So basically your point seems to be the more guns, the safer people are. Which has been demonstrated to be the opposite of the truth based on all data.

But keep on believing whatever you want.

Most restrictive gun laws in the country are in Chicago and Washington D.C. Both have ridiculously high gun murder rates.

But keep believing strict gun laws work.

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.

Bad news for gangs, drug dealers, car jackers, and other assorted gun carrying criminals. Their "profession" just became more costly in terms of personal risk.

Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey.

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

Not to steer this political, but if they greatly strengthen states' rights on abortion, many in the pro gun control crowd will be quite upset. Some people want the Court to guarantee rights not specified in the Constitution, but not guarantee rights (the 2nd Amendment) that clearly are.

This court is interpreting the Constitution and respecting its own limitations. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated as a right guaranteed by the federal government. Many things are not, and the right to legislate them belong to the states. This is the role of the Supreme Court - to be an umpire and rule on laws expressly under their review, not to create laws as they choose.

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.

Nah, easier for them to get guns. They’ll be ok. Good luck against them.

It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.

This ruling does not, in any way, make it easier or harder to get a gun. That is a fact.

You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and don’t accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.

Yes. Just as it is illegal to shoot up a room full of school children, or to even discharge a firearm within city limits and nobody wants to change that. There is no requirement that I need to get a permit from the state to practice normal religion, or to speak my mind. You are advocating that special requirements be met to exercise the 2nd at all, which does not and has not existed for any other right. There is no clause that the 2nd is any different; that it is subject to a different set of standards from the rest. I don't need a permit to exercise my first amendment rights. I do not need a special permit to be protected by the 4th amendment. Nor should I for the 2nd; it should be treated the same as the rest, nothing more nor less.

Speakers wishing to speak, religions wish to hold services, are burdened with numerous permit requirements. Religious freedoms is not unconstitutionally infringed when we make a pastor comply with the fire code to preach. Nor is it infringed in my opinion if we require gun owners to pass a background check or, heaven forbid, take a safety course.

As discussed numerous times, buying a gun at the gun store already requires a background check, in all states. People getting a concealed carry permit will still go through a background check. Shall issue means they must issue by default, unless they find a very specific and non-arbitrary reason to deny, like having a violent criminal history. I really wish the anti-gun side would educate themselves on the laws, even as they screech for more they continually fail to understand what the laws actually are.

Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places don’t have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side.

I may misunderstand the process. If I go to buy a shotgun today along with as much ammo as I can afford, what do they look for in me? Make sure I’m not a felon?

In all 50 states, you are run through a background check by the BATFE. You fill out a form 4473 and have to show your identification to prove you are who you claim you are. The form has a series of questions on your criminal history, legal status, mental health and history, and behavior. Lying on the form is punishable by up to a decade in federal prison. The BATFE runs a background check through NICS against the database to determine if you are a prohibited person for reasons legal or mental. If you are, you are denied and the store cannot give you the shotgun. If they do, they are punishable by, I think, up to 20 years in federal prison for one incident.

If you come up as clean in the database, the store is cleared to give you your gun. Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS.

Some states have more restrictive standards than this one, and will require you to perform a written test, perform a safe handling demonstration of the specific shotgun you are attempting to purchase, purchase a specific type of lock, and/or wait some period of time before the gun is actually given to you.

This is what a 4473 looks like: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

This is accurate. I worked retail for several years at a store that sold firearms. In addition, if there is any question in the background check (determining right identity for common names, etc.), there may be a delay on purchasing the firearm. We sold firearms days after the person initially came into the store, or declined sales in the same time period. We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner.

Very strict, specific process.

As one of those guys who spends too much time with my FFL, it amazes me that this happens occasionally and I've seen it a coupe times. They are evicted in short order.

Can’t you buy guns online?

If you buy a gun from an online distributor, it is shipped to an FFL (a licensed firearms dealer), who then performs your background check, 4473, and the full process before turning the gun over to you if you clear the check and process. You pay them for their time and work, and the online dealer. You can’t just go to Atlantic Firearms and buy your hypothetical shotgun and have them ship it to you.

Certain curio and relic firearms are allowed to be delivered to individuals who have been specially licensed by the government through the mail without the FFL.

"Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS."

"We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner."

Sounds like clear violations of those customers god-given Constitutional rights!

I'm sure an intelligent point could be made here.

I think it’s an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids can’t go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, it’s a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. It’s not productive.

Of course you do. I have said many pages ago that I am fine with the kind of restrictions that have historically existed - murderers were not permitted guns in their cells in 1789. I am fine with this. Not a single person is arguing it…

What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - it’s infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using ‘free speech’

We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think.

I would describe bitching about ‘god given’, which nobody here is arguing (it’s the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying “ok” randomly.

That’s why I added in background checks specifically and noted those were not done at the time the bill of rights was written. It was come for pre teens to have access to guns then too. What was not common then was semis of course. Regardless, the debate is theoretical at this point. No one is taking away any rights for many years with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So sleep well (but perhaps avoid the news coverings of mass shootings).

You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.

Yeah, you get it. That’s why I’m not a supporter of background checks (not hugely against, personally, but it does violate), and am not for banning civil liberties to 18 year olds. Teens may possess a gun in many states, if you were not aware.

For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well.

Yep, we dum’ ol’ re’neck’s think the 2nd amendament is in the Holy Bible.

The entire debate in this thread has been legislative and constitutional; not whether the right is natural born or god given. There’s plenty for you to mock, but mocking points literally no one has made is kind of stupid.

I don’t think you want them. I think having easy access to guns makes them inevitable. We’ve tried easy access. Doesn’t seem to work.

It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.

Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..

metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..

the same people who think overturn roe v wade is ridiculous when abortion not a constitutional right are fine with overturning the constitution for gun control. Also same people fine with forcing a shot and lose your job if dont take covid shot are now saying its their body and no right to interfere with roe v wade even though they mostly live in states where nothing has changed and doesnt impact them at all..

plus interesting that people said you should get a shot because it impacts the life of other people...i would think abortion after a viable fetus also impats another life etc..

i not taking side here but just saying please be consistent..

At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.

thats cool to know but still funny they let you DUI once where you could kill people plus all the other times you werent pulled over and then they get you a 'free' DUI.

Not even the most anti-gun left-wing courts in the land are going to rule that the police 'randomly' searching, with no suspicion whatsoever, who are just out in general public and not a sensitive location that some courts consider separate (a courthouse, federal buildings, etc.) in order to arrest them for carrying a gun (which has just been reaffirmed as a core constitutional right), but for no other legal violations is in any way constitutional. It is an absurdly blatant violation of the 4th amendment that protects exactly against being searched without any cause or warrant.

This will lose 9-0 on the current court.

Thank you. It's almost like people will just ignore laws that get in their way, or something. Crazy. Imagine that. Who could have seen that coming? :confused:

The argument is self-defeating because it contradicts itself. The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed. There is a process to do so, spelled out in the Constitution itself as the founders recognized times would change, and the people might need to reconsider things and consider new things. It's a loser of an argument to play the game the way they are playing it now - to pretend the 2nd and now the 4th also can just be ignored whenever politically expedient for political goals they agree with, without actually violating the amendments they are insisting be practically set aside. It's an argument without any logical merit. Make the case that the people should have no meaningful right to self-defense, that guns should not be allowed (or only allowed for pre-civil war technology), and that the Constitution should be amended through the legal process put in place to do exactly that to eliminate this liberty of the people. I would strongly disagree with it, but the argument would at least be internally consistent with itself instead of a series of absurd contradictions.

It's worth noting that the reading of the 2nd amendment you describe ("having your cake and eating it too") is exactly the way that Alito's majority opinion interprets the 14th amendment in relation to the SC's recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. Because abortion was not considered "acceptable" in the 1860s (at the time the 14th was ratified), it cannot be acceptable now, despite it being settled law for nearly a half-century.

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).

Shhhhhh. The sound logic hurts my eyes.

Can we have another thread for Roe? This thread is not about abortion even though it keeps being made the topic. Though it is quite amusing that you are apparently upset the court has upheld a right that actually and very directly is in the Constitution, and left to the people to decide an issue that is pretty clearly not. We should pretend abortion is in the constitution, but not bearing arms? Again, your side would be much better served by reading the document and working to change it or pass legislation (the actual process for creating new law and rights) rather than denying obvious reality.

You should go back and read my first comment in this thread. I'm not upset and you apparently don't know what "my side" is. I had regarded your contributions to this thread as helpful and reasonable until now, but you are simply treading into straw man territory here.

Yes, I see your first comment.

I'm sure a person reading the words can understand the disconnect between the two statements.

Correction - my second comment. My mistake. In it I write–

If you are seriously interested in discussion, throwing around "your side" is not really conducive to that, especially when the above is the only personal statement I have posited regarding second amendment rights.

I think there are clearly two sides in the debate, those in favor of light to no regulation and those in favor of heavy regulation or total ban. Actually, I don't think that. That's a pretty undeniable reality.

I apologize if I miscategorized you. I made the contextual assumptive leap that your post had some bearing on the topic of the thread and the present debate in it. If your criticisms are only applicable to the Mississippi decision, I'm not sure why it is here. That really should be a separate thread, if you are saying your statement has nothing to do with the topic and I am wrong to think that it did.

Please, let's not bring those rich old men in the White House, forcing female federal employees to put vaccinations into their bodies under threat of losing their jobs, into this conversation. Or the same rich old men in government preventing women from legally putting heroin, cocaine, and certain other things into their own bodies. Or the rich old men in almost every state government, who won't allow a woman to legally make a living by offering herself as a prostitute.

Those "rich old men" just don't seem to think women own their own bodies. To be intellectually consistent (and obviously that is not your intention, but let's pretend it is,) vax mandates should be illegal, and all drug use and prostitution should be legal.

I don't see it in such broad strokes, but I can respect your view on it.

I appreciate that–my comment was related to the aspect of interpreting the constitution, which is central to the swirling debates around these and many other issues in the US right now.

These are all good and fair points. My opinion is that, generally, we have too many old rich men deciding things in this country.

No doubt about it

So because the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, and and all court rulings, that have nothing to do with guns or the 2nd, are on topic? I am wrong to have taken your words to be applicable to the subject of the thread, and also wrong to conclude that, if this deduction was wrong, that it is not about the topic of the thread? Seems strange it's both of these at the same time.

Do all old men (for example, Breyer and Alito) think the same way? Do all women (for instance Barrett and Sotomayor) think the same way? Can't women be fair and clear thinking when it comes to the law, and vice versa?

Your comment is sexist.

None of these questions have anything to do with my comment.

Please explain.

You said:

Why? Aren't "rich old men" fair? Are women, or poor, young men, more fair? Assigning people into groups based on age, gender, race, or any other such attribute, and then painting that entire group and everyone in it with a broad brush, is sexism, or ageism, or racism, or just plain prejudice and bigotry.

You are making a derogatory comment about a certain age and gender group. If you don't like a decision made by a Neil Gorsuch or Sam Alito, try punching a hole in their argument. But why bring age and gender into it, as though those things are relevant?

A broad variety of perspectives from all different races, ages and genders leads to better outcomes. Almost all Fortune 500 companies, for example, have concluded this. Some still resist the concept.

I'm not sure why you keep referencing specific supreme court justices. My comment is not a criticism of any particular individuals nor of their work/beliefs/views. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it either.

You are free to disagree, but my view is that America would be a better place if decisions were more often made by people and groups comprising a more diverse range of (to quote you) "ages, genders, races" as well as other orientations/experiences.

If you are perfectly happy and satisfied with the state of America, then I can understand your not wanting to change anything in this regard.

Vax "mandates" were not forcing someone to do something against their will. It was the definition of "choice". Get a vaccine to protect society at large, or find another job, just not on the government teat.

I also am very happy the Supreme Court consists of people from multiple races and both genders. Clarence Thomas' take down of Dred Scott in this decision and his declaration that rights apply to all Americans is particularly resonant.

Or is this not the diversity we like, because he has the wrong opinion?

Of course, when valid arguments can no longer be found, it is the response to try and make it about race and gender, even though it was authored by an African-American male and a woman's addition to the Court is what made it a clear majority (many of us are surprised that Roberts signed on with this).

No one said the Supreme Court isn’t currently diverse, and it takes half a brain to argue it is, although it is politically motivated and that has almost always been the case. It’s the state legislatures in states that will now be deciding what women/women of color can and cannot do with their bodies that are historically underrepresented.

Side note: accused sexual abusers as the paragon of conservative virtue is fairly ironic.

Oh, it again has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and we are not to assign the claims made about the groups and people involved in the 2A issue to be about anything to do with the topic, and restricted to the off-topic topic only. Go make an Abortion thread. It sincerely would be very interesting and we probably agree more there. This thread is not about abortion, racial politics, and gender debate.

Women/women of color is a funny way of saying "women".

Accused = guilty. That sounds right.

Accused of something for the first time, that supposedly happened 35 years prior. The accusers OWN WITNESSES said it wasn't Kavanaugh. But never mind, insinuate he was guilty. The same thing was done to Clarence Thomas.
That's how some people work.

Meanwhile, the law of the land (for those of us who care) says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess that's just another law, like the 2nd Amendment, that we can ignore when convenient.

That was written purposefully. They deserve special recognition because they have too often been forgotten. Figured I’d see if you took issue with it.

I bet you think Deshaun Watson did it though.

Of course I do. It's absurd. "Women" is not a racial term, it includes women of all races. Can we address the actual topic instead of your gender agenda?

Why? Be clear with your insinuation.

Lots of evidence against him. Innocent until proven guilty tends to be selectively used to defend people who you like or with whom you side. Carrying it as a mantra to replace your own reasonable thoughts about whether a person did something or not is pretty silly. The law has technicalities - facts do not.

There’s lots of evidence against Kavanaugh and Thomas? Where? They were able to produce essentially none but a politically convenient claim.

Nobody has made a contradiction or double standard. You’re just accusing him of it because of an assumption you’ve made up?

None of which has anything to do with the subject of the thread.

To circulate back to the subject of the thread, I think there are very few restrictions that will pass Sup Ct review for the foreseeable future so the debate seems more theoretical than anything else. I think that’s bad, you likely think that’s good. That’s about where we are.

Regarding schools, there are common sense proposals out there, like locking all side doors and only having one main entrance open, and that with one or two armed guards and metal detectors (same type of setup as airports have when people board airplanes.)

Do a little research to see who's been proposing such solutions, and who has been opposing them.

If common sense is not common, perhaps another term is more appropriate.

When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to clear thinking, logical people. You are correct, those people are not as common as I wish.

Do you think that proposal - single entry/exit to schools (excluding fire emergency exits of course) and metal detectors and armed guards - would be a good idea? Do you think it's a good policy at airports?

Again I urge you and anyone else to take a couple minutes to see who has been proposing, and who has been opposing, such measures.

That is not a world I want my kids to live in. We can do better. I also vehemently distrust the willingness of someone with a gun to take a bullet for kids that are not his or her own. Would rather do our best to have less guns and bullets near kids in the first place.

None of those ideas are without merit. They do pose some challenges, however. Please take the following for what it is; clearly we are on opposite sides on some issues, but, as I pointed out to Greg earlier, I am a second amendment supporter.

The single-entry approach is currently in widespread use as I understand it, and IIRC the Uvalde school even had this. One issue with metal detectors (in schools and airports) is that it slows down the process of getting in, to the point where, much like flying, students would end up having to get there much earlier than unusual and stand in a long line. I know I hate that aspect of flying, and I don't love the idea of making that a part of every child's school day. Putting more guns in schools may end up working in some ways or some situations, but generally I think fewer guns in schools tends to be better. I suppose we'd all get used to it eventually (as we have with more armed guards/dogs at airports, transit hubs, etc.) but I miss the pre-9/11 days in that aspect.

Is this sarcasm or are you being serious?

Hope-cine should be the name, not vaccine, especially when they changed the definition of it. ;)
https://twitter.com/plmilligan1968/s...not-science%2F

Are you suggesting when a mass shooting begins, police should not be called in to stop it? I mean, they would be bringing guns into the school and besides, you wouldn't trust them to be of help anyway.

Why would I suggest that? When police roll in they have strength in numbers. Or at least they should - in Texas they dropped the ball it seems. It’s the effectiveness of an armed person at the school that I think you overestimate.

It works at airports, and some government buildings to protect our esteemed politicians. But you don't want kids to have the same protection.

You say you want "fewer guns in schools" as though there's little difference who has those guns. I want fewer guns in the hands of mass murderers, but since it is usually rather difficult to predict who and when that will happen, I like the idea of guns in the hands of law enforcement. This is something I wish we could agree was "common sense" but you are proof it isn't common.

The shooter at Uvalde got in through a side door.

So, are you saying you oppose having armed guards in schools (because you want fewer guns in schools) UNLESS there are 15 or 20 of them so they have strength in numbers?