I've never owned a gun and never will. I do, however, support a person's right to bear arms and I've known many people who are responsible gun owners. I do wish they would ban assault weapons, though.
The thing is, there is no such thing as a "decent citizen" who eagerly carries a gun everywhere. Decent citizens do not seek to intimidate other people and they are not consumed by fear, suspicion, and violent Rambo fantasies.
You're joking right? If the issue is subjectivity, all SCOTUS did was move subjectivity to SCOTUS (one could also argue that "sensitive areas" as mentioned in the ruling are still subjective.)
It also negates the will of the people who want to live in a state that has some gun laws. in fact, it would disallow any laws not "consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation". COMPLETELY MADE UP SUBJECTIVE STANDARD. Because they only cite previous regulation they do like and make up excuses as to why regulations they don't like it not relevant. Not to mention the fact that current firearms aren't consistent with this historic firearms.
So they
1.) invented a right for guns for self -defense. (heller)
The title of the thread is "In the USA, a decent citizen can carry a gun for self-defense"
Sure, any decent citizen can do that. The problem is that so can all the scumbags. Perfectly legally. And that makes it much, much harder to work out who's decent and who's a scumbag.
A gun doesn't help you there because it turns everyone into a scumbag.
It’s painfully obvious when people haven’t taken the time to understand the decision and are just following the outrage mob. The decision removes subjectivity from the decision on whether or not someone can get a permit to carry a gun.
New York used to allow subjective discretion by a judge. So person a and person b could both meet the requirement to obtain a permit, but the judge could like person a and not like person b. Person a gets a permit and person b doesnt, just because the judge decided he didn’t like person b.
This is a good ruling and it takes subjectivity out of the hands of judges, where it didn’t belong anyway.
You're joking right? If the issue is subjectivity, all SCOTUS did was move subjectivity to SCOTUS (one could also argue that "sensitive areas" as mentioned in the ruling are still subjective.)
It also negates the will of the people who want to live in a state that has some gun laws. in fact, it would disallow any laws not "consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation". COMPLETELY MADE UP SUBJECTIVE STANDARD. Because they only cite previous regulation they do like and make up excuses as to why regulations they don't like it not relevant. Not to mention the fact that current firearms aren't consistent with this historic firearms.
So they
1.) invented a right for guns for self -defense. (heller)
2.) Invented a standard for gun regulations
No, New York can still keep their standards for applying for a gun permit they will now HAVE to issue the permit if the applicant meets the criteria. Prior to this ruling, a court official could simply deny someone, who met all criteria for a permit, based on the court officials own subjective reasoning.
One of the people in the case actually cited rising crime in his neighborhood as his reason for wanting a concealed carry permit. The court official denied it based on his own subjective perception of whether or not the applicant really felt in danger.
There can still be criteria to apply for the permit, but once those criteria are met the state must grant the permit. No more wishy washy court official judgements.
luckily I live in a state with constitutional carry. It’s a good ruling, you just don’t like it.
The title of the thread is "In the USA, a decent citizen can carry a gun for self-defense"
Sure, any decent citizen can do that. The problem is that so can all the scumbags. Perfectly legally. And that makes it much, much harder to work out who's decent and who's a scumbag.
The thing is, there is no such thing as a "decent citizen" who eagerly carries a gun everywhere. Decent citizens do not seek to intimidate other people and they are not consumed by fear, suspicion, and violent Rambo fantasies.
How am I intimidating anyone if my firearm is concealed? That’s the entire point of concealed carry. I don’t want anyone to know I have a firearm on me.
How am I intimidating anyone if my firearm is concealed? That’s the entire point of concealed carry. I don’t want anyone to know I have a firearm on me.
It's concealed right up until the moment someone does something that you don't like, then you're flashing it with a big, fake tough guy smile. Carrying around a gun is something done almost exclusively by pathological wimps and violent sociopaths. If we had this interaction in person, you'd undoubtedly feel comforted by the fact that you could blow me away for the "crime" of insulting you if you wanted.
Since we live under minority rule, the majority needs to start asserting ourselves in the cultural realm. The gun humper obsession with pew pews and violence, with Red Dawn and Rambo, is the foundation for the current state of our mass shooting society. You're all freaks and you should be shunned until you get over your weird fetish for violence. Praying for you.
The thing about gun humpers is that they don't actually want to carry guns around for self-defense; they just want to be able to intimidate normal people wherever they go. They love the feeling that they could just blow someone away if they get made fun of or irritated. These people are cowardly, angry freaks who should be shunned from society.
You must be almost uniquely surrounded by some weird people, or you are exaggerating/lying. I've known a lot of people over the years who own guns ("gun humpers") and I don't know a single one who I could say owns a gun so they can "just blow someone away if they get made fun of or irritated" or who "just want to be able to intimidate normal people wherever they go."
Every person I can think of who owns a gun does so for (1) hunting, (2) security, (3) target shooting, and/or (4) collecting (hobby). Those categories overlap and all four may be applicable to one person, but I don't know anyone who owns a gun for the purpose you listed. Even growing up in a relatively violent and high crime inner city, I don't think I knew any who owned a gun for that purpose. A few people I went to school with may have owned a gun with some sense that they may use it in the future to commit robbery of some kind, but even then it wasn't for the purposes you mention. I think you are grossly mistaken, exaggerating, or live in some kind of incredibly rare place, like a weird commune way out in the words or something.
irrelevant. every single thing that is banned or restricted has people that may be able to be reasonable. but the point is that the benefits outweigh the cost if youre going to save lots of lives. again, just hubris that people value their right to a gun over possibly saving so many lives.
How am I intimidating anyone if my firearm is concealed? That’s the entire point of concealed carry. I don’t want anyone to know I have a firearm on me.
It's concealed right up until the moment someone does something that you don't like, then you're flashing it with a big, fake tough guy smile. Carrying around a gun is something done almost exclusively by pathological wimps and violent sociopaths. If we had this interaction in person, you'd undoubtedly feel comforted by the fact that you could blow me away for the "crime" of insulting you if you wanted.
Since we live under minority rule, the majority needs to start asserting ourselves in the cultural realm. The gun humper obsession with pew pews and violence, with Red Dawn and Rambo, is the foundation for the current state of our mass shooting society. You're all freaks and you should be shunned until you get over your weird fetish for violence. Praying for you.
You are ruled by emotion. None of what you say is based on reality. The reality is millions of people have used a firearm to stop an encounter with a criminal. There are many stories of women being attacked by male perpetrators but the attack was thwarted by the fact that the woman was armed.
Obama had the CDC conduct a study on firearm defensive use and found that people who were attacked by criminals sustained less harm if they had a firearm than those without one.
Weak people, such as yourself, project your weakness onto anyone who would carry a firearm for protection. We should encourage more women to carry a firearm since it is the greatest equalizer. However, we have people like you who would rather more women get raped, mugged, or abducted just so you can feel safe.
it is totally arbitrary to treat historical events hundreds of years ago like that as some kind of infallible bastion of americanism. Just reiterates my point earlier about how the american arrogance and essentialism about their own history prevents them progressing as a country. possibly the most politically backward country in the western world.
it is totally arbitrary to treat historical events hundreds of years ago like that as some kind of infallible bastion of americanism. Just reiterates my point earlier about how the american arrogance and essentialism about their own history prevents them progressing as a country. possibly the most politically backward country in the western world.
The right to bear arms is a continuous right, it didn’t occur in a vacuum hundreds of years ago. Same way we have a continuous first amendment right that extends to modern technology. Or how the fourth amendment has protections against modern forms of invasion of privacy, such as tracking devices on cars. Your trying to act as if the constitution is only applicable to the time it was written. If you’d bother to read any of the opinions, especially that of Justice Thomas and Alito, you’d realize how your logic doesn’t apply.
If I lived where I thought I needed a gun to protect myself I'm moving. I have never neded a gun and never will.
Gotta get rid of those military stlye weapons that can mow down an army. They have to go nobody but the army needs them.
The Supreme Court ruling is specifically regarding concealed carry permits for pistols. Are you suggesting we get rid of pistols? Or are you talking about the big scary black rifles?
I get that you like guns but yiu dont seem to get that i am disagreeing with your constitution so saying that it is written as a right in your constitution is not an argument that addresses my position. and to be clear im not saying that things written hundreds of years ago never can be relevant.
I get that you like guns but yiu dont seem to get that i am disagreeing with your constitution so saying that it is written as a right in your constitution is not an argument that addresses my position. and to be clear im not saying that things written hundreds of years ago never can be relevant.
Oh ok. Then your argument is baseless and irrelevant for US citizens. Got it. I also now understand your username is a reference to yourself. Glad we cleared that up.
Eh, maybe, kind of, a little bit. They could have been clearer on the Second Amendment, I suppose. No one is perfect. But the US founding fathers still did some incredible, ground-breaking things with respect to freedom, civil rights, enlightenment, ordered liberty (e.g., First , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments).
Compare the founding fathers of the US to the founding fathers of some sh!thole countries like, for example, Russia, Argentina, Libya, South Africa, Honduras, New Zealand or Iran. Those founding fathers (they seem to get new FFs all the time), seem to always botch everything. Terrible founding fathers in a lot of countries. Atrocious FFs.
Some incredible ground breaking stuff with freedom and civil rights like?
Last time I checked women and blacks didn’t have the right to vote when the founding fathers were alive
it is totally arbitrary to treat historical events hundreds of years ago like that as some kind of infallible bastion of americanism. Just reiterates my point earlier about how the american arrogance and essentialism about their own history prevents them progressing as a country. possibly the most politically backward country in the western world.
The SCOTUS is a Court of law that is largely bound by precedent (history) and in many instances is necessarily required to analyze legal history before making a decision. That simply is the way courts in the US operate and function, and there simply is no other way to perform their tasks. So, in addition to being massively exaggerated and hyperbolic, your statement that US Courts "treat historical events hundreds of years ago like that as some kind of infallible bastion of americanism" is also a superfluous truism.
If I lived where I thought I needed a gun to protect myself I'm moving. I have never neded a gun and never will.
Gotta get rid of those military stlye weapons that can mow down an army. They have to go nobody but the army needs them.
The Supreme Court ruling is specifically regarding concealed carry permits for pistols. Are you suggesting we get rid of pistols? Or are you talking about the big scary black rifles?
I am saying have your deer rifle, have a pistol just keep it at home where it belongs. We can't have people walking the streets carrying a gun, simply too many crazy people out there.