• Jordan Lund
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        The Supreme Court specifically addressed that in 2016 in my favorite one of these cases because it didn’t initially seem to involve firearms:

        Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

        Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.

        MA charged her saying that tasers didn’t exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.

        Enter the court:

        “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

        Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don’t have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it’s yours.

        • @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          So I can carry Sarin gas “for the purpose of offensive […] action”? How about a non-grandfathered automatic weapon? Hand grenades? MANPADS?

          This ruling is nonsense, along with the expansion of the second to self-defense 15 years ago. We’ve banned the stuff that could support a rebellion and legalized the stuff that’s just good for murder.

            • @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who the fuck cares what the Geneva convention bans? That’s a nation-to-nation treaty. We won’t use this if you won’t, not “no one can ever use this”. And the very fact that you approve of “destructive devices” being banned but not handguns proves the whole damn point. The 2nd is about rebellion, but we let the government defang rebellion while playing to petty interpersonal fears. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to define the rules regarding fighting off robbers, you need it to define the rules for fighting off the government.

              • Jordan Lund
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Not according to the Supreme Court and they are the ones who decide this stuff:

                McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

                "the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”

                • @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They’re politicians in black robes, they don’t define truth. You’re citing interpretation changes by an illegitimate court to rules written at the country’s birth that aren’t even old enough vote. The sooner people stop deluding themselves that they’re anything but another form of politician the better, but I’m sure you’ll pick and choose which rulings are the word of God and which are bullshit.

                  • Jordan Lund
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    That’s the job of the Supreme Court, I’m sorry you disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter.

                    It could change if the court were to swing the other way, but it’s only been getting more conservative in my lifetime, not less.

      • Semi automatic weapons existed at the time.

        Furthermore, following that logic leads to TV, Radio and the Internet not being protected mediums for the first amendment. I don’t think anyone wants to think about the power that decision would give the government.

        I’m not sure you really want carry permits to be more like driving a car. Go to the local branch and take a written 15 minute test to get an initial permit and then take a brief range trip for basic proficiency 6 months later and at 16 you can get your license. As long as you don’t get caught doing major bad things you can just pay a fee every 4 years and keep your license. If you commit small infractions you pay a fine and move on. Just don’t get caught more than once a year. What’s a little negligent discharge every now and then really hurt anyway. Plus if you do commit a large violation we’ll just suspend it for a couple years and after 30 days you can apply for a hardship permit. Plus your license is valid in all 50 states and most foreign countries.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Excellent highlights - I’m saving this for future reference. I hadn’t really considered the glaring flaws to such an approach and you highlight them well.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          So to call for a ban on semi-auto means just about all firearms.

          I suspect they know and that is the actual intent.

          • Of course. Just waiting for the “No one wants to take your guns” comment. But everything they propose as “common sense” would do just that. But it also very likely that they just have no idea what semi-auto means and just repeat what’s on TV. That’s the extent of ‘critical thinking’.