Supreme Court expands gun rights in major decision

[Moonbeam]

Endless babble because you can’t admit you were wrong. The guy without ego turns out to be dominated by it.

That's not an argument. It is the opinion of a person who
The guy who claims to be reasonable turns out to happily profess that if his reasonableness is put into question he will appeal to ad hominem attacks. You have your own reading of history based on the bias you came in the door with and your own version of what law making should be based on. You don't believe the court made the right decision while many many others here do and naturally it would be all those people who are ignorant and egotistical, but, of course not you.

What I know is that the number of people who believe something does not make it true, nor the dept to which they feel they are right. I also know that what creates a conservative and backward leaning point of view is fear and if there is anything I take from this gun debate with liberals is the depth to which they fear other people, the depth to which they will go to render them incapable of doing harm, the depth to which they will go to insure we all live in a nanny state. I see that as a diseased mental condition based on projection, the deeply hidden fear of what is hidden within you, your fear to be victim to the irrational hidden emotions of other people. You lack faith and confidence that human nature is fundamentally, inherently, inalienably good. The world you look at is the world as it is because of the way that you see it. It is absolutely critical to the maintenance of your world view that you do not allow yourself to see this as anything but psychobabble. I used to worry about being considered a freak until in a flash I entered the world of mad men and the beauty that world contains.

Freedom can only be had by responsible people. Deny them the opportunity to exercise it and that capacity will atrophy. That is the world the authoritarian in his unconsciousness creates, the world you see full of violent people.

 

[Moonbeam]

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

The way to end that fear is authoritarian control. We need drugs that make people safe to be around as in emotionally dead, like drones or robots, etc.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

So true. This is what fear does to you, as in a raving lunatic. My sympathy. Some people have the same sort of delusional attitude toward Black people.

 

[Moonbeam]

My understanding of the ruling is that states can't be "may issue", they have to be "shall issue". That makes sense to me. If someone passes the bar to own a gun, they shouldn't be denied on a whim. If there's something in the person's background that prevents them from being a gun owner that's one thing but having a clean record and still being denied isn't right. As long as gun ownership is a right granted by the Constitution, it should apply to everyone equally.

Your rights don't matter because guns scare me.

 

[cytg111]

That's not an argument. It is the opinion of a person who
The guy who claims to be reasonable turns out to happily profess that if his reasonableness is put into question he will appeal to ad hominem attacks. You have your own reading of history based on the bias you came in the door with and your own version of what law making should be based on. You don't believe the court made the right decision while many many others here do and naturally it would be all those people who are ignorant and egotistical, but, of course not you.

What I know is that the number of people who believe something does not make it true, nor the dept to which they feel they are right. I also know that what creates a conservative and backward leaning point of view is fear and if there is anything I take from this gun debate with liberals is the depth to which they fear other people, the depth to which they will go to render them incapable of doing harm, the depth to which they will go to insure we all live in a nanny state. I see that as a diseased mental condition based on projection, the deeply hidden fear of what is hidden within you, your fear to be victim to the irrational hidden emotions of other people. You lack faith and confidence that human nature is fundamentally, inherently, inalienably good. The world you look at is the world as it is because of the way that you see it. It is absolutely critical to the maintenance of your world view that you do not allow yourself to see this as anything but psychobabble. I used to worry about being considered a freak until in a flash I entered the world of mad men and the beauty that world contains.

Freedom can only be had by responsible people. Deny them the opportunity to exercise it and that capacity will atrophy. That is the world the authoritarian in his unconsciousness creates, the world you see full of violent people.

Guess you glossed over this post

Page 2 - 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.

forums.anandtech.com

Also 1787 guns back when the 2nd was drafted:

Somewhere along the line your 2nd morphed from the right to defend yourself into the right to murder anyone at will. Sane people will argue the two is not the same thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

For 110 years this law was Constitutional. Until this court discovered something all the others missed

Yup, it was successfully challenged and found to be unconstitutional. I'm interested in when The similar law in California drops out of effect. I'm thinking about becoming a troubadour with a viola case heading out for a gig. God help anybody who says anything about my Trump hat.

 

[Moonbeam]

Guess you glossed over this post

Page 2 - 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.

forums.anandtech.com

Also 1787 guns back when the 2nd was drafted:

Somewhere along the line your 2nd morphed from the right to defend yourself into the right to murder anyone at will. Sane people will argue the two is not the same thing.

No, I deny neither that statistics reveal a greater danger from owning a gun compared to now, nor that the Supreme Court lacks political bias and especially and mainly on the right. I simply think that banning guns would make the situation worse and that such statistics should form the basis of my own risk analysis not turn into a left authoritarian mass hysteria. I believe the court destroyed our country when it voted 5 to 4 to elect George Bush as president. He was not win Florida in 2000 and I said it them. They used a pretext as to why time was more important than who really won. The world would not be as fucked up as it is if Gore, who won the election, had been seated. I hold the Supreme Court in a high degree of contempt. There are lots of people who, by the way, are not socially dangerous or conservative, who believe in the right to bear arms.

Fortunately, in my opinion, they got the NY thing right and in line with what I see as American tradition from a time when we trusted and relied on our fellow citizens to act responsibly. Children have the interesting psychological property of becoming what their parents expect them to be. Don't trust in their innate goodness and they won't disappoint. We live in a world full of people with mutilated self respect and who are hell bent of getting even for what was done to them. Hardly anybody is interested in fixing a problem where there is a powerful need to deny one has it. Me hate myself, don't be silly. Leave me alone so I can quietly continue to stab myself and everybody else in the back.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not an argument. It is the opinion of a person who
The guy who claims to be reasonable turns out to happily profess that if his reasonableness is put into question he will appeal to ad hominem attacks. You have your own reading of history based on the bias you came in the door with and your own version of what law making should be based on. You don't believe the court made the right decision while many many others here do and naturally it would be all those people who are ignorant and egotistical, but, of course not you.

What I know is that the number of people who believe something does not make it true, nor the dept to which they feel they are right. I also know that what creates a conservative and backward leaning point of view is fear and if there is anything I take from this gun debate with liberals is the depth to which they fear other people, the depth to which they will go to render them incapable of doing harm, the depth to which they will go to insure we all live in a nanny state. I see that as a diseased mental condition based on projection, the deeply hidden fear of what is hidden within you, your fear to be victim to the irrational hidden emotions of other people. You lack faith and confidence that human nature is fundamentally, inherently, inalienably good. The world you look at is the world as it is because of the way that you see it. It is absolutely critical to the maintenance of your world view that you do not allow yourself to see this as anything but psychobabble. I used to worry about being considered a freak until in a flash I entered the world of mad men and the beauty that world contains.

Freedom can only be had by responsible people. Deny them the opportunity to exercise it and that capacity will atrophy. That is the world the authoritarian in his unconsciousness creates, the world you see full of violent people.

Okay

 

[cytg111]

No, I deny neither that statistics reveal a greater danger from owning a gun compared to now, nor that the Supreme Court lacks political bias and especially and mainly on the right. I simply think that banning guns would make the situation worse and that such statistics should form the basis of my own risk analysis not turn into a left authoritarian mass hysteria. I believe the court destroyed our country when it voted 5 to 4 to elect George Bush as president. He was not win Florida in 2000 and I said it them. They used a pretext as to why time was more important than who really won. The world would not be as fucked up as it is if Gore, who won the election, had been seated. I hold the Supreme Court in a high degree of contempt. There are lots of people who, by the way, are not socially dangerous or conservative, who believe in the right to bear arms.

Fortunately, in my opinion, they got the NY thing right and in line with what I see as American tradition from a time when we trusted and relied on our fellow citizens to act responsibly. Children have the interesting psychological property of becoming what their parents expect them to be. Don't trust in their innate goodness and they won't disappoint. We live in a world full of people with mutilated self respect and who are hell bent of getting even for what was done to them. Hardly anybody is interested in fixing a problem where there is a powerful need to deny one has it. Me hate myself, don't be silly. Leave me alone so I can quietly continue to stab myself and everybody else in the back.

So. You are an authoritarian.
The will of the people is wrong.
Let me force their hand for a decade and they will learn to love me cause this is where we need to go: "tradition from a time when we trusted and relied on our fellow citizens to act responsibly".
Of course totally oblivious the the FACT that the road to get there will fuck eeeeevery thing else up in the process, in effect the process will render the destination uninhabitable by it self.

Either you go by the will of the people or you iterate one point closer to Putins Russia.
You are fucking up.

 

[ivwshane]

The 2nd was about protecting the citizens of the country from tyranny. The literal reason US was established and split from England. Because they were tyrannical.

Cool, cool, so it should be easy to point out where in the constitution the words, “tyranny” or its equivalent are that support your claim. Meanwhile, because I’ve actually read the constitution, I can refer you to article 1 section 8 clause 15, and 16, as proof that not only are you wrong but as a clear explanation as to what the 2nd was meant for. I can also refer you to the militia acts of 1792 which further solidifies the meaning of the 2nd.

Plus, just using basic logic, the overthrowing of a democratically elected government is antithetical to democracy itself and is the actual tyranny as it would be a violent minority who would be imposing their will over the majority.

 

[Moonbeam]

I deny neither that statistics reveal a greater danger from owning a gun compared to now

So. You are an authoritarian.
The will of the people is wrong.
Let me force their hand for a decade and they will learn to love me cause this is where we need to go: "tradition from a time when we trusted and relied on our fellow citizens to act responsibly".
Of course totally oblivious the the FACT that the road to get there will fuck eeeeevery thing else up in the process, in effect the process will render the destination uninhabitable by it self.

Either you go by the will of the people or you iterate one point closer to Putins Russia.
You are fucking up.

Should have been:

I deny neither that statistics reveal a greater danger from owning a gun compared to 'not as in not owning one'

How does accepting that the statistics may show that the right to carry may lead to more crazy people using concealed guns make me an authoritarian? And when does a Supreme Court decision have anything to do with the will of the people who may wish that laws be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the function of being the last place where a law may go to have it's constitutionality challenged and the decisions there are final until the constitution is amended or the court reverses a prior decision.

If millions of people die as a result of 8 states losing the right to determine if a person can conceal carry or not what does that have to do with whether the constitution is interpreted to allow that or not have anything to do with anything. The court is obliged to rule according to how each judge reads the constitution. Forty two states apparently had not seen fit to pass such restrictions. Nothing I could do about Bush vs Gore. Nothing you can do about this. You are just emotionally upset and dumping on people who see things differently. You are likely not going to see that anger as anything like what happens when somebody shoots somebody else because, well the made me feel bad, so I shot them. I see it as right in line with my rights as an American citizen.

Maybe it's genetic. I have a gun my father bought before I was born to protect my mother who had discovered someone peeping into a window. It is the only gun I have that is loaded now but with dummy rounds. I have never fired it but I knew where it was hidden in the house when I was a kid and I used to get it down to play with when nobody was around. My Dad was no fool and no bullets were to be found, but I knew already about the dangers of guns. I had been shooting an air rifle with him since before I can really remember. Life is good.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cool, cool, so it should be easy to point out where in the constitution the words, “tyranny” or its equivalent are that support your claim. Meanwhile, because I’ve actually read the constitution, I can refer you to article 1 section 8 clause 15, and 16, as proof that not only are you wrong but as a clear explanation as to what the 2nd was meant for. I can also refer you to the militia acts of 1792 which further solidifies the meaning of the 2nd.

Plus, just using basic logic, the overthrowing of a democratically elected government is antithetical to democracy itself and is the actual tyranny as it would be a violent minority who would be imposing their will over the majority.

Like the Americans did to the British. What we know instinctively is that one is permitted to use violence to overthrow real tyranny or in self defense. What we do not agree on is who is a tyrant and who is not or when it is murder in the guise of self defense or not. Those are answers that will differ depending on on the degree of one's consciousness awareness. Unfortunately, owning to widespread, even near universal self contempt, it is blustering certainty rather than the pursuit of conscious awareness that our culture favors. So here we are.

 

[fskimospy]

Like the Americans did to the British. What we know instinctively is that one is permitted to use violence to overthrow real tyranny or in self defense. What we do not agree on is who is a tyrant and who is not or when it is murder in the guise of self defense or not. Those are answers that will differ depending on one's degree of one's consciousness awareness. Unfortunately, owning to widespread, even near universal self contempt, it is blustering certainty rather than the pursuit of conscious awareness that our culture favors. So here we are.

Man if only you had an ounce of self awareness you might question ‘blustering certainty’.

 

[cytg111]

I deny neither that statistics reveal a greater danger from owning a gun compared to now
Should have been:

I deny neither that statistics reveal a greater danger from owning a gun compared to 'not as in not owning one'

How does accepting that the statistics may show that the right to carry may lead to more crazy people using concealed guns make me an authoritarian? And when does a Supreme Court decision have anything to do with the will of the people who may wish that laws be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the function of being the last place where a law may go to have it's constitutionality challenged and the decisions there are final until the constitution is amended or the court reverses a prior decision.

If millions of people die as a result of 8 states losing the right to determine if a person can conceal carry or not what does that have to do with whether the constitution is interpreted to allow that or not have anything to do with anything. The court is obliged to rule according to how each judge reads the constitution. Forty two states apparently had not seen fit to pass such restrictions. Nothing I could do about Bush vs Gore. Nothing you can do about this. You are just emotionally upset and dumping on people who see things differently. You are likely not going to see that anger as anything like what happens when somebody shoots somebody else because, well the made me feel bad, so I shot them. I see it as right in line with my rights as an American citizen.

Maybe it's genetic. I have a gun my father bought before I was born to protect my mother who had discovered someone peeping into a window. It is the only gun I have that is loaded now but with dummy rounds. I have never fired it but I knew where it was hidden in the house when I was a kid and I used to get it down to play with when nobody was around. My Dad was no fool and no bullets were to be found, but I knew already about the dangers of guns. I had been shooting an air rifle with him since before I can really remember. Life is good.

Going against the will of the people is authoritarian.
SC goes against the will of the people
You agree with the SC
Thus.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Man if only you had an ounce of self awareness you might question ‘blustering certainty’.

I think it’s pretty cool that this topic continually reveals MB’s raw humanity

 

[ch33zw1z]

Going against the will of the people is authoritarian.
SC goes against the will of the people
You agree with the SC
Thus.

MB will inevitably respond with a long-winded "no you"

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good. The NY law was a clear infringement.

In order to exercise one's constitutional guaranteed right, citizens would have to petition the govt, and convince a judge they had proper and sufficient need to exercise their right. If the judge wasn't convinced, they could arbitrarily deny one their rights.

"The right to bear arms is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees"

We would never stand for this for the right to vote, right to speak, right to a fair trial, right to practice religion, but somehow this was permissible for the right to self defense?

Took way too long to correct, but now it's here, it will pave the way for many other challenges to restore these rights from undue govt infringement.

Now if we can do the same for voting...

Hot take: Humans as a species cannot exist in the densities that exist in places like NYC with easy access to firearms without periodic (and sometimes often) killings. We're maladapted to large tribal communities.

 

[fskimospy]

Hot take: Humans as a species cannot exist in the densities that exist in places like NYC with easy access to firearms without periodic (and sometimes often) killings. We're maladapted to large tribal communities.

And yet the Supreme Court demands that we enact gun regulations analogous with a time when the largest city in the country was about 30,000 people.

This is yet another illustration as to why the idea that we need to interpret laws as if it were 1789 is transparently stupid.

 

[K1052]

And yet the Supreme Court demands that we enact gun regulations analogous with a time when the largest city in the country was about 30,000 people.

This is yet another illustration as to why the idea that we need to interpret laws as if it were 1789 is transparently stupid.

I'd like to ask Thomas if we can we also have the drug laws from the late 1780s.
By which I mean none.

 

[Paratus]

I'd like to ask Thomas if we can we also have the drug laws from the late 1780s.
By which I mean none.

Finally! We’d get some cough syrup that worked!

You know why it’s called “One Night” cough syrup? Because you ain’t waking up the next morning.

 

[fskimospy]

Finally! We’d get some cough syrup that worked!

You know why it’s called “One Night” cough syrup? Because you ain’t waking up the next morning.

Whatever man, that sounds awesome.

 

[K1052]

Finally! We’d get some cough syrup that worked!

You know why it’s called “One Night” cough syrup? Because you ain’t waking up the next morning.

Well it is true you would no longer have a cough.

 

[eelw]

There is a price we pay for freedom we don’t give up because there are many who abuse it.

Lol what additional freedoms does the US have vs other sane first world nations. Like 3 Canadian cities in most recent top 10 cities in the world to live in. American cities, zip.

 

[eelw]

The SC has more intelligence than me, but I I agree withe the ruling..

Lol that's a very low bar. Kavanagh > rock

 

[ch33zw1z]

Lol that's a very low bar. Kavanagh > rock

Look how mean liberals are! /faint /clutchpearls