• @turmacar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    15 months ago

    Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

    “Everyone should have the tools to defend themselves from aggressors” is a good sentiment.

    This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

    There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns. It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

    • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      15 months ago

      Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

      People can be complicated all they want, actions are what are judged not how complex a person is. It’s literally why we have a judicial system. So people can be judged on their actions.

      This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

      What are you talking about? The ruling here is exactly that, if you’re a criminal, you can’t own firearms.

      There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns.

      No there has not, mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should.

      It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

      It actually does mean exactly that. The revolution was fought using mainly private arms. There wasn’t even a standing navy, we literally had people who owned the equivalent of a battle ship today. To act like the founders didn’t realize technology was going to advance is ridiculous.

      • @turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        The justice system is not vibe based. It’s ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

        The ruling here is exactly that

        Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

        mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should

        Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don’t stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn’t mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

        The revolution was fought using mainly private arms.

        And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change. The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It’s not that they didn’t realize technology was going to advance, it’s that you can’t write laws for things or situations that don’t exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of “the founders wanted it that way”.

        • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          15 months ago

          The justice system is not vibe based. It’s ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

          That’s literally what I said. You acted like they’re not.

          Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

          You mean the left judges who are anti-2a are arguing with the pro-2a judges…this is nothing more than anti-2a sides being annoyed that the 2nd doesn’t have more rules and or being completely ignored and repealed eventually.

          Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don’t stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn’t mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

          The issue with this logic isn’t that they stop some, it’s that they put rules in place that do not actually do anything. More bullshit gun laws are not going to reduce crime. Anti-2a groups want to focus on the tool used vs why the crime happened in the first place.

          Also mental health while its better, it was stripped because of Reagan, and has never really recovered.

          And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change.

          No it did not, I don’t know what parallel history you’re coming up with here, but the 2nd was not created to limit the scope.

          The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It’s not that they didn’t realize technology was going to advance, it’s that you can’t write laws for things or situations that don’t exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of “the founders wanted it that way”.

          They absolutely did put in place tools to be able to stop the gov from becoming a tyrannical gov.

          Literally from Jefferson:

          What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

          • @turmacar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.

            Literally from Adams

            Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies

            Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That’s not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was “no big deal”. That section starts off:

            The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?

            and continues

            Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

            The “few lives lost in a century or two” he’s talking about are those of the people rebelling.

            • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.

              News to me, I’ve not seen anything on them arguing with each other. Just a ton of anti-2a groups and media calling the ruling horrific… though I will say that this scotus is not 2A friendly so it wouldn’t surprise me if they actually are doing so. I’d love to read about it if you have a source.

              Literally from Adams

              Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies

              Yea, remove the arms from those who do not support the cause to fight the British…no where in there did he say to disarm those who support the new nation. They literally were fighting for independence.

              Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That’s not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was “no big deal”. That section starts off:

              The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?

              and continues

              Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

              The “few lives lost in a century or two” he’s talking about are those of the people rebelling.

              And finishes with the exact line I provided you in my previous comment:

              And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

              To assume Jefferson was speaking of disarming the people and telling them they’re traitors is incorrect.

              I don’t know how much you think that paper supports your argument, but the “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Is a motto that a lot of 2A supports use. It’s literally the embodiment of the 2nd amendment.

              • @turmacar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                15 months ago

                SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

                If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.

                • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  15 months ago

                  SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

                  They’re not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

                  If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.

                  Nothing I’ve posted has been taken out of context. It’s very very clear what both of those letters meant.

                  • @turmacar@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    05 months ago

                    Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

                    In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren’t yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

                    Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.