• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court expands gun rights in major decision

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PS...
THIS is why I say, there ARE NO SUCH THING as "responsible" gun owners. Not in America. There are only insane gun lovers obsessed with guns waiting for a tragedy to happen. AND IT WILL.... tragedy always will happen.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...
My point is that what you call rational and what the Supreme Court says is constitutional are not the same thing and that I believe that based on historical considerations they decided correctly. The imposition by the state of New York limiting the right of outside carry to the say so of state officials is and always was authoritarian dictatorship and a violation of the right of self defense. Personal rights can’t be sacrificed in this country based on so called rational fears. There is a price we pay for freedom we don’t give up because there are many who abuse it.

You have blinded your reasoning by focus on statistics when the negative facts contained in them isn’t the greatest threat. You say you would be just as happy if everybody being armed to the teeth would end gun violence, but what that really amounts to is that there is another solution that follows out of such thinking and it is that we need a way to compel obedient behavior. Nobody has the right to freedoms that some abuse. Such freedoms must be hung out to dry up on the tree of utility.

I believe you lack a feel for what is human nature as a result of having intellectualized away your feelings including the instinct for self defense. Someone without ego might just see that.

I fully respect your decisions on gun ownership. I just don't want your attitude appearing in laws that affect me. I think that's as historically American as you can get.

My arguments have not changed. I just try to express them in better detail depending on where you go with yours, what you, in my opinion, fail to see. I do the best I can because the more the country moves in the direction of an authoritarian left as I see it, the greater the violence in out society will be. I am having the same argument with Muse essentially
 
Moonbeam said:
My point is that what you call rational and what the Supreme Court says is constitutional are not the same thing and that I believe that based on historical considerations they decided correctly. The imposition by the state of New York limiting the right of outside carry to the say so of state officials is and always was authoritarian dictatorship and a violation of the right of self defense. Personal rights can’t be sacrificed in this country based on so called rational fears. There is a price we pay for freedom we don’t give up because there are many who abuse it.

You have blinded your reasoning by focus on statistics when the negative facts contained in them isn’t the greatest threat. You say you would be just as happy if everybody being armed to the teeth would end gun violence, but what that really amounts to is that there is another solution that follows out of such thinking and it is that we need a way to compel obedient behavior. Nobody has the right to freedoms that some abuse. Such freedoms must be hung out to dry up on the tree of utility.

I believe you lack a feel for what is human nature as a result of having intellectualized away your feelings including the instinct for self defense. Someone without ego might just see that.

I fully respect your decisions on gun ownership. I just don't want your attitude appearing in laws that affect me. I think that's as historically American as you can get.

My arguments have not changed. I just try to express them in better detail depending on where you go with yours, what you, in my opinion, fail to see. I do the best I can because the more the country moves in the direction of an authoritarian left as I see it, the greater the violence in out society will be. I am having the same argument with Muse essentially
Click to expand...
Endless babble because you can’t admit you were wrong. The guy without ego turns out to be dominated by it.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
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."

thefederalist.com

Garland's Version Of Justice For All Doesn't Include His Political Enemies

Despite the group’s ominous pledge to take 'increasingly drastic measures' against pro-lifers, Attorney General Merrick Garland is silent.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com


And i'm happy to have the opportunity to take my own chances with regard to another good guy with a gun.
Click to expand...
Don't you have to protest before the ruling is handed down to influence the decision? How can they obstruct justice after the fact? You really need to brush up on your reading, comprehension, and vocabulary/definition skills. That law does not say they can't protest their disagreement with a ruling already handed down, aka ruled on. You know, come to think of it, you might want to also educate yourself on the 1st Amendment. (I am pretty sure the constitution trumps this law in the context they where protesting, which was after the fact to show their disagreement/disapproval of the ruling).

As for the US border, you may want to also learn the US laws that govern it. Because you are use to those laws being ignored and violated, you can't recognize it when the law is actually being followed. Yes, the laws have flaws, but that is different than them not being enforced.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
JockoJohnson said:
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
Click to expand...
Google Mulford Act. St. Reagan got gun control religion quick once blacks started open carrying outside the state capitol.
 
JTsyo said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is about forcing states to allow concealed carry, not just owning a gun. You are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
What’s ironic about this ruling is that the purpose of the 2nd was to give a way for states to protect themselves but the 2nd has now been so thoroughly perverted that it is now the very thing the states need protection from.

SC-what’s that? Citizens of various states are being killed by guns and the states would like to be able to put laws into place to help protect them? No sorry you don’t have a right to protect yourselves because we’ve decided that the very right that says states are allowed to protect themselves, no longer means that, now it means you must support insurrection and rebellions because of made up and out of context history we’ve used for the basis of our 2nd amendment contortion.
 
sportage said:
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.
Click to expand...
the supreme court doesnt make the law.
the supreme court interprets the law.
 
Think about the idiots you have to deal with in traffic every single day. Now imagine every one of them carrying a firearm. Welcome to your future. Black Fridays should be a blast...
 
Moonbeam said:
My point is that what you call rational and what the Supreme Court says is constitutional are not the same thing and that I believe that based on historical considerations they decided correctly. The imposition by the state of New York limiting the right of outside carry to the say so of state officials is and always was authoritarian dictatorship and a violation of the right of self defense. Personal rights can’t be sacrificed in this country based on so called rational fears. There is a price we pay for freedom we don’t give up because there are many who abuse it.

You have blinded your reasoning by focus on statistics when the negative facts contained in them isn’t the greatest threat. You say you would be just as happy if everybody being armed to the teeth would end gun violence, but what that really amounts to is that there is another solution that follows out of such thinking and it is that we need a way to compel obedient behavior. Nobody has the right to freedoms that some abuse. Such freedoms must be hung out to dry up on the tree of utility.

I believe you lack a feel for what is human nature as a result of having intellectualized away your feelings including the instinct for self defense. Someone without ego might just see that.

I fully respect your decisions on gun ownership. I just don't want your attitude appearing in laws that affect me. I think that's as historically American as you can get.

My arguments have not changed. I just try to express them in better detail depending on where you go with yours, what you, in my opinion, fail to see. I do the best I can because the more the country moves in the direction of an authoritarian left as I see it, the greater the violence in out society will be. I am having the same argument with Muse essentially
Click to expand...

I’ll cut right to the chase: you sound like a fucking idiot. I get it, you trust your feels more than you do actual facts, history, and statistics, you are a real human’s human and that’s not a compliment.

Your argument is hypocritical and a contradiction all in one, a fools reasoning.
 
ivwshane said:
What’s ironic about this ruling is that the purpose of the 2nd was to give a way for states to protect themselves but the 2nd has now been so thoroughly perverted that it is now the very thing the states need protection from.

SC-what’s that? Citizens of various states are being killed by guns and the states would like to be able to put laws into place to help protect them? No sorry you don’t have a right to protect yourselves because we’ve decided that the very right that says states are allowed to protect themselves, no longer means that, now it means you must support insurrection and rebellions because of made up and out of context history we’ve used for the basis of our 2nd amendment contortion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FlawleZ said:
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.
Click to expand...
You really learned that second grade version of the US Revolution. Please, teach me more. I'm looking forward to the continued use of the word tyranny, I'm a real glutton for Greek root words.
 
Occurred to me....
If Donald Trump did in fact break the law and orchestrate a government coup, as now it is clear that he did indeed do, then all of his appointed supreme court justices should become invalidated. Kicked off the court. Fired!!!
They all need to go, and take that Clarence Thomas guy with you.
 
So where is the limit to which this ruling now applies? ie - Are convicted felon's rights now being violated whereby they are prohibited from owning firearms, let alone being prevented from conceal carry?

Curious minds would like to know.
 
Does this mean that hands in pockets -> death by cop -> good shoot?

I mean police can pretty much always claim that a guy was going for his pocket right? Pocket-> concealed carry.
Guess its good business for glock42 and kin.

Isnt dems doing a piss poor job at thanking Trump for all this SC bullshit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top