https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/supreme-court-expands-gun-rights-in-major-second-amendment-ruling/

Looks like the leftist judges are on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment again.

posted by Fletch

Looks like the leftist judges are on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment again.

That the ruling may have negative consequences is an extremely weak argument for a "no" vote.

posted by queencitybuckeye

That the ruling may have negative consequences is an extremely weak argument for a "no" vote.

Not to mention the criminals murdering people aren’t applying for concealed carry permits. What a dumb argument.

Shocking how the most recent "they're coming for your guns" looks to be another little boy who cried wolf.  If we each had a nickel for every one of these alarms that have amounted to nothing, we could buy half a tank of gas.

I mean, they’d take them if they could. They’ve admitted it. Thank goodness for Trump (lol who I don’t like but I’ll take it all day). Heller only winning by one in 08 is insane. 

And no dummies, abortion isn’t a constitutional right, which is why it is different for states rights. Weird sleepy Joe doesn’t understand that. 

It's an interesting opinion that concealed carry is contributing to unnecessary escalation resulting in death.

That actually does make sense.  But I'd like to see the data on people successfully defending themselves.  I know that data is not very good, for a variety of reasons.  But it seems the news is at least as full of a "good guy with a gun" trying to defend himself and getting killed.  And, certainly, drunken fights escalating to someone pulling a gun is in the news plenty.

Just saying, the data sucks and it's impossible to determine if concealed carry is a net society positive or negative.  IMO, unless you are very highly trained it's a net negative.  And it's only a matter of time before the "good guy with a gun" kills innocents in a cross-fire or thru-and-thru.

I get all the arguments.  What I'm not getting is the data that allows a proper evaluation of those arguments.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Shocking how the most recent "they're coming for your guns" looks to be another little boy who cried wolf.  If we each had a nickel for every one of these alarms that have amounted to nothing, we could buy half a tank of gas.

Did you not hear the President of the United States say recently that semiautomatic rifles and pistols are on the table for banning? 

That’s like 95% of the guns.

posted by jmog

Did you not hear the President of the United States say recently that semiautomatic rifles and pistols are on the table for banning? 

That’s like 95% of the guns.

We both know this will never happen.  There have always been people with Biden’s view, and there always will be.  They’re trying to push a boulder up a mountain.  So every time there is a school massacre, we get to hear them propose outlawing some type of guns and we get to hear the other side warn us all that they’re finally coming for our guns.  Bunch of nonsense.

https://www.10tv.com/mobile/article/news/crime/surveillance-video-shows-shooting-inside-tuttle-mall/530-2d1c96e9-6e6f-491c-be02-632ffdcfdcf9?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

posted by gut

It's an interesting opinion that concealed carry is contributing to unnecessary escalation resulting in death.

That actually does make sense.  But I'd like to see the data on people successfully defending themselves.  I know that data is not very good, for a variety of reasons.  But it seems the news is at least as full of a "good guy with a gun" trying to defend himself and getting killed.  And, certainly, drunken fights escalating to someone pulling a gun is in the news plenty.

Just saying, the data sucks and it's impossible to determine if concealed carry is a net society positive or negative.  IMO, unless you are very highly trained it's a net negative.  And it's only a matter of time before the "good guy with a gun" kills innocents in a cross-fire or thru-and-thru.

I get all the arguments.  What I'm not getting is the data that allows a proper evaluation of those arguments.

The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.

posted by queencitybuckeye
The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.

That hasn’t been true for decades on a number of rights. Tons of our rights have been “controlled” so to speak.

posted by Laley23

That hasn’t been true for decades on a number of rights. Tons of our rights have been “controlled” so to speak.

Sad that something so obviously correct per the constitution is an outlier.

posted by geeblock

https://www.10tv.com/mobile/article/news/crime/surveillance-video-shows-shooting-inside-tuttle-mall/530-2d1c96e9-6e6f-491c-be02-632ffdcfdcf9?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

Not sure where this is but I saw a stat that the US is 3rd in the world for gun violence (probably per capita), take Chicago, NY, Baltimore and LA out of it and the US slips to 189th.

Doesnt seem like a gun violence problem at all outside the major Dem ran cities.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

We both know this will never happen.  There have always been people with Biden’s view, and there always will be.  They’re trying to push a boulder up a mountain.  So every time there is a school massacre, we get to hear them propose outlawing some type of guns and we get to hear the other side warn us all that they’re finally coming for our guns.  Bunch of nonsense.

Biden isn’t an outlier/fringe part of the party, he is the POTUS which actual power. You can’t play those comments off like they could never happen when it’s the POTUS saying them.

It’s not like it was the lunatic with no real power AOC.

posted by jmog

Biden isn’t an outlier/fringe part of the party, he is the POTUS which actual power. You can’t play those comments off like they could never happen when it’s the POTUS saying them.

It’s not like it was the lunatic with no real power AOC.

My bet is we’ll be sitting here in 20 years having the same discussion.  No one’s going to have their guns taken.  Didn’t happen 40 years ago, didn’t happen 30 years ago, didn’t happen 20 years ago, didn’t happen 10 years ago…even though we were warned that it was inevitable each time.  The answer to school shootings will have to lie elsewhere.

posted by Fletch

Not sure where this is but I saw a stat that the US is 3rd in the world for gun violence (probably per capita), take Chicago, NY, Baltimore and LA out of it and the US slips to 189th.

Doesnt seem like a gun violence problem at all outside the major Dem ran cities.

Dublin , Ohio 

posted by queencitybuckeye
The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.

Well, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun.  If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.

Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others.  But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?

posted by gut

Well, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun.  If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.

Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others.  But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self defense. Gun ownership is a right, period. No stats matter. 

posted by gut

Well, I think that right is largely derived from the belief that people protect themselves with gun.  If the data were to show a gun owner is more likely to die, or murder someone, then that's certainly an argument for restrictions, even bans, outside the home.

Point being, the counter argument is largely based on you defending yourself not being a threat to yourself or others.  But what if the data showed that actually isn't true?

"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?

posted by queencitybuckeye

"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

posted by queencitybuckeye

"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?

The SCOTUS has weighed and considered "rights" over and over where one individual's rights are at odds or infringe on another person's rights.  They seemed to pretty clearly indicate that restrictions on open or concealed carry ARE subject to restriction, but that the NY law didn't pass muster.

They also said this is not about "militia".  And invited further cases to more narrowly define their ruling.

The SCOTUS has never said that regulations and gun controls are unconstitutional.  There is AMPLE room between where we are today and actual infringement.  This particular case seemed to deal specifically with an unequal/overly restrictive requirement for concealed carry.  I'm not sure if this case even took a position on concealed carry, just that if it's allowed then access to a license shouldn't be onerous or overly restricted.

posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

I agree. Those limitations on free speech sound be repealed also. 

posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

Precisely.  Context matters.  Property rights can certainly be at odds with someone's right to "bear arms".  It seems perfectly reasonable that guns are not allowed in court rooms.  It seems perfectly reasonable for a bar owner to ban guns from his establishment.

And often when weighing competing interests, the courts WILL look at statistics and public interest in determining which side to favor.

posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

Not really. In the case of the New York gun laws, one had to prove that their right to carry had a specific purpose. That is far different than there being a small number of reasons that one CAN'T say something.

It would be like "Mr. Laley, we understand that you want to assert your right to free speech. Please submit what you are planning to say, and we'll get back to you to grant or deny permission".

posted by queencitybuckeye

Not really. In the case of the New York gun laws, one had to prove that their right to carry had a specific purpose. That is far different than there being a small number of reasons that one CAN'T say something.

It would be like "Mr. Laley, we understand that you want to assert your right to free speech. Please submit what you are planning to say, and we'll get back to you to grant or deny permission".

I’m not talking about the NY Law. I’m talking about restrictions on our rights since the Constitution and BOR was enacted. They absolutely have been restricted, so saying it’s not a question just because it’s a right isn’t a valid argument.