Yup, the SC ruled that individuals have a right to own firearms which have a legal purpose, in alignment with the 2nd Amendment.

I'm in agreement with you on every point.

D... do you think liberals are as bad as white nationalists? I’m not sure how to interpret this post.

omg it was a joke. here, have a cat



(just to be clear, I don't support anything racist; I thought my comment was so asinine that it'd be recognized as such but I guess not)

I disagree with the ruling because of the reasons laid out in my initial post. My response to Obi was just a bad side effect of the ruling. One is reason it shouldn't have been upheld, the other is my reason for disliking it since it was upheld.

To be clear, according to the 2008 ruling, the majority claimed individuals only have a right to weapons for law-abiding purposes, and that some firearms (sawed-off shotguns, in the specific case) have no law-abiding purpose.

So it's true that firearms such as a bolt-action rifle are guaranteed by the Constitution. So, no blanket bans may be issued. However, this is and never was a concern for most people. Conversely, it's not true that any firearm whatsoever is protected by the Constitution. Each firearm has to have its purpose determined in an ad hoc basis.

So, really, I don't think the constitution guarantees what right wingers think it does. If it's determined that a kind of firearm does not have a law-abiding purpose then it can be banned.

I think most people in favor of gun control argue that items like high capacity, detachable magazines, AR platforms, and various attachments don't have a law-abiding purpose. And I can see their point. Other than paramilitary LARPing and shooting a bunch at a firing range, high capacity magazines don't seem to serve any legal purpose. I think any arguments to counter this could work pretty well for sawed-off shotguns, too: I'm sure someone out there feels their shooting experience would be improved without a stock.

So whenever I hear someone say "DON'T TAKE MUH GUNS YOU EVIL GUBBERMINT" in response to assault rifles, I kind of laugh. No individual firearm platform is guaranteed by the Constitution, and frankly I don't think assault rifles have law-abiding purpose (you can't hunt with one, so the only reason to own one is to LARP being a commando).

That doesn't mean I think assault rifle platforms should be banned, but I don't think they have Constitutional protection with the sound and fury given to it by beer, guns, and freedom conservatives.

Believing that Obamacare's individual mandate is unconstitutional doesn't require a person also to believe the more alarmist stuff about Democrats being power hungry etc etc. It's not self-evident that it is constitutional.

It's not worth getting into now, and, to be honest, i haven't read the decision since 2012, but it's actually a relevant decision in 2018, especially now that Justice Kennedy's replacement is now being considered. Many people have argued that John Roberts will replace Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote on the court, and the 2012 Obamacare ruling is a good example of what that looks like. Roberts voted against the conservative judges, and was the fifth vote in a 5-4 ruling, siding with the left-leaning judges. It's been a while since I've read the decision, but his argument was that, while he believed that there were definitely problems with the constitutionality of the individual mandate, he also was uncomfortable with the idea of the supreme court striking it down, because the supreme court should not be in a position where it's striking down such important, consequential pieces of legislation, that personally affect so many Americans.

With the court becoming more conservative, we might see more rulings like that one, where Roberts votes with left-leaning judges against conservative judges, because he wants to protect the legitimacy and reputation of the court as an impartial arbiter of the constitution.

cat whistling!

Yeah, I remember reading about that decision and thinking, "hmm, I am thankful that the Chief Justice found a way to argue in favor of the law... but man, from a legal standpoint, his reasoning doesn't really make any sense to me".

Yeah. Saying that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, yet refusing to strike it down, and in doing so going against his own beliefs about the law for the avowed reason that it that would entail the Supreme Court wading into national politics, sounds like an instance of wading into national politics. It sounds exactly like a political calculation rather than legal interpretation insulated from politics (which is at least what SCOTUS is supposed to be, on paper anyway).

I may be stretching it a bit (I haven't read the decision in six years so forgive the gross inaccuracies). After quickly looking at the decision again, he didn't say that the individual mandate should be upheld despite being unconstitutional.

That's not what I was getting at necessarily. It just seemed to me like his interpretation was a stretch (as well as a surprise).

Reid a sawed off shotgun means the barrel is short, not that it has no stock.

However you can just get around it with wunna these

Ugh, the ATF classifications are extremely stupid (because the NFA is stupid).

Government at it's finest

At least your government has written rules. The RCMP shows each gun to a grandmother and asks her whether it looks scary.

wtf

Don't worry I saw the joke.:cool: