There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

A California law banning the carrying of firearms in most public places is blocked again

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect Jan. 1.

Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban applies regardless of whether a person has a concealed carry permit.

phoenixz ,

From a sub comment, but i think it should have its own thread in this post:

If the US has shown the world one thing then it is that the only rule that will really work is an absolute no-exception ban on firearms.

Eric and Dylan have been dead for what, 20 years now, and what has changed? It. Got. Worse. They were amateurs compared to what followed. The Las Vegas shooting was beyond amazing and would have been prevented if weapons like these are only available on the black market for a million dollar with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop. The crazies won’t be able to afford it and the very VERY few criminals that can afford guns and want to take that risk won’t be crazy enough to start shooting around at random innocent citizens and or bystanders.

This shit only happens when weapons (and more importantly, bullets) are available freely and CHEAPLY.

At this point, I’d say the US has had their chance.

This entire “but we need weapons to overthrow evil governments!” claim is absolute horse shit, exhibit A being the day before yesterday, a year ago… Those same idiots always parrotting about overthrowing evil governments trying to overthrow a legitimate government so that they can install a dictatorship.

The US has shown the world year after year that it’s citizens cannot responsibly handle firearms, period. Yes, I know, guns are cool toys, BUT FUCKING CHILDREN ARE DYING BY THE THOUSANDS.

Sucks for those few that are responsible, you can thank all the incels and what not, but you won’t be able to shoot them for what they did, we’ll be taking those guns, thank you.

PROHIBIT ALL GUNS IN THE US

theyoyomaster OP , (edited )

That’s the thing, you have a solution in search of a problem here. Banning guns or making them available only for “a million dollar[s] with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop.” doesn’t prevent these, it just removes the right to self defense and makes a population helpless.

You brought up Columbine (in the worst way possible) so I’m going to focus here on attention seeking random mass shooters with the goal of getting coverage on cable news and not the more frequent gang style violence that gets counted as “mass shootings” to inflate statistics because they are very different problems with very different causes/solutions. Cable shootings per capita do not correlate with gun availability and the US isn’t even in the top 5 among its peers statistically; this is a constantly ignored, inconvenient fact for gun grabbers so it always just gets shouted down and ignored. I’m fully expecting you to scoff and insinuate I’m crazy for even thinking this but the real world facts don’t change just because you get angry at me for pointing them out so go ahead and get it out of your system and when you’re done you can go back to ignoring it along with all the other facts that don’t meet your preconceived notions. Based on European countries with a higher rate of cable news shooters, like France, saying that if you banned guns they wouldn’t happen is absurd. You specifically brought up Vegas, the highest body count shooting in US history (but not the worst massacre) but despite having a dedicated and rich shooter that used terrifyingly effective tactics, it still had a lower death toll than a gun-free attack in France and the worst school massacre in the US also featured zero people shot. The bottom line is saying that without guns these things wouldn’t happen is straight up false, even taking into account the difference between “no legal guns” and “no guns.” So not only are you flat out wrong when you say “This shit only happens when weapons are available freely and CHEAPLY” but your perfect scenario still leaves the same people (and more) dead without guns.

Bad people will do bad things if they decide to. Assigning the evil actions of men to an inanimate object is the easy thing to do mentally if you don’t want to face this fact but it just doesn’t solve anything. Addressing the underlying causes and triggers is the only meaningful way to stop these but all effort is instead spent on deliberately triggering them and in an attempt to ban guns. The bottom line is that they are deranged individuals who do it for the attention; forensic phycologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that publicly naming them and glorifying them on a 24/7 news cycle is specifically triggering them and yet that is exactly what we do every time. It has also been established that this news coverage triggers additional copy-cat events which is why they often happen in clusters, yet the media gives them exactly what they want every time and refuses to change. The end result of all of this? People like you specifically calling them by their first names in internet comments 20 years later, which happens to be just what they wanted in the first place.

When it comes to suicide the media has a specific way of reporting to prevent triggering copy-cats. You never see an article of “John Doe hanged himself in his closet Tuesday after a night of heavy drinking” because that is known to make other people do the same. Instead you see “John Doe was found dead in his apartment Tuesday night, no foul play is suspected.” This of course goes out the window when it’s a celebrity and celebrity suicides almost always trigger a small wave of additional suicides right after but this is seen as an acceptable loss in exchange for the ratings. Mass shootings on the other hand result in media coverage that is specifically what the experts say not to do every single time (unless the shooter’s identity isn’t politically convenient to the media owners) and as such, they trigger more. Responsible media reporting standards are the #1 thing that can be done to make a meaningful impact on these events. It would take a generation to actually take effect but that’s not unheard of; Japan’s success in slashing their suicide rate over the last two decades is an example that deep rooted cultural issues can be solved with systematic and deliberate effort. This unfortunately would require mainstream media to care more about innocent lives than their political narratives though so I won’t hold my breath. It also can’t prevent every single act of terrorism which unfortunately are on the rise in Europe, but it likely would have at least some effect on the lone wolves who are currently contemplating their own shot at “glory.”

Now beyond not actively rewarding the monsters that are inclined to commit these atrocities there’s another common aspect of the stereotypical cable news shooter and that is coming from a broken home with a rough childhood. It doesn’t really take a PhD in psych to realize that fucking up someone as a kid can make a fucked up adult. This is also the area of focus that applies to gang style and non random shootings with multiple victims as well. Gun availability, poverty and race; none of them correlate with crime as strongly as single parent/broken households. A healthy upbringing in a functional house is the #1 way to prevent someone from getting to the point of wanting to murder other people for any reason. As such, proper sexual education that actually teaches high schoolers how to not have unplanned pregnancies instead of useless abstinence only religious garbage is needed immediately. Groups in the US like Planned Parenthood need to be properly funded and available, especially to those in most need. This would also have the benefit of vastly reducing the need for abortions so even the most religious nut jobs should like this. Women’s rights and bodily autonomy are absolutely necessary to break the cycle of poverty and crime. A meaningful reduction in unwanted and unplanned pregnancies is the single change with the greatest effect that can be done to prevent future crimes before they even start. Additionally, focusing on result based and functional social safety nets rather than feel good grandstanding that wastes absurd amounts of tax dollars can help keep the next generations healthy and able to avoid the lives of crime that they are currently being born into.

Cable news shooters are a manifestation of the worst aspects of modern society. Facing these issues head on is difficult and uncomfortable but the one thing that is sure to perpetuate them is to take the “easy” way out and try and assign 100% of the blame to a scapegoat scary piece of black metal. In the meantime, I’ll keep my means of protecting my family and country and focus on not giving the assholes that commit monstrous acts exactly what they want.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

Self defense is a weak argument as historically you had a duty to retreat outside of your home. People who claim they want to carry a gun for self defense just want to shoot someone and get away with it.

theyoyomaster OP ,

Defensive uses of firearms far outweigh offensive ones in the US. Rejecting self defense as valid actively hurts women, minorities and the disabled. There was actually a magic time when there were no firearms in the world. It was called the Dark Ages and the largest and strongest few committed nonstop atrocities against those that were weaker. We are living in the most peaceful time in history with more guns than ever.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

Buddy, you would euthanize the disabled and enslave women and minorities if you had the chance. You’re delusional if you think you can give me realistic gun statistics in the u.s. from a REPUTABLE source. Not to mention the endless wars we’ve had since the inception of the firearm. You’re just arguing in bad faith.

And yeah, your claims about gun self defense just were debunked a long time ago, so fuck off.

hsph.harvard.edu/…/gun-threats-and-self-defense-g…

theyoyomaster OP ,

Says the person who wants to disarm the most vulnerable. Saying any study or statistic that doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative is literally the opposite of the scientific method and reality. Facts don’t care if you like them or not and you wanting vulnerable people to be vulnerable doesn’t give you the moral high ground.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

There’s no viable statistics because there are laws specifically preventing them. You can pretend like you care about other people all you want. It’s clear that your don’t because you’re advocating for unlimited gun ownership and making bad faith arguments. If you cared about minorities, then you would advocate for gun rights to be restored to felons because many felons are minorities. If you looked at the link I posted you would realize that everything you’re saying has been debunked a long time ago. It’s all bullshit.

theyoyomaster OP ,

I’m in a hotel on my phone so I don’t have access to my bookmarked links but it’s not like actual sources would change your approach to ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your view anyway.

There aren’t laws against studying gun violence, the law is specifically against using public funds to promote gun control while pretending to be an a academic study, which is exactly what they were doing when the Dickey Amendment was passed. Before it was the abuses of “scientific” processed were absurd, with stuff like studies to see if guns increased suicide rates openly stating in their methodology “once we got our data set we deleted any that occurred outside the home because gun suicides are almost always at home.” This isn’t even P hacking, it’s just straight up deleting data so that only the answer you want is left. Even modern suicide studies still use gun suicides as their main proxy for gun ownership before “analyzing” the data to see if there is a correlation; surprisingly enough when you use your dependent variable as your independent variable you often get the answer you were looking for.

There is plenty of valid data available, the issue is that whenever the scientific method is followed the researcher gets blacklisted, labeled as “disproven” and shunned from the academic community. If you go into it with the goal that only showing guns are bad is allowed and twist the data then you’re allowed to publish. If you do actual science and run real world data it always comes back in favor of gun ownership. So instead the gun grabbers stick to their lies and pretend the Dickey amendment is anything but a direct response to getting caught lying red handed.

There’s plenty that can be done to reduce violent crime and suicides in the US, but taking away guns from law abiding citizens ain’t it.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

Show me a study that isn’t backed by the NRA or some similar or related group. If you had one, you would have posted it already.

Your claims are proven false once again. Women are more likely to be killed in a dv situation if a gun is in the home. How are guns protecting women exactly? You’re talking out of your ass.

“In particular, a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues revealed an increased risk of homicide associated with presence of a firearm in a home.1 The Kellermann study and other similar investigations struck a nerve and began to receive widespread attention in newspapers and other media.”

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/

FlavoredButtHair ,
@FlavoredButtHair@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    stembolts ,

    I tried to write a thoughtful response to this but it is so overwhelmingly stupid I just kept pausing to laugh.

    Pratai ,

    Come on people… they need to make the world a safe place for cowards too! You can’t expect these chicken-shit NRA clowns to walk amongst the populous without being strapped, can you?

    ArbitraryValue ,

    A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is”.

    Concealed-carry permit holders aren’t the ones who commit gun crimes, but because they’re the ones who actually follow the law, they’re the ones that are targeted by these draconian rules.

    In California, no shooting by a CCW holder has ever occurred at an existing protected location or one proposed by SB 2. In fact, concealedcarrykillers.org lists just 5 homicides having been committed by CCW holders in California in the last 24 years.

    11181514 ,

    So draconian that I don’t want someone to bring a gun to a public playground or the fucking zoo.

    no shooting by a CCW holder has ever occurred at an existing protected location

    Oh wow maybe the ban works? Noooo it’s definitely because you scared idiots carrying weapons around all day are just SO responsible.

    Hey you know who’s 100% responsible for all gun violence? PEOPLE WITH GUNS.

    butwhyishischinabook ,

    “Subset X of large group Y has committed a negligible amount of crime Y in the last generation.”

    “NO YOU IDIOT, LARGE GROUP Y DOES ALL OF CRIME Y, JUST THINK!!!”

    11181514 ,

    Oh sorry I forgot only a subset of the people that own a thing made to kill other people actually kill other people. Good point go ahead and bring those guns hidden in your pants to a kids park or whatever. I feel so much safer now.

    Ikenshini ,

    Hey look, it’s the same logic that racists use

    bradorsomething ,

    Yeah, racists probably don’t want guns in kids parks either.

    Ikenshini ,

    Racists have kids parks in gated communities and police don’t shoot you for your skin color. Outside your ivory tower and in the hood is a world where sometimes you need to protect yourself to go to a park.

    11181514 ,

    What the fuck? TIL it’s racist to think people shouldn’t bring guns to the park.

    Hey look it’s the same logic idiots use.

    Ikenshini ,

    Gun control is racist

    11181514 ,

    Lol

    FluorideMind ,

    Imagine being so privileged you don’t have to worry about defending yourself or your family.

    Classy ,

    These kinds of laws are already in effect in Chicago. Guns come in freely via Indiana where it’s constitutional carry, plus other means. It turns out that banning guns only means that law abiding citizens — which as the above commenter pointed out, statistically almost never use their weapons criminally — stop carrying and criminals have carte blanche to go target practicing on defenseless meat bags.

    CA is a massive state, and I’m sure it has plenty of weapons. Criminals aren’t going to magically stop committing gun crime because of a stupid law, and if anything it will only embolden them as they’re less likely to encounter a CC citizen. Guns will continue to flow in via NV, AZ, and Mexico.

    Psychodelic ,

    You’re preaching to the wrong crowd, dude. Most White Americans straight up fuckin love guns and gun ownership more than they do some of their own family members

    Liz ,

    or one proposed by SB2

    Just conveniently left that one off of there, eh?

    rosymind ,

    My husband (one of the most trustworthy and responsible people I know- flaws and all) has been talking about getting a concealed-carry permit.

    My argument against it, is that if there is an active shooter and he also pulls out his gun to take them out, the cops or other permit-owners might not realize that he’s the “good guy” and he (or I, if I’m nearby) could get shot instead.

    He went silent, and seemed to spend a lot of time thinking about it after I’d shared my thoughts. Thus far he hasn’t tried to obtain one

    DAMunzy ,

    That’s true and a problem. Glad the option for CC is still available.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    It’s always a risk, but the instructors have tips to mitigate this risk. Chief amongst them, and this one is for bystanders, give a description of the shooter if you’re the one calling. The police responding having at least sort of a picture can help everyone. If you see a defender give a description of them as well if possible. Second, for the defender, you are NOT obligated to stay at the scene if you feel it is unsafe. Get the hell out, holster it otw out if you’re sure there’s no second shooter, call the cops and say you had to defend yourself and you’ll turn yourself in, immediately call your lawyer, and listen to them, they’ll guide you from there. If you feel it is safe and you’re staying, same as above, holster, cops, lawyer. If there is a second shooter you are not obligated to try and kill him, but if you do it may be smarter to reholster and keep a hand on the grip simply for this exact reason (and as always don’t be stupid, peek corners, use cover, watch for trailing accomplices, etc, but a lot of that comes from a different trainer. Frankly unless you’ve taken classes beyond the bare minimum CCW that teaches what to do if you have to use it legal-wise, it may be the smarter move to not pursue if you can get to an exit.) It’s certainly something you’d have to prepare for beforehand, you can’t just go all “John Wick” without all the IDPA training Keanu actually does (and of course even then it’s a movie lol.)

    /adhd

    Liz ,

    Using your pistol in a mass shooting event is an edge-case of an edge-case. Even if you’re carrying, run, hide, fight is still the correct strategy. The way bigger concern is that you’ll shoot yourself or a loved one. There are things you can and should do to mitigate your accident/suicide/murder risk, but that’s really the thing you should be worried about.

    Anyway, if you find yourself within shooting distance, yeah, calmly shoot back and run. The immediate threat of getting shot by the mass shooter is more pressing than potentially being misidentified as the perpetrator even just minutes later. It’s incredibly unlikely you’ll be confronted by the shooter exactly when the cops show up, making yourself a potential target.

    Anyway, again, there’s loads more probable things you need to worry about when it comes to CCW than a mass shooter.

    phoenixz ,

    draconian laws

    If the US has shown the world one thing then it is that the only rule that will really work is an absolute no-exception ban on firearms.

    Eric and Dylan have been dead for what, 20 years now, and what has changed? It. Got. Worse. They were amateurs compared to what followed. The Las Vegas shooting was beyond amazing and would have been prevented if weapons like these are only available on the black market for a million dollar with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop. The crazies won’t be able to afford it and the very VERY few criminals that can afford guns and want to take that risk won’t be crazy enough to start shooting around at random innocent citizens and or bystanders.

    This shit only happens when weapons (and more importantly, bullets) are available freely and CHEAPLY.

    At this point, I’d say the US has had their chance.

    This entire “but we need weapons to overthrow evil governments!” claim is absolute horse shit, exhibit A being the day before yesterday, a year ago… Those same idiots always parrotting about overthrowing evil governments trying to overthrow a legitimate government so that they can install a dictatorship.

    The US has shown the world year after year that it’s citizens cannot responsibly handle firearms, period. Yes, I know, guns are cool toys, BUT FUCKING CHILDREN ARE DYING BY THE THOUSANDS.

    Sucks for those few that are responsible, you can thank all the incels and what not, but you won’t be able to shoot them for what they did, we’ll be taking those guns, thank you.

    PROHIBIT ALL GUNS IN THE US

    hperrin ,

    Excuse me? We’re not allowed to stop people from bringing their gun into the bank??

    theyoyomaster OP ,

    It’s allowed in the vast majority of the country.

    GlendatheGayWitch ,

    Like where? I live in TX and many, if not all banks have signage disallowing guns.

    capital ,

    That’s the bank, not the state.

    theyoyomaster OP ,

    Texas really isn’t the gun friendly mecca people think it is, when it comes to gun rights it’s solidly “meh.” I don’t know of any states where banks are statutory sensitive locations other than CA and I think the current NY and CT bills. As far as Texas goes it is up to the bank and must be properly signed to have the force of law behind the sign. Many locations do not give the force of law to a posted sign unless it’s at a location with a specific prohibition already in the law.

    i.redd.it/kfzw1o6k4b7b1.jpg

    Maggoty ,

    Businesses also have a broad right to refuse service and have people written up for trespassing if they refuse to leave. Having a gun is not a protected class. At that point hanging a sign saying no guns is completely enforceable unless the state requires some specific thing. For the record, states making gun owners a semi-protected class that requires specific signs and only at sensitive businesses is bullshit. Private businesses aren’t responsible to the Constitution and the state interest in protecting gun owners (who can just lock half the gun in their car) is nowhere near their interest in making sure the economy doesn’t split along racial lines.

    theyoyomaster OP ,

    Signs not having the force of law doesn’t make gun owners a protected class, it just puts an explicitly enumerated right on par with every other day to day activity. If you wear a fanny pack into a convenience store with a “no bags” sign you don’t go straight to jail and if you walk into a McDonalds without a shirt or shoes they have to ask you to leave before it’s the actual crime of trespassing. Guns are literally the only scenario where in some states ignoring a single sign on publicly open private property is an actual crime.

    Maggoty ,

    Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.

    And again, private companies are not responsible to the Constitution. You do not have Constitutional rights in the court of Walmart.

    So yes, requiring specific signs and telling some businesses they don’t qualify for signs is absolutely creating a semi-protected class. You are telling some private businesses they cannot refuse you service for carrying a gun, just like they couldn’t do so for you being black.

    theyoyomaster OP ,

    Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.

    That’s not what this law says. This law says that if there isn’t a sign specifically permitting guns you leave in handcuffs on first contact without first being asked. Being asked to leave and refusing to being charged as trespassing is what is referred to as “signs not having the force of law” and is the default “protected class” scenario you’re talking about. In states that have stricter laws where signs have the force of law it is a crime even if they don’t ask you to leave.

    Maggoty ,

    I’m not talking about California’s law. I’m talking about states that require a sign to turn away people carrying, like Arizona. I think I’ve made that very clear by now.

    theyoyomaster OP ,

    So you’re saying that there should be no gun owner exception to private property and it should be just like everything else where if you’re asked to leave and refuse it’s trespassing but a sign alone doesn’t make it a crime without a specific request from the property owner? Got it.

    kn33 ,

    I believe the bank is allowed to prohibit it, the state isn’t allowed to prohibit it.

    Ikenshini ,

    You’re worried about the people who have never once robbed a bank? Worry about the criminals without legal ccws.

    hperrin ,

    How about no one else with a gun is allowed to bring it in, so that when the guards/cops start aiming at the people with the guns they won’t be aiming at the wrong people? Why do you need your gun in a bank? There are armed guards there. You don’t need to be a cosplay hero in a bank.

    Ikenshini ,

    It’s a concealed carry license, not open carry, and you’re imagining a problem that I’m not even sure if it has ever happened in California, and if it has, it’s very rare.

    What about the far more common event of a criminal targeting a person who is leaving the bank and going back to their car to rob them of their new withdrawal? They should be able to protect themselves against lethal force.

    hperrin ,

    How common is that event?

    Ikenshini ,

    Armed robbery or all violent crime? Here’s some stats: www.ppic.org/wp-content/…/JTF_CrimeTrendsJTF.pdf

    tl;dr: there’s a lot of crime in California, it’s tracked. There’s not a lot of cops and armed guards shooting people with legal ccws.

    hperrin ,

    I’m talking about the thing you said was a more common event. I’m wondering how often people get robbed at gunpoint in the bank parking lot.

    Ikenshini ,

    I don’t have stats on that particular situation, it’s not tracked, but I could find a video within 2 seconds of looking that happened within the last two years: m.youtube.com/watch?v=cQeM0ilep5U

    Ikenshini ,

    And now having watched the video, it’s clear to me that a bank will not keep you safe. I think allowing people with ccws to carry into banks is a good idea, given this kind of thing “happens every day”.

    hperrin ,

    I just figured since you’re telling me it’s a lot more common, you would have some stats to back that up. One example is a good start though. But again, why do you need a gun inside the bank?

    Ikenshini ,

    When you live in LA you hear about shit happening all the time.

    Because going from your vehicle to the bank, and from the bank back to your vehicle is not safe. There’s nowhere next to the bank to deposit your weapon before entering, therefore the only way to carry on the way to the bank requires being armed inside it too.

    hperrin ,

    So would you agree then that the state should be able to require you to check your guns at the door of the bank?

    Ikenshini ,

    Sure, if they provide the same level of security we have at airports, and jails, which have the same restrictions, that’s fine by me. Disarming legal ccws and providing no security is reprehensible.

    hperrin ,

    The armed guard isn’t enough?

    Ikenshini ,

    Unfortunately not, they’re stuck in the building, and have no obligation to help you, they’re there to protect the bank, not you. And you can see how well the “armed guard” helped in the YouTube video above: they weren’t even armed nor were they there.

    FluorideMind ,

    The state? No. The Bank as a private business? Well they can certainly try.

    hperrin ,

    So the state should not be able to regulate its militia?

    RaoulDook ,

    It is common enough that bank employees are trained to open bank branches in pairs only after driving loops around the parking lot to check for hidden robbers, as standard branch opening procedure. Robbers have figured out that banks have money in them.

    Maggoty ,

    Well, the bank is allowed to ban them. The court (operating under a ridiculous SCOTUS ruling) is saying it doesn’t think the government can ban them in private businesses or open areas.

    dacookingsenpai ,
    @dacookingsenpai@lemme.discus.sh avatar

    Imagine stopping some basic civilization safety law based on a “far west era” decision

    Semi-Hemi-Demigod ,
    @Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social avatar

    Firearms were banned in most towns in the Old West, for obvious reasons.

    dacookingsenpai ,
    @dacookingsenpai@lemme.discus.sh avatar

    even back then common sense was a thing so

    Eldritch ,

    Yep, the wild West had more and better gun control than modern society. How fucked up is that. That’s what 60 years of propaganda and brainly rot will do to you though. Most people who claim to be second amendment supporters need to learn basic English grammar. Commas don’t separate to distinct thoughts. They separate two linked subjects. Granted the second amendment is definitely a case of comma gore. As well as being an archaic and obtuse use of them.

    ihavenopeopleskills ,
    @ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social avatar

    There's far more support behind that right from the founding fathers than a comma.

    Eldritch ,

    Username checks out. You are a case study for exactly what I was talking about.

    Malfeasant ,

    Are you an unnatural horrific creature?

    Eldritch ,

    Only to those who lack logic.

    FireTower ,
    @FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

    Modern grammatical functions aren’t sufficient to deduce the original intent of an article of that period. English was a far less standardized language at the time.

    A better way to ascertain that original intent would be to compare it to their other writings, like the Federalist Papers or correspondences.

    Eldritch ,

    Actually they 100% are. The usage of the comma in the English language has not changed in many hundreds of years. It’s pretty clear from the statement what the framers meant. You don’t need to look outside the statement. The words mean things all on their own. It’s not cryptic. It’s perfectly cogent and understandable.

    The framers intended there to be no standing or national army. And therefore set about in the second amendment to establish the armament of state militias for the protection of the people. No more, no less. The modern application of the second amendment is a warped bastardization no matter how you look at it.

    FireTower ,
    @FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

    They did intend for there to be no sizable standing army, but that doesn’t proclude the people from bearing arms for the purpose of self defense.

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…” -Adams, MA Ratifying Convention, 1788

    “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccari in Commonplace Book

    “The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” -Madison, Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

    TheMongoose ,

    But don't forget, the people saying those things didn't have access to semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, or anything much fancier than a musket. You can't blindly apply laws written that long ago to the modern day because it's something that those mythical founders just couldn't even imagine.

    FireTower ,
    @FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

    -Belton Flintlock Repeater youtu.be/E2kIPmuXMWU?si=

    -Puckle Gun youtu.be/GPC7KiYDshw?si=

    -Girardoni Air Rifle youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?si=

    -Chambers Machine Gun youtu.be/rCuVMx5h1x0?si=

    ThrowawayPermanente ,

    Neither did tyrants or criminals

    Malfeasant ,

    They had cannons and bombs, yet those didn’t get special mention…

    Eldritch ,

    So where in any of those quotes do they say that specifically to do with outside of the militia? In a militia, people always provided their own weapons. They held them privately and took them to drills and gatherings for the militia. Each. One of those quotes is completely in line with that concept.

    You’re going to need to show me some quotes. Outlining that they need to keep weapons personally to shoot their neighbors or people that they don’t like just for fun. Or something like Madison or pining how every American needs a gun to shove up their ass to keep warm during the winter or something. Because none of those quotes specifically say that this is intended for outside of the militia. Each and every quote can be interpreted with that in mind. Or you can go against the wording of the second amendment. And try to interpret this in ways that the founders did not intend, which is what we’ve done for many amendments. Some good, some bad.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

    “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

    “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

    Malfeasant ,

    Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia, other than women and children, who unfortunately didn’t warrant much consideration.

    In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The militia is brought up more to underline the importance of this right - if we want to be able to defend ourselves (be it individually or collectively) we must have access to weapons.

    Eldritch ,

    Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia

    Then how can you in honesty or good faith hand wave away the talk of militia. You can’t.

    In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    False. This is the literal text of the 2nd amendment.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    “A well regulated Militia”, primary subject. “being necessary to the security of a free State”, core thought. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, connected secondary subject. The militia being the people. “shall not be infringed.”, conclusion.

    Malfeasant ,

    Yes, the militia was not a separate concept from the people, they were used interchangeably, there was no inside vs outside the militia. I’m glad we agree

    Eldritch ,

    So you’re saying the 2nd amendment concerns the militia? It’s funny then that you all constantly insist that 2/3 of the text of the second amendment doesn’t exist.

    Maggoty ,

    In which you find the Federalists arguing that a militia is only needed until there can be a standing army. And the Anti-Federalists arguing for state controlled militias as a counterbalance to any federal force. Nobody in those papers was arguing for 100 percent free carry and stand your ground laws. Guns were supposed to stay at home or in the armory unless required for a specific task.

    capital ,

    You could also just move and change your name and no one would know.

    Maggoty ,

    SCOTUS literally made up history in their decision. (Gun laws have to have had an analogue in the 1792-1820 period) Guns were absolutely forbidden to carry around in most towns and cities. In fact the Sullivan Act that they specifically used this logic on was passed in 1911. And the courts didn’t have a problem with it until over a hundred years later.

    dacookingsenpai ,
    @dacookingsenpai@lemme.discus.sh avatar

    TIL!

    RedditWanderer , (edited )

    ~13 people in the US have died from a "shooting"during 8 separate events 7 days into 2024, another ~30 injured.

    I’m also not saying state enforced concealed carry bans are the way, but you guys gotta do something.

    About half were murder suicides, a quarter were drive-by shootings and the last quarter were bar/party fights.

    Zorque ,

    Sadly were stuck between "ban guns" and "ban banning guns" with little to no consideration for the underlying issues.

    I guess that's too hard a platform to campaign on, though

    Ooops ,
    @Ooops@kbin.social avatar

    Common sense, data and actual arguments? Yes, those are completely useless as a platform since post-factual populism has replaced real politics.

    Milk_Sheikh ,

    Pro/con 100% ban is an easy lever to pull unfortunately, for all sides. Republicans get essentially free votes and campaign dollars from very active and hardline single-issue voters, Democrats get fundraising and media time from pushing restrictions (regardless of efficacy). The needle moves left a little here, right a little there, but the core of 2A and the societal effects are untouched.

    The huge number of suicides get shuffled off to ‘we need better mental health’ soundbites and individual responsibility to ‘reach out if you can’t cope’. Red flag laws may not survive court challenges surrounding due process post-Heller ruling with strict scrutiny, but there needs to be something there for imminent harm prevention.

    Taking guns away from domestic abusers gets a pass because both sides don’t dare pull on that thread, lest 25-40% of police officers be disarmed because they abuse their partners. Best we can do for 4473 denials for those under restraining order, and prior convictions apparently?

    There’s hope for a positive way forward, but it’s not done by laser focusing on the problem as a purely gun issue. It’s a mixture of social and economic issues that manifest largely in intra-community violence, and while I’ve only seen Oakland CA take a crack at untangling that one, they’ve seen results already.

    AnneBonny ,

    Best we can do for 4473 denials for those under restraining order, and prior convictions apparently?

    You can prosecute someone for lying on a 4473, but they don’t.

    Milk_Sheikh ,

    It’s still a crime that’ll get you 5 years though. If prosecutors routinely drop/plea away gun charges that’s a judicial issue that should be addressed. Mandatory minimums are not a good solution, but there’s apparently reduced interest in securing convictions for gun charges versus drug and/or violent crimes

    AnneBonny ,

    Persons convicted of domestic abuse are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. It is a crime for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm. I only meant to point out that there is an opportunity to go a step further than just denying the sale at the 4473 stage.

    If prosecutors routinely drop/plea away gun charges that’s a judicial issue that should be addressed.

    I agree.

    RedditWanderer ,

    Legal cigarettes smokable anywhere make it easier for illegal cigarettes to proliferate, and harder to tell who is actually allowed to smoke them.

    Plenty of citizens in developed countries where this doesn’t happen have the right to own and carry guns.

    Maggoty ,

    No votes or money in actually reading the amendment or looking at the spring loaded bolt common to all semi-auto weapons. (Not just the scary looking ones). If we can’t even do that what hope do we have of actually bringing our mental health system back, or dealing with the orphan crushing machine that drives many people to crime in the first place.

    GluWu ,

    How many of those shootings were committed by someone who has a CHL? How many are committed by felons or criminals who are already prohibited from carrying any guns anywhere?

    Psychodelic ,

    Yeah, it’s nuts how weak this California bill was and we can’t even that passed. Legit pathetic.

    Can’t imagine having to raise kids in this country. Parents are brave, not giving a shit about all the legal guns

    ByteWizard ,

    Armed parents are brave, they care about all the illegal guns.

    HelixDab2 ,

    but you guys gotta do something.

    The real things that need to be done are fixing underlying, structural problems, and it would likely take about 2-3 generations to largely fix. There are a lot of problems that contribute the rate of violence, so fixing any one thing, by itself, isn’t going to have an enormous effect. And there are groups of people that are actively trying to accelerate the problems, because they believe that there are certain moral or religious arguments at stake, rather than utilitarian ones.

    Lots and lots of violence could be reduced by reducing poverty; not many people get involved in crime when they have other good options. But hey, that’s socialism. Dems say they want to do things like that, but Dems generally have a problem with doing what they claim they want to do because there are a lot of NIMBY Dems–e.g., it’s a nat’l platform that people should have access to affordable housing, but if you try to re-zone for affordable housing in a wealthy Democratic supermajority area, you’ll quickly find out that they want affordable housing somewhere else–and Dems that want social change only if it doesn’t mean they have to change. (IIRC, there was a certain communist author that pointed out that many of the communists in their area were petty bourgeoisie that believed they would have more after a revolution, rather than being proletariat that just wanted decent wages.)

    That said, despite public perceptions, violent crimes are down for 2023. IIRC, homicide rates are also down by several percentage points.

    driving_crooner ,
    @driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br avatar

    Guess they’re still banned on the courthouse.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •