Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[odanny]

If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.

M14 shooter is lecturing us about gun laws and insurrections.

What could go wrong?

 

[JGalt]

Why do you believe that?

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.

That's what it says. There is nothing in the first half that excludes the second half. There is nothing in the first half that puts conditions on the second half.

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.

 

[marvin martian]

Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:

Is this what you're trying to salvage after your party got absolutely REKT in the elections yesterday?

LOL! As always, keep your fascist hands off my civil rights.

 

[marvin martian]

M14 shooter is lecturing us about gun laws and insurrections.

What could go wrong?

I'd be a lot more worried if it was your fellow DemoKKKrat Alec Baldwin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 shooter is lecturing us about gun laws and insurrections.
What could go wrong?

I accept your concession of the point.

 

[danielpalos]

In what way are they regulated?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

That's what it says. There is nothing in the first half that excludes the second half. There is nothing in the first half that puts conditions on the second half.

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.

That which is necessary is not optional and, therefore a right.

 

[odanny]

I accept your concession of the point.

I concede nothing, jails are still filled with insurrectionists. Now imagine if that treasonous scum carried firearms. You think the Supremes are good with that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I concede nothing,

Because you refuse to accept the truth.
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government -- when you plan to overthrow a government, you need to project force, and you aren't worried about the laws against carrying a firearm
Thus:
If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.

 

[pknopp]

I concede nothing, jails are still filled with insurrectionists. Now imagine if that treasonous scum carried firearms. You think the Supremes are good with that?

Our rights aren't really based upon what the Supreme's are good with. I doubt any of them are thrilled that the KKK gets equal access to free speech as anyone but they do.

There are possible negative aspects to all of our rights but the idea is, having those rights are better than the alternative.

But as I note in my first post the court isn't going to make any grand ruling here. A very narrow ruling at best.

 

[odanny]

Because you refuse to accept the truth.
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government -- when you plan to overthrow a government, you need to project force, and you aren't worried about the laws against carrying a firearm
Thus:
If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.

So there is a "requirement" that a violent attempt to stop an election is not an insurrection because firearms were not involved? Overturning the results of a free and fair election by violence is an insurrection, even if unsuccessful and even if your mind cannot grasp the concept.

 

[2aguy]

I'll also bet there will be no huge backlash. They are going to pull a fast one.

When a person gets heard before the Supreme Court the court rules on the question presented. The court did what it rarely does and changed the question.

The question presented was “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

The court couldn't get four votes to hear that question. So they changed the question to whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment

What they did was narrow the question down to the two people who brought the suit as opposed to a general rights question as they should have made their ruling.

So it's going to be a very narrow split ruling at best. States are still going to be allowed to make you get their approval to carry.

Yeah.....I don't think so.....like saying Brown v Board only applied to Brown...and no one else..

 

[2aguy]

I concede nothing, jails are still filled with insurrectionists. Now imagine if that treasonous scum carried firearms. You think the Supremes are good with that?

Oh....you are one of them....

 

[odanny]

Our rights aren't really based upon what the Supreme's are good with. I doubt any of them are thrilled that the KKK gets equal access to free speech as anyone but they do.

There are possible negative aspects to all of our rights but the idea is, having those rights are better than the alternative.

But as I note in my first post the court isn't going to make any grand ruling here. A very narrow ruling at best.

They are not going to rule that Americans can carry firearms with them wherever they want to. The conservatives are indeed ideologues, but they are not crazy. They might overturn Roe V. Wade, but state laws will remain in force about carrying firearms openly or concealed.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah.....I don't think so.....like saying Brown v Board only applied to Brown...and no one else..

Watch. It's why they did the rare thing and changed the wording of the question. They changed the wording to specifically make it a very narrow ruling.

 

[odanny]

Oh....you are one of them....

Go clean your guns.

 

[pknopp]

They are not going to rule that Americans can carry firearms with them wherever they want to. The conservatives are indeed ideologues, but they are not crazy. They might overturn Roe V. Wade, but state laws will remain in force about carrying firearms openly or concealed.

Well this isn't about RvW so I will skip that but the court has already shown they are not going to make the blanket ruling that all can carry firearms. They couldn't even get 4 justices to even hear that question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So there is a "requirement" that a violent attempt to stop an election is not an insurrection because firearms were not involved?

That's how an if-then works.
You cannot force the capitulation of a government w/o the ability to project force.
So:
IF they "all" meant to attempt a violent overthrow the government THEN they "all" would have brought firearms.
They didn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are not going to rule that Americans can carry firearms with them wherever they want to

They -are- going to rule that states cannot require their citizens to demonstrate, against some unspecified and subjective standard, a "need" before they can exercise their rights.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms? They were told in advance that they would be arrested if they were armed. I think the Supremes are smart enough to shoot this down (pun intended)

The Reichstag Fire?

See, that's how you know it was NOT an "Insurrection"