• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.

        • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.

          The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

          Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

            You missed the obvious solution:

            You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.

          • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.

            • Landsharkgun@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it’s why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!

            Brilliant, did you think that up all by yourself?

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Well, actually, they cited the state and federal constitution and chose to interpret “well regulated militia” does not accurately describe untrained civilians even though the SCOTUS disagreed. Which is a little more substantial than just Aloha Spirit, imo.

      • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we’re talking about so I imagine it’s much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Considering the easiest way to get a gun “illegally” is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hmm here is an idea. What if we made a religion that was against open carry and was technically Christianity? Could we use the veto power religion now has over the Bill of Rights?

    • scoobford@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No. Religious arguments against abortion are actually relying on the definition of what constitutes a life, not the pure fact that their religion says it’s wrong.

      You can get out of military service this way though.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        How is that any different? It’s still their religion that says when life begins. Other abrahamic religions do not believe that life starts at conception.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          While the argument for life beginning at conception can be rooted in religious texts, it can also be based on the desire for simplicity of argument.

          I.e. not wanting to pick a random day during the term of the pregnancy to serve as a cutoff point, because the development of a fetus doesn’t have a convenient place where you can say "5 minutes ago, this thing wasn’t alive. Now it is. "

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          When they wrote the laws against murder in the late 18th century they didn’t really draw that distinction, unfortunately. That’s how laws work, the intent of the lawmakers who voted to pass it are what matters when attempting to enforce it. A similar case would be making Donald Trump ineligible for office over sedition, he put up a legal defence claiming that the lawmakers never intended for it to apply to presidents or other high level office holders, but it turns out the congressional records detail the conversations when they considered making exemptions and decided it should apply to everyone.

            • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Hawaii’s Supreme court actually has very recently, and the Assault Rifle Ban that expired a few years ago was also a great example of it, but yes I agree more consistency and less corruption in government would be great.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It has nothing to do with the possibility of ending a life, otherwise republicans would actually care about what happens in schools (be it shootings or diddling, republicans are OK with them happening in schools).

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Republicans are hardly a monolithic entity. Some may care about ending lives, but only ones that have nor been convicted of a crime. Others may care about ending lives, but not as much as they care about their right to firearms. Others view it as a religious issue. Others want women to be broodmares.

          For the record, all of them are fundamentally disrespecting another person’s autonomy, but they can have different reasons for doing so or priorities when doing so.

  • Supermariofan67@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.

  • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol

        • Saganaki@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.

          • Zatore@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.

              • bluewing@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                You are already a member of a militia in the US - it’s called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.

                This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.

                I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being “called up” by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I’m old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.

                So perhaps you should get that musket and start training…

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so.

                  Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That’s very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.

                You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

                If you’re talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an “Army” or a “Navy”.

                Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.

                They don’t define the constitutional meaning of “Militia” when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from “citizen” to “person subject to US law” or “able bodied” to “sound minded”, or “male” to “person”, or “17-45” to “16-60”.

                The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of “We The People”, and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.

                When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in “armies” or the “Navy”.

                The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don’t think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.

                You don’t get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

                  I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.

              • Zatore@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I dislike this “only guns from 1700’s” argument. The constitution didn’t make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn’t possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict “new” guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I’ll have to research more.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing:

                  Was, bruh civilians can still buy cannons, online, without a background check, because cannons are not classified as firearms.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one

                  We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.

                  Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Have you seen, like, a single statistic about what uncontrolled gun distribution does to a country?

      It’s absolutely insane to have that many guns around you and somehow perceive that as some moral good instead of the very real danger it is.

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The US has not had uncontrolled gun distribution and nobody is asking for that. You can’t legally buy a gun without a background check and more, and it has been this way for decades.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I can’t imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.

      • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you’re just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.

          Just go play roblox or something instead. It’s a better use of your time kid.

          • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Labeling everything you don’t agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well it’s a good thing there’s plenty of things I disagree with that I call trolling then isn’t it. Just because I call YOU out on being a edgy troll, doesn’t mean I say the same about anything and everything.

              Its the typical right wing argument of “not EvErYoNe YoU dIsAgReE wItH are NaZis” when no one is doing that.

              The only people I call trolls are the blindingly obvious ones like yourself that a clearly saying whatever nonsense gets you rage-based engagement. And honestly the other possibility, that you are actually a real human being that fully believes the fucking r worded bullshit you type, is just too depressing to even consider it as a possibility, I refuse to believe anyone is that combination of braindead and pathetic.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it’s not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are “reasonable” and not designed to infringe on your rights.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn’t even try to register or get a carry license?

          Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.

          • CaptainProton@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            There’s Shall Issue and there’s “Shall Issue”. Where I live (Bay area) it’s 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there’s a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.

            I’m not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff’s or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Okay?

              So you’re not sure what Hawaii’s rules on carry permits are, but you’re sure they’re bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.

              For the record, a cursory search says it’s pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.

              And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don’t want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can’t bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.

              • CaptainProton@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                What I never get is how people who don’t want to be around guns are generally perfectly fine being around people on a payroll to carry guns (not just cops, i mean bodyguards, armored trucks, etc). It takes shockingly little to get that qualification. It’s everything you listed where I live, without any technicalities or weird hoops, much easier than a carry permit, you don’t even need to have a formal personal protection or cash transport business. I know a bunch of people who got guard cards for the hell of it. The fact is the people who jump through all the hoops to get a permit are never the issue.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  For one, I’m not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Generally speaking, the sort of person who carries a gun for work isn’t the same sort of person who thinks they need a gun to buy milk.

                  Second, bold of you to assume that people who don’t want to be around guns are entirely okay with them in the situations you mentioned. Most of them would rather not be around armed police, they would just prefer a police officer to a rando, because again, the cop didn’t get up and think “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store”.