What a silly hill to die on. This is blatantly unconstitutional. That's obvious to everyone, even those of us who might agree in spirit. So it's just a waste. A waste of time and tax payer money. New Mexico is gonna spend time and resources on this that could be better spent elsewhere.
What's more it wastes political capital. Capital that is gonna be needed soon for the Democratic party. So I can't fathom why she's doing this. She just gave conservatives the high ground and a huge rallying call.
With the current court, it is unconstitutional. Several states banned public carry when the country was founded including Virginia so it's not like that was unheard of at the time.
100% this. It feels like sabotage.
Show me where the constitution gives you a right to open carry.
Oh that's right, it doesn't.
I love how effectively controversial things like this function like bug traps in drawing out the gnats - makes it easy to identify the low-effort trolls for a quick block.
A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.
Thank goodness, the murders can continue
I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead
I don't think it's quite an equivalence. When carrying firearms is illegal (as it effectively is in my country of Canada), you know whenever you see someone with a gun that you should run and call the police. You know they're up to no good. In many US states, if you see someone with a gun... you kinda just have to deal with it. Maybe they'll shoot you. Maybe they just need to overcompensate for something. You can't really run from it because it can be so common.
A decent amount of gun crime is also spur of the moment acts. They won't go home, get their gun, and come back. The gun violence only happens because the perpetrator happened to have a gun when they were angry. Banning carrying doesn't guarantee people won't be armed in public, but it sure will heavily reduce it.
Criminals don't open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.
Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you're making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you're in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren't sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don't want to hurt anyone
Did you see that video of the lady open carrying in Houston who started shooting at the car that cut her off? Hilarious. Sorry, you were saying?
Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.
In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for every article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.
US has a gun problem. It isn't really news. Unfortunately guns are ingrained into US culture and people will defend their right for guns against all common sense.
Try comparing countries by homicide categorically.
As it is, you're showing you don't care at all about homicide - only that the specific implement is a firearm.
So US is what, in the top 20? If you filter for developed countries, US is firmly #1. There is certainly room for improvement. Having easy access to devices designed to kill people is just madness to me.
Why don't you check out the data and directly refer to that early than making more bad guesses?
The original intent of a thing is entirely irrelevant to what a thing is used for. The sheer number of things in use in day-to-day life in ways far beyond original intent is mind-boggling. And then there's the flip-side, the logical extension of such an absurd focus precludes assigning actual blame for use of a thing in the way it was designed.
I'm not sure how you define easy, but requiring a background check is more than sufficient barrier for me. Then again, I'm not pants-shittingly terrified of inanimate objects.
If you don't want to hurt anyone, why carry a weapon designed for that exact purpose? There's literally no other use for a gun.
Want and need are different. I don't want to shoot a rabid dog that got loose, but I absolutely will before it bites me. Same with any other threats to my bodily safety that I can't escape from.
God, do Americans live in such a state of paranoia they always think something like that might happen whenever they leave the house so need a gun? Seems sad.
Are you under the impression that America has a violent crime rate of 0 and carriers are just hullicinating the existence of criminals or dangerous animals?
If you're cool with relying on chance that you'll never need it, that's fine I'm not advocating you carry or change your laws. But I prefer to have the right to carry the tools to defend myself even if I'll likely never need them.
I mean, all countries have violent crimes, but I don't leave the house assuming I'll be a victim of one to the point I need to carry a lethal weapon. I can ubder stand say, women carrying pepper spray or the like to deter an attacker but killing them just seems like a step too far when you have no idea how they ended up at that point.
So you understand the concept and need for self defense. Pepper spray and tasers don't always work. If your assailant is on mind altering substances, pain compliance tools like PS will be inaffective. Tasers won't work (or are less likely to work) on winter clothing.
If you're cool with your odds that's fine, but I'm not willing to risk my life (or more importantly my partner's life) when conceal carry is just as physical easy as PS.
The problem is... you are assuming you are going to be attacked, and you assume you are going to be powerless unless you have a gun with you. Americans have been taught from infancy that the only true source of power and justice comes from the barrel of a gun. The lessons from the War of Independence and the Civil War have hammered home time and time again the belief that only naked, lethal force can guarantee safety and enact needed change.
Not governments, or agencies, or powers. Not religion, not dialogues, not negotiations. Only the ability and willingness to kill your fellow man can guarantee your safety and shape the world around you into what you want to see.
At times it has been your virtue, but it is also your curse.
The problem is that the things you talk about are all tools. Including guns. It's just that the primary tool use of a gun is to kill. If I see someone openly carrying a gun they are saying, "I am ready to kill." Carrying a knife? "I am ready to cut something." Driving a car? "I am going somewhere"
Can those latter two things be used to kill? Of course. Anything can be used to kill, but that isn't their primary function. The primary use of a gun, the reason why guns are made, is to kill things. And that makes all the difference.
Uh, yeah? This shouldn't be a revolation.
A family member of mine concealed carries because she was raped (I know a couple women like this but I know my family memeber's reasoning better since she's family). Do you want to be the one to tell her she's being paranoid? I sure don't.
And if she uses the gun on a would have been rapist, blame the rapist not the person defending themselves.
I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy. Her carrying a gun is not a reason I'm for carry rights, her carrying a gun is a reason I'm happy to have the right. Subtle but important distinction.
No the reason we have the right is the 2nd amendment, full stop (no well regulated does not mean government regulations). And SCOTUS confirming this with the Bruen decision.
That... seems circular. The reason you have the right isn't self-defence though, its national defence. The second amendment was put in place to provide a ready source for a "well armed and well regulated militia", and that right has killed more people than it has saved. I guess the real issue is that I can't understand you, or where you are coming from.
I'm in my 50s and live in rural Canada, back in the itty bitty town on the West Coast that I moved out of as a teen, desperate to find work in the city. Today I hunt, I fish, and my favorite gun is the .270 Winchester I inherited from my father after he passed on a decade ago. Gun ownership and carrying laws are vastly more restrictive here than they are in the US, but not once have felt that those restrictions impinge on either my rights or my ability to protect myself or my family.
You have hundreds, nay thousands of people, dying every year from what to me, seems like a stupidly easy cause to prevent. All because your nation seems unwilling to grasp the concept that a good number of people aren't able to responsibly use the ability to project lethal force. No, you can't stop gun crimes by regulating guns, any more than locks can prevent all burglaries, but you CAN make it harder for bad people to get guns. Just like a good lock makes it harder for someone to steal your stuff.
Anyway, it's 2am here, and I apologize for subjecting you to this rant, but its a frustration I've wanted to get off my chest for awhile now. It's pretty clear you and I will never see eye to eye on this, but it was nice to back and forth a bit on this. I know it means less than a pitcher of spit, but all the best to you and yours, and to your sister as well.
Worstdriver
We probably agree on more then we disagree. There's a problem with murder in the US (gun or otherwise) and I agree we need to fix it. I just feel social programs that actually take care of people's needs (like what Canada has in universal healthcare and better worker protections) will fix far more violence, gun or otherwise.
The 2A is a right of the people and is clear about it being a personal right not a malitia right, so laws restricting gun ownership like what you have in Canada are illegal here.
And thank you for the polite banter, we may not agree on everything but discussing it without devolving into insults is a breath of fresh air.
criminals don't open carry
The Bundy family would like to have a word.
Yep. Waiting until after murders occur is definitely the right approach to curbing gun violence.
Exactly, that's why she should have made murder illegal a long time ago instead so the murders stop without the courts ruling it unconstitutional forhead touch x2
Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.
This is from a gun owner.
Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.
I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public
Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it'll stop criminals.
Again, I wasn't commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.
Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.
No offense but that is extremely paranoid. I love in a not so great part of a major city and have never really felt unsafe enough to feel the need to carry. Hell, even my step dad, who was a police officer and has been shot at, does not feel the need to carry. I guess I could see if you live somewhere super dangerous like St Louis or Wichita but it seems a bit silly otherwise.
Also, shouldn't your partner be the one carrying of they are the less safe of the two of you?
I'm not in st louis but I've had a knife pulled on me for attempting to enter walmart. Luckily however the guy decided not to attack, idk if it had anything to do with me grabbing the grip of my carry pistol or not, but I'd imagine it's pretty likely that's the reason he started running away.
Paranoid or not, I was able to afford food for that night and avoid being stabbed, so I'll just consider it my "good luck charm."
I don't see it as paranoid. I totally agree with you its unlikely I'll ever need it, but it costs me nothing to concealed carry where I can. Worst case my pants are slightly less comfortable, best case I save a life.
My partner is disabled and is of a very small stature which means I'm a far faster and more accurate shot so I carry when its the 2 of us. If theyre alone they carry a lower power pistol so they can handle using it.
Just to let you know, there is a near zero percent chance that it will save any life at all. And no, worst case is not that your pants are slightly less comfortable. Bad case would be you accidentally leaving it somewhere (lots of cases where people remove it while in the sitter and forget about it). Worst case would be you using it when it absolutely, positively is not necessary which again, there is a near zero percent chance it would be needed. If you are fine with all of that, that is okay but don't be under the impression that there are zero downsides outside of uncomfortable pants.
No youre right, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part.
I keep a very close eye on defensive gun legality and cases (Armed Attorneys is a great Youtube channel to start with if you're interested). You're right there are many things that can go wrong. I do my best to stay educated on the pitfalls others run into, I pay for carry insurance as well to help with legal fees if I ever do need to use it.
Good on you, mate. I wish more gun owners were similar.
sorry you feel unsafe in your country. You should move
Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I'll never need them.
Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public.
Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they're properly vetted through laws that aren't dogshit.
But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?
Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.
There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a "responsible gun owner" who didn't secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.
Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.
And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.
The gun laws are a failure.
I don't feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don't have the time right now I'm sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no "well regulated" does not mean legal regulations)
I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don't commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won't bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.
Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There's no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who's needs are actually met don't need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.
I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we'd probably still have just as many murders. There's something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don't kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it's a whole lot easier to just say "guns bad".
You've built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.
Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we'd probably still have just as many murders.
Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.
Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you've finished building all of that, you can have them back?
After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn't fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.
Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.
Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about "defensive gun use" without any form of validation whatsoever?
Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?
70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.
So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.
You literally asked what if we took all he guns away and I gave a counterpoint why i think that would be bad. If you doubt my sources (which is impressive since i hadn't provided any yet) say so instead of jumping to insults. If you want to start ad hominem attacks, just reply to yourself cause I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
So your answer to "What if we took your guns away?" is "Because guns in America are used defensively"?
Lie better.
Hey if being such an asshole to someone who's done nothing to you make you feel good, have fun. Not letting people provide evidence and going strait to being rude is a great way to think you're always right.
other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero
The US isn't far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.
Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.
Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit "United States", counting the number of countries along the way that you'd be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.
Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.
I'm sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they're not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.
Anyway, we've identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you'd actually want to live in.
Takes a while huh? You'd think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.
Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.
Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn't obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.
That's a horrible selection bias though. That is basically saying "this group of people with no violent crimes in their records has a lower violent crime rate than the general public which does." Of course they do.
Yes. You're right, these people are vetted by the state and authorized because they passed BG checks and firearms proficiency tests. Which is why a law targeting this group is dumb (beyond just being unconstitutional).
Definitely should have been in your initial point since I have often seen that point used by gun nuts as if they are some paragon of lawfulness. Permitted concealed carry owners are definitely not the ones committing violent crime in New Mexico. Can't really say the same for quite a few other states that allow permitless concealed carry though.
"This from a gun owner" is my favorite take on the "how do you do, fellow kids" meme.
Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nifty. Neither being a firearm owner nor count of firearms in any way invalidates the decisions of those who choose to do so.
You're right. It was only a side point to imply that not every gun owner is as loony as certain American ones.
Unfortunately, the only loony stance here is that legally carrying firearms is somehow a loony thing to do.
It's always weird seeing how incapable some people are of considering that a different point of view is every bit as valid as their own.
Not all views are valid. That should be pretty obvious. I don't consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view. It's paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.
Not all views are valid.
I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view.
It's interesting that you seem incapable of considering yours may be the invalid view.
It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.
I'd argue being so terrified of the possibility someone might be legally carrying a firearm to, itself, be the indicator of paranoia.
You're making a lot of assumptions. I have considered both views and formed an opinion. You also seem to be implying that I'm "terrified" that someone could be carrying a gun, but I'm not sure how your jumped into my brain to figure that out.
I have considered both views and formed an opinion.
And yet, it's somehow unfathomable that a person might simply wish to exercise their rights in carrying a firearm - to you, the only possibility is such absurd hyperbole as paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government. Truly, deep consideration.
You’re making a lot of assumptions.
You also seem to be implying that I’m “terrified” that someone could be carrying a gun, but I’m not sure how your jumped into my brain to figure that out.
I find one's absurd hyperbole to be an apt indicator. For example, seeking to portray those with a different view as unhinged and paranoid for - by all appearances - simply not agreeing with you.
That aside, it's simply the ironic mirror to your assumption of paranoia in others. Unless, of course you jumped into their brains.
I think the last time we cared about another country's opinion of how we live our lives was in 1775.
We'd definitely be better off if we actually care about how countries that are objectively better in multiple metrics do things differently.
Like oh I don't know, Healthcare. Plus the overwhelming amount of gun violence that doesn't exist in any other country than our own, the other ones are probably on to something.
They do tend to do the whole social safety net thing far better.
Well, how the people who haven't been shot yet live their lives at least.
my God do you realise how cringe this statement is
Finally, somewhere I might be able to visit there and feel at least a little bit safe in public.
There's plenty of places you can feel safe in public.
They're just not in America.
You do realize hundreds of millions of people live here feeling perfectly safe, right?
Life is generally not what you see sensationalized on TV.
That person doesn't, and I was talking to that person.
you think criminals are going to follow this decree?
You think every criminal with a gun started the day as a criminal with a gun? The majority of mass shootings started that day as "just another perfectly legal person with a gun being allowed to carry wherever".
Tell me how many of the last 50 mass shootings were done by someone who was already a "criminal with a gun"
This is some mental gymnastics. How many days started with someone intending on drunk driving? how many days started with someone intending on smashing someones face with a hammer. good lord, by your logic we are ALL criminals just waiting to happen. quick someone call Tom Cruise and the Pre-crime unit.
Hahahah wow you're so close to getting it.
So give up your car if you have one.
I mean, some of them? Plenty of people who shoot others are first offenders. And I'm sure even many dangerous people wouldn't carry a gun around if the mere act of carrying could get you sent to jail. Carrying being legal means that you can blend into the crowd of law abiding people.
Nobody thinks every gun crime will be stopped with any single act of gun control. But they all reduce it.
Well, its kill or be killed out there. If you're the only one alive, they can only hear your side of the story
“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officers."
It's only temporary and there's bound to be exceptions.
Seems like she is desperately making a wake-up call to gun owners to come up with a solution to killings.
Easy there, we don’t want to make any militias feel well regulated.
Literally unconstitutional.
Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔
Specific places, generally, not open public places as specified in the article.
Are national parks not considered open public places?
Thanks to Obama, no seriously, you are allowed to carry firearms in almost all national parks.
They are considered federal land so basically get treated the same as if you tried to bring a gun into the capitol.
Don't do this btw.
This is incorrect. It is 100% legal to carry a firearm in a National Park assuming that you are legally allowed to carry in that particular state.
You cannot carry a firearm into any federal building however, which includes places like the capitol building, post offices, or buildings within National Parks such as museums, ranger stations, gift shops, etc.
Well regulated
means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice
I'd say well-maintained and prepared for use. As in tools need be well-maintained to be useful.
In working order which is why you had to register your firearm and have it inspected to make sure it worked. And that ready to go at a moment's notice was because they were needed for the defense of the country. Public carry was banned in a good chunk of the states.
Then why are morbidly obese, middle aged men with zero combat training allowed to own guns?
No it doesn't lmao
Well supplied means well supplied
As does "well-regulated," especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.
Sense of "adjust (a clock, etc.) with reference to a standard of accuracy" is by 1660s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
Did you read your own source? Or just stop at the first sentence?
I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."
Yeah? Thats still the same meaning as today. Controlling based on a standard.
Shall not be infringed. As someone else pointed out there's already a TRO, this is just a political stunt.
Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.
You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
I also disagree with the current ruling on roe v wade
Sucks to be you then.
It's pretty great to be me, man. My life is kickass.
Cool. Enjoy your Saturday night on here, I'm flushing and heading out.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, "the people," or "a well balanced breakfast?"
It sounds like the balanced breakfast is the basis for everything that follows
So if you skip breakfast you don't deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?
It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you're wrong.
You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.
You made a bad example and declared it victory lol
It's not a bad example, it's gramatically the exact same, and instead of admitting you're wrong you're choosing to stamp your feet like an obtuse child. You're free to do so, but everyone else is free to read your shame.
Edit: wait, different person. You're choosing to stamp your feet on behalf of another* like an obtuse child, 'scuse me.
You're posting in a public forum home slice.
If you're intent on a private conversation, DMs are right there.
No no, just clarifying, you're free to be wrong all you like as well.
You're as bad at being witty as you are at being correct.
The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.
If you paid attention in English class youd know this
Just a flourish of words that dont matter?
Yes, actually.
How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it's ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn't written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how "well regulated militia" was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it's not part of the operative clause.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It's hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don't want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it's intuitive.
Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.
and you don't want to get shot.
I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?
I didn't say it was "empty words," I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.
Yawn, it's clear you don't know how to read literature from the period. There's plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don't really care, you already have your ideology.
Go read any Jane Austen and you'll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.
Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.
Thanks for finding which paper it was... I have a copy but didn't feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷♂️
And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn't by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It's pretty clear if you've read anything from 1600 onward.
Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - "twenty and four years" is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the "English language" such as it was, was considered beneath "proper" Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.
It's pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.
yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their gun
I'd argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.
Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.
Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.
I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.
All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.
There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.
The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.
It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.
The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.
I mean, that's a nice wall of text, but it isn't going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn't enforcing it, and the state AG isn't even defending it apparently.
The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I'm not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.
The type of "arms" are unspecified.
To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.
This is logically inverted.
No, it really isn't.
Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?
What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.
At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.
There's already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.
I'm no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn't say you're allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don't see how this is much different. It's not like they're even saying you can't have guns at your home.
Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.
Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
New Mexico has it in it's constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.
Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?
CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn't what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.
Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the "well regulated" portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.
Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.
Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?
You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.
The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights
By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?
Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.
I mean that rights are inherent to being human, not bestowed by 9 people with law degrees
They're only declared inherent human rights on the very same sheet of paper that defines the rights and codifies them into law. Without the government backing them, they don't mean anything and are just words written on a piece of paper.
The constitution doesn't bestow those rights, it just defines how the government interacts with them
I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.
Ah yeah... Not constitutional.
She's just doing this for her image.
She's about to term out anyway, so she doesn't really care what it does to her.
Ah I didn't know that.
Well, grasping for straws, trying to say that she did something bold etc. Anyway I read in another article that a judge is blocking this
What a silly hill to die on. This is blatantly unconstitutional. That's obvious to everyone, even those of us who might agree in spirit. So it's just a waste. A waste of time and tax payer money. New Mexico is gonna spend time and resources on this that could be better spent elsewhere.
What's more it wastes political capital. Capital that is gonna be needed soon for the Democratic party. So I can't fathom why she's doing this. She just gave conservatives the high ground and a huge rallying call.
With the current court, it is unconstitutional. Several states banned public carry when the country was founded including Virginia so it's not like that was unheard of at the time.
100% this. It feels like sabotage.
Show me where the constitution gives you a right to open carry.
Oh that's right, it doesn't.
I love how effectively controversial things like this function like bug traps in drawing out the gnats - makes it easy to identify the low-effort trolls for a quick block.
A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.
Thank goodness, the murders can continue
I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead
I don't think it's quite an equivalence. When carrying firearms is illegal (as it effectively is in my country of Canada), you know whenever you see someone with a gun that you should run and call the police. You know they're up to no good. In many US states, if you see someone with a gun... you kinda just have to deal with it. Maybe they'll shoot you. Maybe they just need to overcompensate for something. You can't really run from it because it can be so common.
A decent amount of gun crime is also spur of the moment acts. They won't go home, get their gun, and come back. The gun violence only happens because the perpetrator happened to have a gun when they were angry. Banning carrying doesn't guarantee people won't be armed in public, but it sure will heavily reduce it.
Criminals don't open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.
Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you're making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you're in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren't sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don't want to hurt anyone
Did you see that video of the lady open carrying in Houston who started shooting at the car that cut her off? Hilarious. Sorry, you were saying?
Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.
In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for every article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.
US has a gun problem. It isn't really news. Unfortunately guns are ingrained into US culture and people will defend their right for guns against all common sense.
Try comparing countries by homicide categorically.
As it is, you're showing you don't care at all about homicide - only that the specific implement is a firearm.
So US is what, in the top 20? If you filter for developed countries, US is firmly #1. There is certainly room for improvement. Having easy access to devices designed to kill people is just madness to me.
Why don't you check out the data and directly refer to that early than making more bad guesses?
The original intent of a thing is entirely irrelevant to what a thing is used for. The sheer number of things in use in day-to-day life in ways far beyond original intent is mind-boggling. And then there's the flip-side, the logical extension of such an absurd focus precludes assigning actual blame for use of a thing in the way it was designed.
I'm not sure how you define easy, but requiring a background check is more than sufficient barrier for me. Then again, I'm not pants-shittingly terrified of inanimate objects.
If you don't want to hurt anyone, why carry a weapon designed for that exact purpose? There's literally no other use for a gun.
Want and need are different. I don't want to shoot a rabid dog that got loose, but I absolutely will before it bites me. Same with any other threats to my bodily safety that I can't escape from.
God, do Americans live in such a state of paranoia they always think something like that might happen whenever they leave the house so need a gun? Seems sad.
Are you under the impression that America has a violent crime rate of 0 and carriers are just hullicinating the existence of criminals or dangerous animals?
If you're cool with relying on chance that you'll never need it, that's fine I'm not advocating you carry or change your laws. But I prefer to have the right to carry the tools to defend myself even if I'll likely never need them.
I mean, all countries have violent crimes, but I don't leave the house assuming I'll be a victim of one to the point I need to carry a lethal weapon. I can ubder stand say, women carrying pepper spray or the like to deter an attacker but killing them just seems like a step too far when you have no idea how they ended up at that point.
So you understand the concept and need for self defense. Pepper spray and tasers don't always work. If your assailant is on mind altering substances, pain compliance tools like PS will be inaffective. Tasers won't work (or are less likely to work) on winter clothing.
If you're cool with your odds that's fine, but I'm not willing to risk my life (or more importantly my partner's life) when conceal carry is just as physical easy as PS.
The problem is... you are assuming you are going to be attacked, and you assume you are going to be powerless unless you have a gun with you. Americans have been taught from infancy that the only true source of power and justice comes from the barrel of a gun. The lessons from the War of Independence and the Civil War have hammered home time and time again the belief that only naked, lethal force can guarantee safety and enact needed change.
Not governments, or agencies, or powers. Not religion, not dialogues, not negotiations. Only the ability and willingness to kill your fellow man can guarantee your safety and shape the world around you into what you want to see.
At times it has been your virtue, but it is also your curse.
The problem is that the things you talk about are all tools. Including guns. It's just that the primary tool use of a gun is to kill. If I see someone openly carrying a gun they are saying, "I am ready to kill." Carrying a knife? "I am ready to cut something." Driving a car? "I am going somewhere"
Can those latter two things be used to kill? Of course. Anything can be used to kill, but that isn't their primary function. The primary use of a gun, the reason why guns are made, is to kill things. And that makes all the difference.
Uh, yeah? This shouldn't be a revolation.
A family member of mine concealed carries because she was raped (I know a couple women like this but I know my family memeber's reasoning better since she's family). Do you want to be the one to tell her she's being paranoid? I sure don't.
And if she uses the gun on a would have been rapist, blame the rapist not the person defending themselves.
https://thosenerdygirls.org/logical-fallacies-8/
Do read the whole article.
I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy. Her carrying a gun is not a reason I'm for carry rights, her carrying a gun is a reason I'm happy to have the right. Subtle but important distinction.
No the reason we have the right is the 2nd amendment, full stop (no well regulated does not mean government regulations). And SCOTUS confirming this with the Bruen decision.
That... seems circular. The reason you have the right isn't self-defence though, its national defence. The second amendment was put in place to provide a ready source for a "well armed and well regulated militia", and that right has killed more people than it has saved. I guess the real issue is that I can't understand you, or where you are coming from.
I'm in my 50s and live in rural Canada, back in the itty bitty town on the West Coast that I moved out of as a teen, desperate to find work in the city. Today I hunt, I fish, and my favorite gun is the .270 Winchester I inherited from my father after he passed on a decade ago. Gun ownership and carrying laws are vastly more restrictive here than they are in the US, but not once have felt that those restrictions impinge on either my rights or my ability to protect myself or my family.
You have hundreds, nay thousands of people, dying every year from what to me, seems like a stupidly easy cause to prevent. All because your nation seems unwilling to grasp the concept that a good number of people aren't able to responsibly use the ability to project lethal force. No, you can't stop gun crimes by regulating guns, any more than locks can prevent all burglaries, but you CAN make it harder for bad people to get guns. Just like a good lock makes it harder for someone to steal your stuff.
Anyway, it's 2am here, and I apologize for subjecting you to this rant, but its a frustration I've wanted to get off my chest for awhile now. It's pretty clear you and I will never see eye to eye on this, but it was nice to back and forth a bit on this. I know it means less than a pitcher of spit, but all the best to you and yours, and to your sister as well.
Worstdriver
We probably agree on more then we disagree. There's a problem with murder in the US (gun or otherwise) and I agree we need to fix it. I just feel social programs that actually take care of people's needs (like what Canada has in universal healthcare and better worker protections) will fix far more violence, gun or otherwise.
The 2A is a right of the people and is clear about it being a personal right not a malitia right, so laws restricting gun ownership like what you have in Canada are illegal here.
And thank you for the polite banter, we may not agree on everything but discussing it without devolving into insults is a breath of fresh air.
The Bundy family would like to have a word.
Yep. Waiting until after murders occur is definitely the right approach to curbing gun violence.
Exactly, that's why she should have made murder illegal a long time ago instead so the murders stop without the courts ruling it unconstitutional forhead touch x2
For a second there I worried my children could die without firearms!
Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.
This is from a gun owner.
Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.
I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public
Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it'll stop criminals.
Again, I wasn't commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.
Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.
No offense but that is extremely paranoid. I love in a not so great part of a major city and have never really felt unsafe enough to feel the need to carry. Hell, even my step dad, who was a police officer and has been shot at, does not feel the need to carry. I guess I could see if you live somewhere super dangerous like St Louis or Wichita but it seems a bit silly otherwise.
Also, shouldn't your partner be the one carrying of they are the less safe of the two of you?
I'm not in st louis but I've had a knife pulled on me for attempting to enter walmart. Luckily however the guy decided not to attack, idk if it had anything to do with me grabbing the grip of my carry pistol or not, but I'd imagine it's pretty likely that's the reason he started running away.
Paranoid or not, I was able to afford food for that night and avoid being stabbed, so I'll just consider it my "good luck charm."
I don't see it as paranoid. I totally agree with you its unlikely I'll ever need it, but it costs me nothing to concealed carry where I can. Worst case my pants are slightly less comfortable, best case I save a life.
My partner is disabled and is of a very small stature which means I'm a far faster and more accurate shot so I carry when its the 2 of us. If theyre alone they carry a lower power pistol so they can handle using it.
Just to let you know, there is a near zero percent chance that it will save any life at all. And no, worst case is not that your pants are slightly less comfortable. Bad case would be you accidentally leaving it somewhere (lots of cases where people remove it while in the sitter and forget about it). Worst case would be you using it when it absolutely, positively is not necessary which again, there is a near zero percent chance it would be needed. If you are fine with all of that, that is okay but don't be under the impression that there are zero downsides outside of uncomfortable pants.
No youre right, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part.
I keep a very close eye on defensive gun legality and cases (Armed Attorneys is a great Youtube channel to start with if you're interested). You're right there are many things that can go wrong. I do my best to stay educated on the pitfalls others run into, I pay for carry insurance as well to help with legal fees if I ever do need to use it.
Good on you, mate. I wish more gun owners were similar.
sorry you feel unsafe in your country. You should move
Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I'll never need them.
Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they're properly vetted through laws that aren't dogshit.
But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?
Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.
There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a "responsible gun owner" who didn't secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.
Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.
And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.
The gun laws are a failure.
I don't feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don't have the time right now I'm sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no "well regulated" does not mean legal regulations)
I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don't commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won't bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.
Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There's no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who's needs are actually met don't need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.
I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we'd probably still have just as many murders. There's something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don't kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it's a whole lot easier to just say "guns bad".
You've built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.
Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.
Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you've finished building all of that, you can have them back?
After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn't fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.
Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.
Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about "defensive gun use" without any form of validation whatsoever?
Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?
70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.
The pro-gun community has spent 20 years insisting that they (and they alone) have the answers yet the problem continues to spiral further out of control. The number of guns used in crimes that were bought through "gun show loopholes" is on the rise, but the pro-gun community still opposes background checks for private sales.
So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.
You literally asked what if we took all he guns away and I gave a counterpoint why i think that would be bad. If you doubt my sources (which is impressive since i hadn't provided any yet) say so instead of jumping to insults. If you want to start ad hominem attacks, just reply to yourself cause I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
So your answer to "What if we took your guns away?" is "Because guns in America are used defensively"?
Lie better.
Hey if being such an asshole to someone who's done nothing to you make you feel good, have fun. Not letting people provide evidence and going strait to being rude is a great way to think you're always right.
The US isn't far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.
Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.
Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit "United States", counting the number of countries along the way that you'd be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.
Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.
I'm sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they're not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.
Anyway, we've identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you'd actually want to live in.
Takes a while huh? You'd think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.
Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn't obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.
That's a horrible selection bias though. That is basically saying "this group of people with no violent crimes in their records has a lower violent crime rate than the general public which does." Of course they do.
Yes. You're right, these people are vetted by the state and authorized because they passed BG checks and firearms proficiency tests. Which is why a law targeting this group is dumb (beyond just being unconstitutional).
Definitely should have been in your initial point since I have often seen that point used by gun nuts as if they are some paragon of lawfulness. Permitted concealed carry owners are definitely not the ones committing violent crime in New Mexico. Can't really say the same for quite a few other states that allow permitless concealed carry though.
Good thing open carry isn't protected then.
"This from a gun owner" is my favorite take on the "how do you do, fellow kids" meme.
Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nifty. Neither being a firearm owner nor count of firearms in any way invalidates the decisions of those who choose to do so.
You're right. It was only a side point to imply that not every gun owner is as loony as certain American ones.
Unfortunately, the only loony stance here is that legally carrying firearms is somehow a loony thing to do.
It's always weird seeing how incapable some people are of considering that a different point of view is every bit as valid as their own.
Not all views are valid. That should be pretty obvious. I don't consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view. It's paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.
It's interesting that you seem incapable of considering yours may be the invalid view.
I'd argue being so terrified of the possibility someone might be legally carrying a firearm to, itself, be the indicator of paranoia.
You're making a lot of assumptions. I have considered both views and formed an opinion. You also seem to be implying that I'm "terrified" that someone could be carrying a gun, but I'm not sure how your jumped into my brain to figure that out.
And yet, it's somehow unfathomable that a person might simply wish to exercise their rights in carrying a firearm - to you, the only possibility is such absurd hyperbole as paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government. Truly, deep consideration.
I find one's absurd hyperbole to be an apt indicator. For example, seeking to portray those with a different view as unhinged and paranoid for - by all appearances - simply not agreeing with you.
That aside, it's simply the ironic mirror to your assumption of paranoia in others. Unless, of course you jumped into their brains.
I think the last time we cared about another country's opinion of how we live our lives was in 1775.
We'd definitely be better off if we actually care about how countries that are objectively better in multiple metrics do things differently.
Like oh I don't know, Healthcare. Plus the overwhelming amount of gun violence that doesn't exist in any other country than our own, the other ones are probably on to something.
They do tend to do the whole social safety net thing far better.
Well, how the people who haven't been shot yet live their lives at least.
my God do you realise how cringe this statement is
Hah, a classic!
Goddam...we love our guns, though.
Finally, somewhere I might be able to visit there and feel at least a little bit safe in public.
There's plenty of places you can feel safe in public.
They're just not in America.
You do realize hundreds of millions of people live here feeling perfectly safe, right?
Life is generally not what you see sensationalized on TV.
That person doesn't, and I was talking to that person.
you think criminals are going to follow this decree?
You think every criminal with a gun started the day as a criminal with a gun? The majority of mass shootings started that day as "just another perfectly legal person with a gun being allowed to carry wherever".
Tell me how many of the last 50 mass shootings were done by someone who was already a "criminal with a gun"
This is some mental gymnastics. How many days started with someone intending on drunk driving? how many days started with someone intending on smashing someones face with a hammer. good lord, by your logic we are ALL criminals just waiting to happen. quick someone call Tom Cruise and the Pre-crime unit.
Hahahah wow you're so close to getting it.
So give up your car if you have one.
I mean, some of them? Plenty of people who shoot others are first offenders. And I'm sure even many dangerous people wouldn't carry a gun around if the mere act of carrying could get you sent to jail. Carrying being legal means that you can blend into the crowd of law abiding people.
Nobody thinks every gun crime will be stopped with any single act of gun control. But they all reduce it.
Well, its kill or be killed out there. If you're the only one alive, they can only hear your side of the story
“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officers."
It's only temporary and there's bound to be exceptions.
Seems like she is desperately making a wake-up call to gun owners to come up with a solution to killings.
Easy there, we don’t want to make any militias feel well regulated.
Literally unconstitutional.
Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔
Specific places, generally, not open public places as specified in the article.
Are national parks not considered open public places?
Thanks to Obama, no seriously, you are allowed to carry firearms in almost all national parks.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna35484383
They are considered federal land so basically get treated the same as if you tried to bring a gun into the capitol.
Don't do this btw.
This is incorrect. It is 100% legal to carry a firearm in a National Park assuming that you are legally allowed to carry in that particular state.
You cannot carry a firearm into any federal building however, which includes places like the capitol building, post offices, or buildings within National Parks such as museums, ranger stations, gift shops, etc.
Well regulated
means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice
I'd say well-maintained and prepared for use. As in tools need be well-maintained to be useful.
In working order which is why you had to register your firearm and have it inspected to make sure it worked. And that ready to go at a moment's notice was because they were needed for the defense of the country. Public carry was banned in a good chunk of the states.
Then why are morbidly obese, middle aged men with zero combat training allowed to own guns?
No it doesn't lmao
Well supplied means well supplied
As does "well-regulated," especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.
No it didnt
Low-effort and incorrect.
Its historically always meant basically what it means today https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate#:\~:text=early%2015c.%2C%20regulaten%2C%20%22,to%20lead%2C%20rule%22).
Did you read your own source? Or just stop at the first sentence?
I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."
Yeah? Thats still the same meaning as today. Controlling based on a standard.
Shall not be infringed. As someone else pointed out there's already a TRO, this is just a political stunt.
Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.
You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
I also disagree with the current ruling on roe v wade
Sucks to be you then.
It's pretty great to be me, man. My life is kickass.
Cool. Enjoy your Saturday night on here, I'm flushing and heading out.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed
In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, "the people," or "a well balanced breakfast?"
It sounds like the balanced breakfast is the basis for everything that follows
So if you skip breakfast you don't deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?
It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you're wrong.
You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.
You made a bad example and declared it victory lol
It's not a bad example, it's gramatically the exact same, and instead of admitting you're wrong you're choosing to stamp your feet like an obtuse child. You're free to do so, but everyone else is free to read your shame.
Edit: wait, different person. You're choosing to stamp your feet on behalf of another* like an obtuse child, 'scuse me.
You're posting in a public forum home slice.
If you're intent on a private conversation, DMs are right there.
No no, just clarifying, you're free to be wrong all you like as well.
You're as bad at being witty as you are at being correct.
The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Sorry dude, keep studying both law and english.
Oh wow, the supreme court interpreted the constitution differently than me. I had no idea, i thought they agreed with me and banned guns long ago.
Well, you're wrong.
our third world rates of gun homicide are wrong
Yawn, this ignorant trope again. Go learn to read 17th and 18th century prose.
Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.
If you paid attention in English class youd know this
Just a flourish of words that dont matter?
Yes, actually.
How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it's ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn't written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how "well regulated militia" was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it's not part of the operative clause.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It's hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don't want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it's intuitive.
Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.
I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?
I didn't say it was "empty words," I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.
Yawn, it's clear you don't know how to read literature from the period. There's plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don't really care, you already have your ideology.
Go read any Jane Austen and you'll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.
Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.
Thanks for finding which paper it was... I have a copy but didn't feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷♂️
And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn't by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It's pretty clear if you've read anything from 1600 onward.
Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - "twenty and four years" is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the "English language" such as it was, was considered beneath "proper" Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.
It's pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.
I'd argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.
Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.
Your fear is rotting your brain.
Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.
I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.
All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.
There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.
The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.
It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.
The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.
I mean, that's a nice wall of text, but it isn't going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn't enforcing it, and the state AG isn't even defending it apparently.
The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I'm not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.
The type of "arms" are unspecified.
To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.
This is logically inverted.
No, it really isn't.
Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?
What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.
At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.
There's already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.
I'm no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn't say you're allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don't see how this is much different. It's not like they're even saying you can't have guns at your home.
Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.
Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
New Mexico has it in it's constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.
Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?
CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn't what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.
Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the "well regulated" portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.
Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.
Ignoring the metaphor cause yeesh.
But "well regualted" means and always meant something to the tune of well trained and supplied. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ". And more importantly " Right of the people " and "Shall not be infringed" are clear and obvious.
Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?
You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.
The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights
By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?
Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.
I mean that rights are inherent to being human, not bestowed by 9 people with law degrees
They're only declared inherent human rights on the very same sheet of paper that defines the rights and codifies them into law. Without the government backing them, they don't mean anything and are just words written on a piece of paper.
The constitution doesn't bestow those rights, it just defines how the government interacts with them
I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.
Ah yeah... Not constitutional.
She's just doing this for her image.
She's about to term out anyway, so she doesn't really care what it does to her.
Ah I didn't know that.
Well, grasping for straws, trying to say that she did something bold etc. Anyway I read in another article that a judge is blocking this