• jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Did you read the article? It’s mostly about how Rahimi relates to Bruen and why that makes it so problematic. Nowhere do they condemn the outcome

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        So it’s more bullshit take on the Bruen ruling that anti-2a groups are still salty from? This has nothing to do with the Rahimi ruling at all…

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I read the article, it’s exactly as I described it, bitching from the anti-2a crowd about Bruen

            You all can down vote me all you want. That’s literally what the article is. The 2nd isn’t going anywhere, you’re a minority of people who want it repealed. And your group got even smaller now that people on the left are becoming gun owners more and more.

            • turmacar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.

              Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.

                Lol no that’s bullshit. Plenty want it repealed, usually the loudest do. It’s also not an insane precedent, there has been zero gun control laws that have actively helped drive down crime. It’s all been feel good legislation that’s done nothing but try and kick the can down the road for meaningful progress.

                Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.

                They’re really short because convoluted laws don’t do shit but target those who can’t hire expensive lawyers and lobbiest to avoid them. They’re rules for the working class not for the ruling class.

                • turmacar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

                  “Everyone should have the tools to defend themselves from aggressors” is a good sentiment.

                  This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

                  There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns. It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

                    People can be complicated all they want, actions are what are judged not how complex a person is. It’s literally why we have a judicial system. So people can be judged on their actions.

                    This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

                    What are you talking about? The ruling here is exactly that, if you’re a criminal, you can’t own firearms.

                    There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns.

                    No there has not, mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should.

                    It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

                    It actually does mean exactly that. The revolution was fought using mainly private arms. There wasn’t even a standing navy, we literally had people who owned the equivalent of a battle ship today. To act like the founders didn’t realize technology was going to advance is ridiculous.