Yes, it's common sense that US needs more guns.
Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gun law used to prosecute Hunter Biden
4 days ago by sanitation to c/politics
thecommonistagenda 10 points 4 days ago
I’d argue at the very least, the left needs more guns
Bonesince1997 10 points 4 days ago
That overlooks the disarmament of some, on the basis that they are assumed to be dangerous or harmful without ever having done anything to be labeled as such and thus lose rights, while allowing those rights to others.
LuminousLuddite 1 point 3 days ago path: 0 24331581 24331790 24331871 24337119, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
ExLisper -5 points 4 days ago
In sane countries there's no such thing as "right to have guns". Even in US this "right" was never intended to mean that. In sane countries there's plenty of rules around having a gun permit and committing crimes, even non-violent ones, can be a reason to lose one. Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Americans really do sound like they are constantly on the verge of civil war and taking away someone's gun is basically a death sentence. "You can't disarm drug users. How will they survive the war?" It would be hilarious if t wasn't so sad.
Bonesince1997 8 points 4 days ago
It's just the equal application of the law in this case.
"Drug users" includes marijuana. It's argued that the vast number of users can't all be seen as dangerous. It's clearly not what it was meant to do.
zaph 3 points 4 days ago
Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Ah yes because being addicted to a legal substance such as alcohol is leagues safer. No one ever got drunk and murdered anyone amirite. They're not going to get rid of the 2nd amendment any time soon so while it's still there at least we're getting a bit more fairness from the laws.
FullPenguin 3 points 4 days ago
Even in US this "right" was never intended to mean that.
I'm sure you're going to start going on about Well Regulated Militias, and yet if someone tells you that they are in a militia that is organized and trains together regularly I bet you're going to double down on your efforts to disarm them.
crandlecan 8 points 4 days ago
No, I didn't say that!! 😉
But now ppl of colour can have easier access to guns too.
FullPenguin 18 points 4 days ago
The court said the old laws focused on people whose substance abuse left them unable to manage their lives, while the federal law broadly covered regular drug users regardless of whether they posed a threat to anyone.
"It’s a good day for the Second Amendment when all nine justices can agree to protect gun rights," Severino said. "The mere fact of illegal drug use, without more, isn’t enough to justify prosecution for gun ownership. Historically, ‘habitual drunkards’ who habitually lost use of their reason could have their rights restricted, but not just regular drinkers — even including Founding Fathers like John Adams, who drank ‘a tankard of hard cider’ with breakfast, or James Madison, who ‘consumed a pint of whisky daily.’
Seems like an incredibly reasonable take.
mkwt 10 points 4 days ago
This headline is seriously misleading. The court did not "strike down" the entire law.
The law says that users of illegal drugs cannot purchase guns. The court said that the law cannot stop a person who uses marijuana a few times per week from buying a gun. Because marijuana usage is common and normalized now, a gun ban would violate that person's right to keep and bear arms.
This decision does not automatically get Hunter Biden off the hook, because Hunter Biden's case involved a much greater variety of drugs. Hunter will certainly try to litigate this, but success is not certain for him.
cheese_greater 8 points 4 days ago
Why would he litigate it, he was pardoned. 0 incentive to put himself into more public scrutiny
politics
@lemmy.world
30158
30919
9765
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
politics
@lemmy.world
30158
30919
9765
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
It... It almost feels like common sense prevailed??
save