Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Draco-Onis]

Tell us you don't know what strict scrutiny is without telling us you don't know what strict scrutiny is.

You may want to make it a little less obvious that you are going to ignore what the right wing SCOTUS reasoning has been for overturning decades of precedence on gun laws (among others) recently.

[PhaelixWW]

You may want to make it a little less obvious that you are going to ignore what the right wing SCOTUS reasoning has been for overturning decades of precedence on gun laws (among others) recently.

I don't see it as "overturning decades of precedence on gun laws". This decision is clearly in line with Heller.

And SCOTUS has nominally leaned right wing for the last 50 years at least. Not this much, obviously, but it has.

[Draco-Onis]

I don't see it as "overturning decades of precedence on gun laws". This decision is clearly in line with Heller.

And SCOTUS has nominally leaned right wing for the last 50 years at least. Not this much, obviously, but it has.

Again the reasoning scrutiny lose its value when the people in charge are referencing colonial England as the basis for their thinking. I know your opinion will always favor more guns but the process in theory has always been for the supreme court to be a neutral arbiter not another Qanon GOP operative.

[PhaelixWW]

Again the reasoning scrutiny lose its value when the people in charge are referencing colonial England as the basis for their thinking.

To which I repeat:

Tell us you don't know what strict scrutiny is without telling us you don't know what strict scrutiny is.

...because that about sums it up.

I know your opinion will always favor more guns but the process in theory has always been for the supreme court to be a neutral arbiter not another Qanon GOP operative.

I'm upset that the current SCOTUS makeup is so right wing, too. The Roe v Wade decision today is a travesty.

That doesn't mean that every decision is automatically only made the way it is because of the tilt of the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, the 2A decision the other day is clearly in line with Heller, which was made before long before the current imbalance.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm upset that the current SCOTUS makeup is so right wing, too. The Roe v Wade decision today is a travesty.

That doesn't mean that every decision is automatically only made the way it is because of the tilt of the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, the 2A decision the other day is clearly in line with Heller, which was made before long before the current imbalance.

Why wouldn't it? because it's obvious that the court is going to a rubber stamp every right wing goal and has been for a while (voting rights, guns, unions, corporate rights, abortions) with same sex marriage next. Their current legal reasoning overall has been we are doing it because we can not much else.

[PhaelixWW]

Why wouldn't it? because it's obvious that the court is going to a rubber stamp every right wing goal and has been for a while (voting rights, guns, unions, corporate rights, abortions) with same sex marriage next.

I sincerely doubt that this will be the case.

But all the more reason for Democrats to make sure they do everything possible to win the White House for the next couple of terms. The two justices most conservative with regards to civil rights are incidentally the two oldest. If the GoP gets to preside over their replacements, they'll have a majority for decades, at least (though there's every possibility that any newer conservative justice wouldn't be quite as conservative as Thomas and Alito).

[Cthulhu 2020]

They're so quick to blame the "broken" family unit.
They're so quick to blame violence in TV and Movies and Video Games.
They're so quick to blame the use of marijuana.

Anything but guns.

But the one common denominator at every shooting?

A gun.

Pretty much. They will continue to try and blame everything but guns as the problem. While many things in our lives may lead someone to make the impassioned decision to go on a shooting spree, not having access to a gun would prevent them from doing it, pure and simple. Period. The end.

There is no counter. If they cannot get their hands on a gun, a mass shooting will not happen.



Here's another thing about the second amendment that people forget. The second amendment was written in a time when the US Army was barely a thing, and police did not exist. The authors of the second amendment saw gun ownership as a right because at the time, to properly police laws (See: Capture runaway slaves) people needed guns.

Now that we have military and law enforcement, militias are no longer necessary.

It is an outdated concept.

[Draco-Onis]

I sincerely doubt that this will be the case.

But all the more reason for Democrats to make sure they do everything possible to win the White House for the next couple of terms. The two justices most conservative with regards to civil rights are incidentally the two oldest. If the GoP gets to preside over their replacements, they'll have a majority for decades, at least (though there's every possibility that any newer conservative justice wouldn't be quite as conservative as Thomas and Alito).

But that has been the case aside from native American rights which Gorsuch hold dear to himself. Are you honestly going to argue that this current supreme court is going to uphold any gun law restriction that comes before it?

[LedZeppelin]

Pretty much. They will continue to try and blame everything but guns as the problem. While many things in our lives may lead someone to make the impassioned decision to go on a shooting spree, not having access to a gun would prevent them from doing it, pure and simple. Period. The end.

There is no counter. If they cannot get their hands on a gun, a mass shooting will not happen.



Here's another thing about the second amendment that people forget. The second amendment was written in a time when the US Army was barely a thing, and police did not exist. The authors of the second amendment saw gun ownership as a right because at the time, to properly police laws (See: Capture runaway slaves) people needed guns.

Now that we have military and law enforcement, militias are no longer necessary.

It is an outdated concept.

And if alcohol is banned, surely, there is no way someone could get some booze.

- - - Updated - - -

But that has been the case aside from native American rights which Gorsuch hold dear to himself. Are you honestly going to argue that this current supreme court is going to uphold any gun law restriction that comes before it?

They held up shall-issue like two days ago

[Draco-Onis]

They held up shall-issue like two days ago

Are you referring Kavanaugh's commentary or the fact that they didn't go even further when reversing the New York law? because shall-issue wasn't on table.

[LedZeppelin]

Are you referring Kavanaugh's commentary or the fact that they didn't go even further when reversing the New York law? because shall-issue wasn't on table.

Eh, it basically was, may-issue is just one step further than shall-issue

[Draco-Onis]

Eh, it basically was, may-issue is just one step further than shall-issue

The right wing position has never been explicitly against shall issue just make it that the process is worthless which lines with the ruling.

[LedZeppelin]

The right wing position has never been explicitly against shall issue just make it that the process is worthless which lines with the ruling.

I wouldnt say shall issue is worthless. It just clearly lays out the requirements. The ruling was more how when the applicants put down "self defense" as a reason and was denied. Self defense is an integral part of 2A. This ruling didnt change anything about shall issue.

To quote the ruling:
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest
the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes,
under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a
[permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J.,
dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants
to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily
prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second
Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes,
which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a
firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing
arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”

[Draco-Onis]

I wouldnt say shall issue is worthless.

no you misunderstand I mean the right wing goal is to make the process of getting a gun as much of a joke as possible not get rid of it altogether.

[Mayhem]

You say that like it's what I said.

It's one of the most prominent differences between a right and a privilege.

Come to think of it, most of your rights are just privileges because they can be taken from you.

[LedZeppelin]

no you misunderstand I mean the right wing goal is to make the process of getting a gun as much of a joke as possible not get rid of it altogether.

if that was true im sure this supreme court that im told is super far right would have ruled that way. not to mention gun legislation from congress is being sent for biden to sign soon. if anything i think most people had issues with the may issue - leaving it up to some yahoo somewhere with little recourse if denied didnt sit right with a lot of people. also created a two tiers of 2A. Those connected and wealthy enough to carry and the rest.

[Draco-Onis]

if that was true im sure this supreme court that im told is super far right would have ruled that way.

They ruled exactly as the GOP wanted, you seem to be stuck on the fact that they didn't go beyond the case to issue another ruling.

[LedZeppelin]

They ruled exactly as the GOP wanted, you seem to be stuck on the fact that they didn't go beyond the case to issue another ruling.

But by your own definition of what the GOP wanted they would have also gutted shall issue but they clearly said they dont have beef with it

[Draco-Onis]

But by your own definition of what the GOP wanted they would have also gutted shall issue but they clearly said they dont have beef with it

But no one is arguing to remove shall issue not even the GOP nor was it the basis of the case, removing "burdens" has always been the goal.

[LedZeppelin]

But no one is arguing to remove shall issue not even the GOP nor was it the basis of the case, removing "burdens" has always been the goal.

It doesnt matter if it was the basis when they include that excerpt. Like you said the gop position is to either gut or make it ineffective while the sc in their own writing said it was fine.