Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AngryOldDem

(14,061 posts)
Tue May 24, 2022, 05:10 PM May 2022

Here's the problem. Right here. It's logic like this.

I was dumbfounded when I heard this story on NPR last week. Now, I’m just enraged. I don’t know what weapon this asshole used, but does it matter? FOURTEEN kids and a teacher are dead.

If any amendment needs to go — which it won’t — it’s that goddamned Second. This is NOT what the Founders intended, and it’s excused FAR too many violent deaths.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to adults younger than 21 was unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 2nd Amendment “protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them.”

The ruling reverses a lower court’s decision not to issue an injunction to block a 2019 state law that banned the sale of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to young adults, which the appeals court called a “legal error.”

“America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan D. Nelson, an appointee of President Trump, wrote for the appeals court. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”

Nelson was joined by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, another Trump appointee who issued his own concurring opinion. Judge Sidney H. Stein, an appointee of President Clinton, dissented.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's the problem. Right here. It's logic like this. (Original Post) AngryOldDem May 2022 OP
This is not a goddamned "well-regulated militia" Novara May 2022 #1
How long and how much worse will this problem get before change seems rational to leaders? bucolic_frolic May 2022 #2

Novara

(5,849 posts)
1. This is not a goddamned "well-regulated militia"
Tue May 24, 2022, 05:12 PM
May 2022

Fuck Scalia. He had a big hand in expanding "gun rights" to every single citizen, to hell with the original meaning of a well-regulated militia.

bucolic_frolic

(43,249 posts)
2. How long and how much worse will this problem get before change seems rational to leaders?
Tue May 24, 2022, 05:39 PM
May 2022

We are hide bound by politics. Scalia's 1990s decisions made sense to him, in that period of time. It's not working now.

We were better off 50 years ago when guns stayed home, were transported unloaded, and were discharged at a firing range. That was the legacy of a "well-regulated militia", even if it was ad-hoc in case of invasion or civil strife. No part of the shootings that occur, even smaller incidents on weekends or streets or nightclubs, can be in any way construed as being part of a militia. We're way past that.

This trend will continue until forever unless this equation is changed by our leaders, and by our judicial system. Because they can't all be blind and stupid, can they?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here's the problem. Right...