politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
What are you talking about? The ruling here is exactly that, if you're a criminal, you can't own firearms.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
That's literally what I said. You acted like they're not.
You mean the left judges who are anti-2a are arguing with the pro-2a judges...this is nothing more than anti-2a sides being annoyed that the 2nd doesn't have more rules and or being completely ignored and repealed eventually.
The issue with this logic isn't that they stop some, it's that they put rules in place that do not actually do anything. More bullshit gun laws are not going to reduce crime. Anti-2a groups want to focus on the tool used vs why the crime happened in the first place.
Also mental health while its better, it was stripped because of Reagan, and has never really recovered.
No it did not, I don't know what parallel history you're coming up with here, but the 2nd was not created to limit the scope.
They absolutely did put in place tools to be able to stop the gov from becoming a tyrannical gov.
Literally from Jefferson:
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm
I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.
Literally from Adams
Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That's not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was "no big deal". That section starts off:
and continues
The "few lives lost in a century or two" he's talking about are those of the people rebelling.
News to me, I've not seen anything on them arguing with each other. Just a ton of anti-2a groups and media calling the ruling horrific... though I will say that this scotus is not 2A friendly so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually are doing so. I'd love to read about it if you have a source.
Literally from Adams
Yea, remove the arms from those who do not support the cause to fight the British...no where in there did he say to disarm those who support the new nation. They literally were fighting for independence.
and continues
The "few lives lost in a century or two" he's talking about are those of the people rebelling.
And finishes with the exact line I provided you in my previous comment:
To assume Jefferson was speaking of disarming the people and telling them they're traitors is incorrect.
I don't know how much you think that paper supports your argument, but the "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Is a motto that a lot of 2A supports use. It's literally the embodiment of the 2nd amendment.
SC justices don't do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.
If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You're right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you're left with only the piece you posted.
They're not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?
Nothing I've posted has been taken out of context. It's very very clear what both of those letters meant.
In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.
Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.
So you don't, just say that. We're not talking about the rahimi ruling. You don't need to explain how a ruling works and yes they do still "vote" on a ruling. They don't all just write opinions and then magically uphold or strike down a ruling...
No it's not, you're literally trying to make it something its not. You're assessment that Jefferson was anti gun is completely incorrect.