|
ellasmith posted:Travel is extremely cheap in the us - in many countries, such as in Europe, gas is north of $10 a gallon. Saying travel in the us is too expensive is an insanely privileged take. Tell that to someone who lives in Central Texas where it's a ten hour drive to get out of state and back. The US is big, many states are larger than even average sized European countries.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
ellasmith posted:Travel is extremely cheap in the us - in many countries, such as in Europe, gas is north of $10 a gallon. Saying travel in the us is too expensive is an insanely privileged take. nevermind poo poo like needing time off from work, lodging, many people not even having cars you should shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Travel is extremely cheap in the us - in many countries, such as in Europe, gas is north of $10 a gallon. Saying travel in the us is too expensive is an insanely privileged take. Texas alone is larger than France. Most US states, particularly the states that ban abortion, are roughly the size of Germany. The contiguous United States is more than half the size of Russia. Colorado and Ohio are 24 hours of drive time apart. There is no real interstate public transportation to speak of outside of New York/New Jersey/New England. Xombie fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Travel is extremely cheap in the us
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Can we go back to the person who started this derail describing states banning abortions as "protecting babies?" Who let a Republican back on this forum? Also  at the predictability of the Gun Nuts paratrooping into this thread to crow about how their murder toys are still protected more than their own lives or the lives of anyone they care about and that's good and just and right.(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Whether the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well-regulated militia is debatable. Trying to divine the original intent of the framers by parsing a single sentence from two and a half centuries ago in isolation is dumb as hell no matter who's doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. A complicated sentence that doesn't mention guns. Could you find me the section that mentions "guns". Also, that only applies to militias, as the sentence itself says.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can still put requirements on CCW, but it just has to be fairly applied to everyone so that all citizens have rights. If this case was about the state trying to ban AR-15s or all handguns then maybe Breyer's stats on gun violence would be relevant, but not here. I'm going to try one more time but to be honest I don't feel like you're meaningfully engaging with the opinion or the dissent. The most important part of this opinion, and the thing that pretty much everyone else in this thread is talking about (and what Breyer was talking about) relates to the lens through which the court will analyze whether restrictions on gun ownership and use are constitutional in relation to the text of the second amendment. That is why roughly half of the holding is about "firearm regulation", not CCW specifically. The entire (a) subpoint of the holding is about how the court will decide this (and future) gun regulation cases: Thomas posted:(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context This is the argument that's being had in these opinions, and this is the argument that's being had in this thread. What's important here is that, as Breyer points out, this "test" of looking at historical facts and regulations instead of or without reference to any kind of interest balancing (the "two-step" framework) is completely new and pretty different from the holding in Heller. It's also different from how we consider regulations that bear on other Constitutional rights. This case is about CCW, but this holding is much, much more broad. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. The SC basically told NY "No, you don't get to pick and choose. You must apply rational tests for approval/disapproval of CC permits, you can't just make it up as you go along."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
The better solution would be that no one in NY can get a concealed carry permit
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The better solution would be that no one in NY can get a concealed carry permit Cimber posted:I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. Jaxyon posted:A complicated sentence that doesn't mention guns. Fuschia tude posted:No it isn't. Nothing about that sentence suggests the first phrase is a conditional limitation on the second as opposed to, say, an explanatory description for the rule. Even if it had been written as "Because A, therefore B shall not be infringed", A implying B does not mean that not-A implies not-B.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. What “rational tests” did SCOTUS tell NY that it must use?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Arms = guns. Specifically "small arms". We could embrace it as including "large arms" if you want to throw in canons and artillery and the like. Arms include hand grenades. Historical militias used hand grenades. If you want tiny little future pistols you have to allow for modern hand grenades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Arms = guns. Specifically "small arms". We could embrace it as including "large arms" if you want to throw in canons and artillery and the like. No, it doesn't say guns. It doesn't say "small arms", it doesn't say "large arms". It says "arms". Where does it say guns? And don't ignore the militia part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
I spent time today trying to figure out if I could attach a multitool to my backpack without getting fined because of different states' definitions of a weapon. It's insane how some "arms" enjoy protection while others get grey area'd into counting as an offensive weapon unless gravity or a flick can't open it revealing a blade of less than 3" Also: you will 100% be arrested for carrying a militia pike into situations where you could otherwise parade an AR-15 with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. I mean, that's not really what they said. They said "because there were no such restrictions in place in 1791, there can be none now". If several states had such a scheme in the late 18th century and NY had this law now, under this holding, the law would be upheld despite its potential for arbitrary application. I mean I know they would just have used different motivated reasoning to get rid of the law, but I'm saying this based on what Thomas actually wrote today. Edit: Jaxyon posted:No, it doesn't say guns. It doesn't say "small arms", it doesn't say "large arms". While I agree I guess with where you're going here, I'm not sure I'd like this same level of pedantry applied to say, the first amendment. "It says press not server."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:I mean, that's not really what they said. They said "because there were no such restrictions in place in 1791, there can be none now". If several states had such a scheme in the late 18th century and NY had this law now, under this holding, the law would be upheld despite its potential for arbitrary application. I mean I know they would just have used different motivated reasoning to get rid of the law, but I'm saying this based on what Thomas actually wrote today. lol speaking of that, this is in the ruling https://twitter.com/MarkFrassetto/status/1539996546514784256
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Piell posted:lol speaking of that, this is in the ruling https://twitter.com/MarkFrassetto/status/1539996546514784256 Yeah. I mean this ruling is trash. It's hilarious to see pro-CCW folks running around talking about how "the state simply can't be so arbitrary, that's what Thomas is saying!" when in reality he's being at least as arbitrary to do away with the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:While I agree I guess with where you're going here, I'm not sure I'd like this same level of pedantry applied to say, the first amendment. "It says press not server." I'm just asking people to substantiate their argument using evidence: The argument, to wit: Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Guns are part of the constitution, and the constitution cant be changed easily, for good reasons. I asked that poster where, and they were unable or unwilling to provide evidence and never replied back. Another poster: Fuschia tude posted:Amendment II I asked them to point out where guns are mentioned and they quoted the Amendment text, adding ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. Now, I don't know about standards of pedantry, I just know that in D&D we're supposed to back up our assertions with evidence and so far a relay of 3 different posters have failed to do so. Maybe a 4th can throw their hat in the ring and find the line?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm just asking people to substantiate their argument using evidence:
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If you're unwilling to admit that arms = guns in the 2A then you are deliberately acting in bad faith. It doesn't say guns, it says arms. If you are unable to support your claim, please admit you cannot. Or find evidence to support it. I'm aware what you would like the evidence to be, but this is D&D. You need to support your claims. Additionally, you continue to ignore the presence of militias in your "evidence". You need to address that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If you're unwilling to admit that arms = guns in the 2A then you are deliberately acting in bad faith. Arms include guns but also allow for hand grenades. I realize it might be uncomfortable but you're going to have to use words rather than math symbols if you want to engage in the arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm just asking people to substantiate their argument using evidence: The second amendment, what do you think it means? Jaxyon posted:It doesn't say guns, it says arms. If you are unable to support your claim, please admit you cannot. Or find evidence to support it. The militia phrase in the 2nd Amendment is reasoning for the right to bear arms but it is not a limiter or restrictor. What about it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The second amendment, what do you think it means? I've asked you to support your argument with evidence and your first response to me is a question but no evidence? If you don't have evidence, please just say so. quote:The militia phrase in the 2nd Amendment is reasoning for the right to bear arms but it is not a limiter or restrictor. What about it? That's your interpretation, where does it say it's not a limiter or restrictor? And if it's the reasoning, how is that not relevant in all applications?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The second amendment, what do you think it means? The second amendment means that the founders didn't like standing armies because they thought they were a tool of tyranny so they support (white male) militias, which of course were used as tools of tyranny in much the same way as standing armies and then we quickly established a standing army anyway so honestly the whole thing is pretty moot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
What restrictions on abortion existed in 1791?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
More lawyers should be pressing the position that the 2nd amendment actually is about a right to heraldry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
moths posted:What restrictions on abortion existed in 1791? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/ quote:Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era. Of course, it's not mentioned in the constitution at all...
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Arms include guns but also allow for hand grenades. I realize it might be uncomfortable but you're going to have to use words rather than math symbols if you want to engage in the arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:You're right, "arms" is a superset of "guns" and I shouldn't limit it that way. You're gonna love advocating for the rights to bear hand grenades, its a logical and allowed position post-Heller and what everyone will respect you for doing in spite of being palpably unpopular and an unelectable issue. You'll get invited to so many gatherings of people who love being around hand grenades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I've asked you to support your argument with evidence and your first response to me is a question but no evidence? My evidence that guns are included in the 2nd amendment? The definition of arms: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms, includes firearms, synonyms gun. quote:That's your interpretation, where does it say it's not a limiter or restrictor? And if it's the reasoning, how is that not relevant in all applications? That's the point, it doesn't have a limiter or restrictor! Its very clearly stated "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". If it was limited, it would say "... Shall not be infringed, except in cases of x, y z". or maybe "The people have the right to bear arms in a well regulated Militia" if that was the intention. For example you see this in the fourth amendment. There's an absolute statement, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue.." then if there's an exception they add a clause for that exception "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be". Let me know if you have any further questions!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Abortion isn’t a right - but there is a right to privacy embedded in the constitution, and staying the gently caress out of someone else’s medical procedures is in line with every other right to privacy in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:My evidence that guns are included in the 2nd amendment? The definition of arms: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms, includes firearms, synonyms gun. Since there is no qualifier on an arbitrary subset of arms in 2A, do you hold this same position you have with firearms to people who want to bear calvary swords, or grenade launchers, or whatever else in public?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:My evidence that guns are included in the 2nd amendment? The definition of arms: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms, includes firearms, synonyms gun. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If you have a contemporary dictionary that would be helpful. Further, it being inclusive of guns doesn't mean it guarantees guns. Any number of devices or tools could satisfy that wording. quote:That's the point, it doesn't have a limiter or restrictor! Its very clearly stated "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". If it was limited, it would say "... Shall not be infringed, except in cases of x, y z". or maybe "The people have the right to bear arms in a well regulated Militia" if that was the intention. For example you see this in the fourth amendment. There's an absolute statement, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue.." then if there's an exception they add a clause for that exception "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be". Nobody is infringing your rights to bear arms by regulating guns. You can simply carry other arms, if you choose to participate in a militia. If you are not participating in a militia, not sure how it's relevant. You stated specifically about guns. quote:Let me know if you have any further questions! Sure, can you show me the part that mentions guns? That's my original question and you seem to be saying that you can't provide evidence but that the evidence you have provided, that does not meet the claim you originally made, should be accepted in lieu of actual evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:My evidence that guns are included in the 2nd amendment? The definition of arms: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms, includes firearms, synonyms gun. Is your right to bear arms infringed upon by not being able to bear arms in various locations, like in the presence of the president, on airplanes, or in the supreme court? Why or why not? Like, you know your read means you should just be able to go wherever you want with whatever weapon you want, right? Or is your right to bear arms being respected because you can bear some arms, in some conditions? Because pretty clearly, if you accept any limitations on the types of arms that can be borne, you can come to the conclusion that you may be armed under the 2nd amendment. Nowhere does that amendment specify that the arms permitted must include guns, or that they must be able to be concealed, fire over X rounds per minute, etc etc etc Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Prisoners on death row should not have their 2nd amendment rights infringed, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
People seem to think "may issue" depends on very serious and careful consideration of a person's history and character by qualified government officials, when in reality the only function is to let the good ol boys make sure nobody too poor or brown accidentally gets a permit in their nice, peaceful county. This is how the red parts of california work, and those sheriffs are definitely frothing mad their de facto paper bag test is illegal now. I call this progress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Here's a 1785 dictionary. The word "arm" or "arms" appears on page 178. I do feel maybe I shouldn't be doing the work for someone else to provide their own evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Javid posted:People seem to think "may issue" depends on very serious and careful consideration of a person's history and character by qualified government officials, when in reality the only function is to let the good ol boys make sure nobody too poor or brown accidentally gets a permit in their nice, peaceful county. That's why I propose replacing it with a very simple, unabusable, colorblind test: There are no conditions under which you can have a permit
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Prisoners on death row should not have their 2nd amendment rights infringed, imo. Precisely. It's an outrage. After all, slavery was made illegal except for an explicit exemption in the case of punishment, so if the founders had wanted to prevent people from bearing arms after being sentenced for crimes like wantonly killing people with arms, they would have said so. E: yes I am aware that the two amendments mentioned were not written by the same person. The argument still works when addressed to the person banging on about how there can't be exemptions or they would have been mentioned. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:44
|
|