But Mitch was in his complete right as majority leader on what comes up to the senate. Don’t like it and the filibuster, up to the senate to vote changes.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,335
6,043
126
May as well just dump all laws that have ever been broken. Jesus fuck it's like writing judicial opinions via facebook comments. If they weren't so fucking old I'd assume they were trolling us.
The purpose of passing laws is to legally provide effect deterrent. Why keep a law that infringes on people's rights in the name of enforcement if it doesn't do that anyway. To impose a burden on a right in the name of a social good should produce that good to make it worth doing, no? That is not saying a law is no good because somebody broke the law anyway.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Thank you Senator McConnell and thank God that fucking little prick Merrick Garland is fucking up the Attorney Generals Office and not a Supreme Court seat.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,495
9,828
136
Thank you Senator McConnell and thank God that fucking little prick Merrick Garland is fucking up the Attorney Generals Office and not a Supreme Court seat.
I'm sure you can describe precisely why Garland is deserving of such description. I'll wait.

In the meantime, better hope another good guy with a gun (TM) doesn't mistake you for a bad guy with a gun
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,729
47,423
136
The purpose of passing laws is to legally provide effect deterrent. Why keep a law that infringes on people's rights in the name of enforcement if it doesn't do that anyway. To impose a burden on a right in the name of a social good should produce that good to make it worth doing, no? That is not saying a law is no good because somebody broke the law anyway.
Concealed carry is associated with a ~15% increase in violent crime so inversely, restricting it is reducing violent crime by ~15%. Sounds like a pretty big public good to me.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,335
6,043
126
So first I assume we now agree that the whole history thing is nonsense?

Not really. I believe that justice is a substitute for truth and that truth is the product of a product of an inner awakening. What is true to one who has awakened is true to another who is also awake. Law is always an evolving approximation of the highest possible human understanding, a work in progress. But is a formulation, a dead flat concretion, a temporal deposition of a living consciousness. Personally, I see in laws that try to restrict the rights of people in some states from having the rights of others in most states violates equality among national citizens. I see the right to chose to carry the same as the right to abort a fetus. States should not be able to impose restrictions on either and if the court rules to OK states rights on banning abortion they will have gotten the conceal carry law right and be wrong on abortion.

It is absolutely rational to use population level statistics when making policy for an entire population. In fact it is irrational to do otherwise.

I have a right to be irrational and to tell you I will decide for myself the risks of owning a gun because I have a right to own one. Your rationality is just a fixation you have with statistics that mean nothing to me. I find that very authoritarian when you seek to force me to comply with your notions of risk. In shout I have no problem with the statistics you present and no problem with me ignoring them in favor of my own ideas about what is rational. Knowing the correct statistics and shoving them down someone else's throat isn't rational to me.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
I'm sure you can describe precisely why Garland is deserving of such description. I'll wait.

In the meantime, better hope another good guy with a gun (TM) doesn't mistake you for a bad guy with a gun
Sure, you have a number of places from the US border to the intimidation protests in front of the Justices homes that he is choosing not to uphold the legal laws of this country.



"Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,” adding that anyone who “uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”


The reason is simple: It is obstruction of justice."



And i'm happy to have the opportunity to take my own chances with regard to another good guy with a gun.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,016
19,450
136
Conversing with some gun fetishist righties on reddit. They think it's totalitarian you can't carry a gun openly anywhere anytime. And they think in any shooting situation they encounter they will be heroes and end it instead of waiting for cops. It's a bunch of small dick energy gun fetishizing by toxic masculinity righties that think they are all Rambos, when really, they need a gun to validate their small dick energy existence
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,729
47,423
136
Not really. I believe that justice is a substitute for truth and that truth is the product of a product of an inner awakening. What is true to one who has awakened is true to another who is also awake. Law is always an evolving approximation of the highest possible human understanding, a work in progress. But is a formulation, a dead flat concretion, a temporal deposition of a living consciousness. Personally, I see in laws that try to restrict the rights of people in some states from having the rights of others in most states violates equality among national citizens. I see the right to chose to carry the same as the right to abort a fetus. States should not be able to impose restrictions on either and if the court rules to OK states rights on banning abortion they will have gotten the conceal carry law right and be wrong on abortion.

Sounds like a 'yes, really' to me as this is an entirely different argument. Is there a reason why when your original premise was shown to be nonsense you jumped to a new one instead of considering why you got the original one wrong?

I have a right to be irrational and to tell you I will decide for myself the risks of owning a gun because I have a right to own one. Your rationality is just a fixation you have with statistics that mean nothing to me. I find that very authoritarian when you seek to force me to comply with your notions of risk. In shout I have no problem with the statistics you present and no problem with me ignoring them in favor of my own ideas about what is rational. Knowing the correct statistics and shoving them down someone else's throat isn't rational to me.
How authoritarian of me to base laws off of reality instead of your personal feelings.

Also pretty amusing that the guy who says people should only be allowed to live in homes he finds sufficiently luxurious to call someone else an authoritarian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,907
32,713
136
Conversing with some gun fetishist righties on reddit. They think it's totalitarian you can't carry a gun openly anywhere anytime. And they think in any shooting situation they encounter they will be heroes and end it instead of waiting for cops. It's a bunch of small dick energy gun fetishizing by toxic masculinity righties that think they are all Rambos, when really, they need a gun to validate their small dick energy existence

This is why I only give my business to gun stores or ranges that are largely apolitical and not full of unsafe posturing morons. The list is small but it preserves my sanity and helps me not to get into trouble when somebody assumes I share their point of view.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,335
6,043
126
Concealed carry is associated with a ~15% increase in violent crime so inversely, restricting it is reducing violent crime by ~15%. Sounds like a pretty big public good to me.

It's always whose cow gets gored. You have no interest is owning a gun and therefore no interest in preserving the right to do so. Your willingness to impose that indifference on others makes you an authoritarian, in my opinion. You will suggest that I am selfish because I want to have a right that statistically when others exercise it leans to more gun deaths whereas I believe that we have an issue with guns because we have a mentally ill population as a result of the fact we grow up in an authoritarian society. So it is you who causes gun violence. I want to protect myself from people like you.

There is no question in my mind that your have the very best intentions, that your concern for society is genuine, but we differ in what we see as the source of the problem, with you it's gun ownership, and with me it is societal insanity. You want to protect society from madmen with guns by banning them and I want to protect myself by being able to counter the threat personally. I will gladly give up my buns but only when I have managed to get hold of all of them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,729
47,423
136
It's always whose cow gets gored. You have no interest is owning a gun and therefore no interest in preserving the right to do so. Your willingness to impose that indifference on others makes you an authoritarian, in my opinion. You will suggest that I am selfish because I want to have a right that statistically when others exercise it leans to more gun deaths whereas I believe that we have an issue with guns because we have a mentally ill population as a result of the fact we grow up in an authoritarian society. So it is you who causes gun violence. I want to protect myself from people like you.

There is no question in my mind that your have the very best intentions, that your concern for society is genuine, but we differ in what we see as the source of the problem, with you it's gun ownership, and with me it is societal insanity. You want to protect society from madmen with guns by banning them and I want to protect myself by being able to counter the threat personally. I will gladly give up my buns but only when I have managed to get hold of all of them.
lol - now anti gun people are the cause of gun violence. Tee hee. I guess most other developed countries must have huge gun body counts then as their laws are much stricter than ours. I haven’t checked the numbers so I’m going to rely on you to confirm. ;)

Regardless, if a 15% decrease in violent crime isn’t a sufficient public good can you describe what would be?

As far as how to best solve the problem I actually don’t care about the solution. If the best way to a safer society was for everyone to be armed to the teeth I would be fine with that too because that’s the goal. The difference is that isn’t the way and I accept reality. As someone without ego I would have thought you would share a similar interest in what is true over what flatters your sensibilities.

You abandoned your original arguments when they were no longer defensible and now you’re pulling the standard Moonbeam, retreating to psychobabble. If you’re interested in defending your original point let me know but I’m not interested in cutting through a thicket of nonsense to determine what your fourth fallback position is.
 

Lezunto

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2020
1,070
968
106
Well, it may take a while, but anyone in New York State who claims they have deep abiding need for personal protection or who loves stepping on others' sneakers can now do it with their very concealed weapon.

And they don't have to worry about breaking a law, a county rule or even getting a summons.

Because the Supreme Court just tossed out New York State's strict concealed gun law. Several months from now, it's gonna be loads of fun on subway trains, transit buses, malls, fast food joints and in sports bars all across the Empire State.

Top Court okays strike down NY State's concealed gun law laws
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
I watch the tv series FEAR THY NEIGHBOR all the time and it happens over and over and over where neighbors turn to guns to settle any and every argument against one another no matter hOW STUPID or how small the argument.
YOU'RE DOG WALKED THRU MY ROSE GARDEN.... SO YOU DIE.
YOU'RE KIDS BASKETBALL LANDED IN MY YARD..... SO YOU DIE.
THIS is what the NRA and the Donald Trump fucked-up supreme court is enabling to happen.
YES.... IT IS INSANE. Just like Donald Trump and just like the assholes Trump puts on that court. Fucked up justices, fucked up rulings.