On July 24th, 2018 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Hawaiian officials had violated George Young's rights when he was denied a permit to openly carry a loaded gun in public to protect himself. The decision in Young vs Hawaii (PDF warning) holds that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable citizens to defend themselves, and that the right to openly carry a firearm in public is implicit in the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms". This expands on the Heller vs DC decision, which guaranteed the right to own and keep firearms in the home.
The scope of this decision is currently limited to the 7 States covered by the 9th Circuit. There is little doubt that Hawaii will petition for an en banc review of the ruling and that no matter how that is decided, it is likely to make it to the Supreme Court. The state's only other choice would seem to be compliance with the ruling and allowing the open carry of handguns. For the time being, nothing is going to change, even in Hawaii. The court did not issue an injunction or otherwise impose any requirement for the state to immediately comply with its ruling and state authorities are simply evaluating their options.
One final link to be taken with a grain of salt: a California resident is seeking lawyers who will help file a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against California Attorney General Becerra restraining him from enforcing California's Open Carry bans (California Penal Code sections 25850, 26350, and 26400). The same article calls out the NRA for not taking action:
In any event, you won't see any of the so-called gun-rights lawyers fighting for Open Carry because they, and the organizations which hire them, such as the NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts, et., oppose Open Carry. How do we know that? They said so in their Federal court filings and/or in their oral argument before Federal judges.
I find it ironic that a Federal judge seems to be taking a more pro-arms position than the NRA itself.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:32AM (52 children)
The NRA's position makes sense.
Open carry wouldn't sell more guns and the added controversy would probably hurt.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Tuesday August 21 2018, @12:41PM (14 children)
Open carry makes perfect sense as long as you're not black or Latino. A black college professor in a suit could probably stroll down the road with a sidearm holstered at his hip, and he would get gunned down by a quarter of the cops in the country without saying a word first.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:12PM
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-attack-stokes-open-carry-debate-8476140 [dallasobserver.com]
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Man-Mistakenly-Identified-as-July-7-Shooter-Struggles-to-Shed-Suspect-Label-432726353.html [nbcdfw.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:46PM (10 children)
Don't you think that is grossly unfair to cops? They would say a word first.
GUN !!!!
Then the professor would be gunned down in a hail of gunfire. The police would call in surplus military gear to destroy and scorch the entire area. Then police would begin tagging evidence, taking photos, etc. and then asking questions about who this person was, why he was here, where he was coming from, where he was going to, etc.
The police report would indicate that this guy was guilty of obstructing police officers in the performance of their donut eating.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:50PM (8 children)
This is why we need video surveillance drones hovering 390' overhead, with blue-white countershading and near silent props, difficult to notice in the first place, more difficult to target, and inherently unsafe for officers to be discharging their weapons upwards in a populated area.
The drone won't stop you from being shot, but its high definition video - live streamed via 4G, multiply archived and publicly shared, should put a hurt worse than a single death on the cops who did the shooting, and their departments.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:33PM (5 children)
You can keep your Sci-Fi Dystopian Future. I don't want a web of privacy invading robots flying all over the place. I can see them being used in limited fashion, but as a blanket of robots that see all, no thanks.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:13PM (4 children)
I wouldn't expect them to see all, just to see me, and if the footage is boring - delete it before letting it go public.
However, if I'm a black man open-carrying, I think I'd be making that footage public instantly, just in case - and as an insurance policy for the family.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:06PM (3 children)
So, only in the event that it's a black man carrying is it posted publicly. Yeah, that doesn't sound good / better. There are/were rules in place to protect one's privacy. Sure, we may have more or less signed them away with the "Patriot Act", but at least that's not a lets look at everyone, everywhere, for good measure. It's only a we'll look where we want, when we want. Which isn't much, if any better.
The right to the expectation of privacy, especially from the government, is what's at stake there.
The scenario around Benjamin Franklin's famous quote may not have been geared toward this, but the man could write. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Benjamin Franklin
The context: https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ [techcrunch.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:37PM
So, black is the just shorthand. I'm white, very white, but also have had long hair and/or beards at times, and that can get its own kind of persecution from law enforcement, especially when younger.
If I were choosing to open carry with long hair in a conservative/rural area, I'd like to have that surveillance of myself, and willingly post it openly as insurance. These are two choices made and controlled by me: 1) to open carry, and 2) to publicly disclose what happens while I'm doing so. If I've got things in my life that I don't want to disclose that openly, I have a choice then to turn off the cameras and still open carry - if I've got enough of a reputation for concealed video surveillance it might just protect me even when it's not there - that's a risk at my choosing.
In real life, I still wear the hair, but don't open carry (even though I have lived a couple of places/times where it was legal), because I feel that sidearms are mostly for cowards in today's world.
If you want to talk about the sanctity of the 2nd amendment, that kind of became moot with helicopters, long range sniper rifles, infrared imaging, hellfire missiles, etc. A musket might have evened you up with the Redcoats, but there's no way I want the U.S. populace to be entitled to today's military grade weapons.
The people's weapon of today is transparency. We should protect, exercise and expand our rights to wield it at our discretion, and also demand it of those who would make and enforce laws for us.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:33AM (1 child)
I think people are missing one important point:
To protect himself. Against what? In Hawaii? Feral pineapples? The Hawksbill Sea Turtle? WTF are you so scared of in Hawaii that you feel you need to carry a loaded firearm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:31AM
it's not necessarily about being scared. it's about being prepared instead of going around waiting on your masters to protect you. hawaii has a fairly serious meth problem too, fyi.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)
How about instead, we just require all cops to wear always-on bodycams while they're performing their civic duty, and if it's found that the camera is turned off at any time, they're automatically fired with no pension or appeal.
I get the feeling that would drastically cut down on the "oops we lost the footage" or "oops we turned off the dashcam" incidents. Why the fuck is it even possible for the patrol officers to turn off these cameras?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:05AM
Because it's not just the officers who lose, it's their supervisors and their department and their city/state.
Each layer up helps protect the one beneath, and we the people only have the weakest of leverage on the top positions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:07AM
It's OK, if you're black there's a useful reference work How Not to Get Shot [harpercollins.com] by Professors D. L. Hughley and D. Moe for just this eventuality.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
This is not true. Snopes bias is showing in that they purposely word this to pretend they're refuting something they aren't, but even with their bias they admit that you're not more likely to be shot even with a firearm as a minority.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/ [snopes.com]
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/police-violence-against-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say/ [nationalreview.com]
. Don't want to get in the way of an awesomely politically powerful narrative though.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:33PM
Your articles are interesting - especially from the National Review. But I question the validity of the statistics they used. One of the things that caused a public outcry after the Michael Brown shooting was the statistics that came out of Ferguson:
"Ferguson’s population is 67% African American, according to the 2010 census. Yet between 2012 and 2014, 93% of all arrests were of black people and almost nine in 10 uses of force were against African Americans. In all 14 bites by police dogs when racial information of the person bitten was available, that person was African American.
The review found 85% of drivers stopped by police were black, and that African American drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be searched. Yet black drivers were more than 25% less likely to be found in possession of illegal substances or goods. African American drivers were much more likely than whites to be cited for driving offences when these were observed by police officers in person rather than detected by radar or similar technology."
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:13PM (18 children)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/ [snopes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:19PM (17 children)
I'm not one to praise Snopes extravagently, because it has oft been demonstrated that they have a liberal bias. But, that article is a good read.
I've often puzzled over this nonsense. A white guy can go almost anywhere, in most states, with or without a weapon. It's unremarkable. A black guy with a gun? People get nervous. Why? Either the black guy with the gun has his shit together, and will act responsibly - or he'll soon be dead. That's why EVERYONE should have a weapon at hand. Then, it's mutual respect. Any asshole can pull a gun, and take a shot at you - but then it's like Gunfight at OK Corral - everyone in sight takes a side and starts firing. Nobody with a wit wants to go there. The witless wonder might do it - once. He won't have the guts to do it again!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:21PM (15 children)
You're confused. It's not *mutual respect* if everyone has to wear a weapon. That's not how respect, trust, and friendships are built. Too many guns is how school shootings and shit like that happens. Silly americans haven't figured it out yet. I read somewhere that there is a mass shooting every week in america. Is that true?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:34PM (5 children)
I don't recall requiring you to carry a weapon. I have suggested a few times that all able-bodied, sane, rational, males be required to maintain a weapon - that is, the militia should have weapons at their disposal. All able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40-something. But, I don't recall requiring that you carry your weapon at all times, when you are in public. Your choice. Lock the damned thing in your bedroom, or your car, or just stow it in your mama's freezer while you're wasting time in her basement.
Now, I expect the same courtesy, in return. Just don't worry about whether I'm armed. At any given time, chances are that I don't actually have a weapon within reach. That doesn't matter much, though, because I am the weapon. My mind, and my will, and my training are far more formidable than any AR-15.
You don't worry about me, I won't worry about you. I may or may not be armed, you may or may not be armed, but it shouldn't matter to anyone.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:20PM (1 child)
Why just males? Aren't females victims of assault as well? (The supply of spouse abusers and rapists would dwindle quickly if every woman had a .380 in her purse.)
The "militia" aspect is of more concern. A militia needs to be organized (or, in the words of the Constitution) "well-regulated". That requires practice and drilling. How about requiring every gun owner to participate in a weekly (or monthly) militia drill, so that we'd have a "militia" instead of a "mob"?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:50AM
"Why just males? Aren't females victims of assault as well? "
Decades ago there was an advertisement (for the NRA?) about that.
Best I can recall:
It showed a woman with scared young children on a dark street with a thug coming after them. She was pulling a gun out of her purse to protect the kids.
The caption "It's not just a right, it's an obligation"
Apparently, there was a huge stink from the usual suspects and it wound up being pulled by whatever magazine(s) it was in.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:25PM (2 children)
Blech!!! At times like these, this site could really use a rolling eyes emoji. Also, could someone please step forward and justify the "Insightful" upmod?
Hey, Internet Tough Guy! It's been awhile since we last saw you. We have kind of missed you. So, what's the plan? Are you going to tell us all how you would bravely take down an entire team of terrorists with your bare hands? Are you going to accuse those of us who do not own any firearms of not "manning up" in the defense of our communities? I'm just curious....
I'm not so much worried as amused. But that could be just me. Whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:14AM
It's just you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:42AM
His real name is Ryan. Jack Ryan.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:35PM (2 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2015_to_present [wikipedia.org]
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting [gunviolencearchive.org]
If you use the "4 people shot, but not necessarily killed" standard, then it is basically daily. But it's not a satisfying definition. A guy murders 4 family members in his home with a gun, is that a mass shooting? By some other standards it might be 1 incident every other month.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:06PM (1 child)
"I have suggested a few times that all able-bodied, sane, rational, males be required to maintain a weapon"
All two of them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:53AM
Who's the other one?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:14PM (5 children)
Respect, trust, and friendship can only exist among equals; where there is an unbalance of power they are all replaced by fear. Schoolyard bullies have no need of guns, their stature lets them throw their weight around to get what they want. The popular kids at school don't need guns to ruin your life, they'll do it with a rumor. The rich and politically powerful are happy to buy/write laws denying arms to the poor and powerless, while spending their own/tax money on private security guards and police to protect them.
Society's focus on keeping the peace promotes an environment where, as long as peaceful appearances are kept, the strong (physically, socially, financially, politically, etc) are free to abuse the weak with no fear of repercussion. Those who promote the view that "an armed society is a polite society" aren't arguing that everyone will magically become nice if we all carried weapons. They're arguing that we need a way to make everyone equal in each others' eyes, and that the threat of lethal force (barbaric as it may be) provides that where society does not.
I'm going to risk quoting Anne Coulter, as she said something witty once that I kinda agree with:
Leaving out the misandry, she's got a point. Women should be armed as a deterrent against rapists. The Black Panthers should be armed as a deterrent against police abuse. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, firearms provide them the ability.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:34PM (3 children)
Is that a USA thing? Seriously, you can't respect, trust, or be friends with someone who doesn't make the same amount of money as you? Or doesn't have the same education as you? Or doesn't live like you live? Or doesn't look like you or believe the same sky daddy as you?
No wonder you think you need to carry a gun all the time. It must be terrifying living in fear constantly. Take a deep breath and remember that different is not bad or evil.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:18AM
Even as a rhetorical question, that doesn't have legs. After all, communism happened worldwide because the poor aren't equal to the wealthy, combined with a very hearty disrespect for the wealthy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:32AM (1 child)
No, it's an unfortunate aspect of the human experience. Here in the US we're struggling to overcome our all-too-recent history of allowing people with light skin arbitrarily kill people with darker skin [1]; other places around the world had their own problems that they're working to overcome in their own ways. It wasn't too long ago that in Europe a member of the upper class/Aristocracy could literally run over a commoner in the street with their horse and carriage without any remorse or even a suggestion of legal consequences. Japanese warriors were once in the habit of testing the sharpness of their sword by slicing unsuspecting peasants in half. In 1994 the Hutu tribe who ruled Rwanda killed between 500,000-1,000,000 members of the Tutsi tribe, for a combination of the reasons you listed. Immigrant workers in the Middle East today are hardly better off than the european peasants I mentioned earlier.
As another commenter pointed out, even the officer/enlisted split in the military and the boss/employee split in business/industry create barriers to trust, respect, and friendship that are baked into the system intentionally. No matter how much trust, friendship, or respect may exist between a soldier and their commander, if they have sex then in the U.S. Army the commander will be brought up on rape charges because the power imbalance between them makes the soldier unable to meaningfully consent.
You appear to believe [2] that people are generally decent and will treat each other well just because we're all human. Psychology tells us that tribalism is far too common, and that any us/them divide is sufficient cause for some people to distrust, disrespect, and be generally unfriendly to anyone in the "them" category. Our human rights should not be dependent on others being nice. Since we cannot actually legislate civility nor regulate friendship, we should seek a means for preserving the human rights of everyone.
Runaway1956 proposed a solution, which you have dismissed as unnecessary. What alternative do you propose?
[1] Dark-skinned soldiers returning from foreign wars to their homes in the US have been literally told by their neighbors never to wear their uniforms or medals in public, because "we don't hold no truck with negroes getting medals for killing white folk". Our WWII veterans still living bear heartbreaking testimony of this treatment.
[2] call me out, please, if I'm strawmanning you here
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:48AM
That's not quite true. If the horse or carriage was damaged, the peasant's family was quite likely to be sold into 'indentured servitude' to pay for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:11AM
So gun ownership is a form of socialism. I see that as a positive aspect of firearm ownership.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:03AM
You are stuck in a single moment in time, which happens to be when we are living in Clown World.
Dr. Thomas Sowell tells a story of when he was a child in New York City and he would carry a rifle home from school on the subway. That it was an utterly unremarkable thing at the time. A black teen on a New York subway with a rifle (in a case) and schoolbooks. And nobody cared. Now wrap your mind around the other part of that story, a black teen carrying a rifle into school, shooting it and it also being an utterly normal part of the school day.
That of course is not the world we now live in. However we could have that world back in a generation if we could find the courage to give a few Communists a quiet helicopter ride.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:40PM (17 children)
I came to say something like this!
The NRA doesn't care about gun rights, or open carry, or self defense, or even the 2nd amendment. The NRA cares about gun SALES. Period. The NRA is a gun manufacturers organization posing as some kind of concerned citizen's political movement. Some people will recognize this, but many are too, um . . how to put this nicely . . . too clue challenged to recognize this.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:45PM (14 children)
But I guess you have been able to find and decipher the golden tablets of knowledge, eh?
And what about the NRA's 6 million members?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:15PM
Do NRA positions align more closely with:
[_] citizens who blindly unthinkingly support it as a knee jerk reflex reaction
[x] or with gun manufacturers?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:17PM
Many NRA members DO recognize this. But we also recognize that if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, at least right now, the grabbers will likely win. In the future we might be able to ditch them but right now they are useful.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:30PM (11 children)
The gun industry markedriods managed to create a religion.
To put it in perspective, the number of yoga practitioners in US is estimated to over 36 million [forbes.com]; and I don't think the Indians have had NRA budgets to achieve that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:12AM (10 children)
Why should one's support for an advocacy group rule out their opinion? Should your growing up [soylentnews.org] in a "former East European communist block countries" rule out your opinion on such matters? Ad hominem-based disregard for peoples' opinions is very caustic. It attacks you just as readily as it attacks those you accuse.
To put that into perspective, who's trying to deny yoga practitioners from practicing yoga? Suppose some future US theocracy tries to ban yoga. Should these practitioners roll over and accept this tyranny merely because any yoga advocacy group would be in large part funded by yoga-related business? It's interesting how poorly thought-out these arguments against the NRA are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 22 2018, @09:39AM (9 children)
True.
But, once in a while, the temptation is huge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:48PM (8 children)
Consider why the temptation is huge. It's because you don't have a good argument.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:12AM (7 children)
As good an assumption as any other
For instance, I don't have any kind of argument, but the temptation to post shit at the time was overwhelming.
Doesn't necesarily make me proud, but there you have it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:52AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 23 2018, @04:24AM (5 children)
Oh, so sure of your assumptions, aren't you? Just from curiosity, did they reach the state of beliefs?
How about resistant insomnia, have to do something, can't do anything useful in a zombified state? I'm not gonna examine the beliefs of anyone in such a state, much less mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 23 2018, @11:25AM (4 children)
Assumptions generally start as beliefs unless you're speaking hypothetically. And not much point to criticizing the assumption/belief when it happens to be right.
Or you could be drunk-posting or knee-jerking to some ideological thing. The thing about my observation is that it covers a lot of different causes.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 23 2018, @01:00PM (3 children)
Glad you acknowledge that many explanations are possible and plausible; don't feel compelled to pick any one of them, the probability to be right goes down with the number of possible explanations (and you hate being wrong, dontcha?)
Just as a true albeit irrelevant fact, this very one is drunk-posting - glad I had my long due dose of anti-hypoalcoholemia medication; my only regret is that I discovered peat scotch so late in my life; have a lot of catching up to do now.
Cheers, mate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 24 2018, @04:17AM (2 children)
I think it'd be a better world if more people hated being wrong rather than merely the embarrassment of being caught being wrong. And a thousand dumb reasons don't make for one smart reason.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 24 2018, @04:29AM (1 child)
I think the world would be a better place if everyone would be conscious s/he can be wrong at any time, especially when teh may slide in pretending they are the ultimate owners of the truth.
But then, I can be wrong on that. I can't, therefore, hate myself for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 24 2018, @04:55AM
I don't hate myself for being wrong when I am either. Hating ignorance and error is not the same as hating the person who is ignorant or in error.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:05PM (1 child)
The NRA cares about donations to the NRA. Period.
If they can do that by fueling gun sales, fine, but it is not their primary objective. If gun sales were the goal, they would work to elect Democrats in enough quantities or in positions to threaten to pass gun control legislation or rules. Gun sales soared under Obama, and they have tailed off significantly under Trump.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:34PM
Yes, the phenomenon is an example of what is called moral panic. One wonders how long it will take before all those gun buyers realize they have been played by the NRA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:18PM (35 children)
The NRA is the nations leading anti-second-amendment organization, there's no irony here.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:53PM (31 children)
Open carry isn't a pro-gun ownership position. Open carry is taking things a step too far, making a mockery of gun ownership, putting it in-the-face of the opposition, and would ultimately hurt the NRA in the national debate if it were widely permitted and practiced.
Besides, most pro gun ownership people are that way because they're basically cowards, needing a weapon to make themselves feel safe. Open carry doesn't appeal to cowards.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:20PM (6 children)
I thought that people who promote concealed carry believe that a good guy with a gun is necessary to stop a bad guy with a gun.
If that is true, then a lot of good guys with clearly visible guns should deter a bad guy with a gun. But then of course, the bad guy with a gun blends into the crowd. Or they outnumber the good guys with guns, but we just didn't realize it until all the guns became visible.
A way to make guns even more visible is to make them bright orange. With the added benefit that police are more likely to shoot you because they may hesitate to consider that it may be a ton gun. Which it may be in some sense, as guns are toys to some people.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:28PM (2 children)
You have strange ideas sometimes. But, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Go ahead, make all weapons hi-vis, by law. It makes a helluva lot more sense than trying to "control" weapons.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:37PM (1 child)
Bright gun colors will be in style. Guns that match your outfit will become a necessity. So the modern software developer needs a set of guns to match their entire wardrobe. Then there will be fashion wars, which will become gun fights.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:32PM
Oh crap, they already are, in some circles. Pistols in red, pink, green, blue, zombie, tan. Hydro dipped so they're covered with skulls, images of $100 bills, camo (google for "hydro dip gun" images). And then, there's the classic chrome. Your gun, an essential fashion accessory.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:04PM (1 child)
Airsoft toys already come with a bright orange tip to alert law enforcement that they are non-lethal.
A kid walking around with a real gun with a fake orange airsoft tip on it would be doubly evil - I'm surprised we haven't heard of this happening with a mass shooter yet.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:17PM
Me too. I've wondered that for some time.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by jb on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:31AM
Now there's a novel idea. Anyone physically capable of carrying a 1 ton (whether long, short or metric) gun probably doesn't need to...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:25PM (9 children)
Gotta disagree. Open carry is proper carry. A cop should never have to ask if you're armed - it should be right out there for all the honest world to see. (Echoes of Pancho and Lefty there.) It seems right and proper that you would need a permit or license for concealed carry, but the second amendment says that you have the RIGHT to carry a weapon. WTF do I need to hide what I have a right to do? Should I also hide the fact that I'm a voter? That I engage in sex? That I own my own home? That I own a car?
If some hoplophobe is "triggered" by the fact that I have a weapon on my hip, or on my shoulder, that's his problem. It should never become a legal problem, because the 2nd Amendment says it's no problem.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:43PM (6 children)
I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may just be a bias that I have. And if so, I'll admit it.
I tend to think that most sane, rational, cool headed people who have or like guns, are quiet about it, and would be just fine concealing their weapon.
[some of] The people who most loudly want to carry an arsenal of weaponry into 7-11, even to innocently purchase a Diet Coke, are the people I tend to think are the most disturbed and frightening -- even if they aren't carrying a gun at the moment.
I could be wrong. But I have that association.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:53PM (2 children)
Some idiot who wants to carry to 7-11 so bad he has to change his underpants afterward isn't a good basis for policy that affects everyone long term. Let him get it out of his system. Next week he'll be on to something else.
It's not about him. And it's not about all the idiots that will have a heart attack and can't believe he could be allowed to do that - they're just making it more attractive for him. They're all idiots and we shouldn't base policy on them.
It's about the guy that stops in at that 7-11 every morning after walking his trap line. You carry, usually a little revolver at least, walking a trap line. He wants to get a slurpy and wait for his ride, does he conceal the weapon, as if it were something shameful, or as if he were planning a murder with it? Why should he have to do that? Even if he's willing, it's not always legal, or practically legal (it might involve expensive permits and a lengthy process, in some areas it can still be denied politically etc.)
Why should anyone blink an eye at him wearing a revolver on his hip when he gets his slurpy? This IS America, that's normal here.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:48PM (1 child)
That was normal perhaps a hundred years ago. The Old West died out quite some time ago.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:07PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:21PM (2 children)
Likewise - most fishermen are rather quiet, until they start bragging about their prowess at the bar, late in the evening. But, no one expects that a fisherman conceal his rods. Or even his tacklebox. I know fishermen who festoon their clothing with lures, spinners, and other accoutrements of the religion. I've never seen a fisherman arrested for displaying his stuff. Well - maybe - if he has too much stuff. Like, the limit on crappy is six fish, and he has nine, and he's too dumb to hide the extra three somehow, he might get arrested. The point is, we don't have piscephobes demonstrating against the strange worshippers of the fishing rod.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:04PM
I would like to introduce you to an organization called PETA. They are full of very smart, easy going, vegetarians, who in no way would promote violence against others, especially animals. </sarcasm>
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:16PM
When that rod can propel 10+ Hula Poppers in rapid succession, each at 1000 feet per second, let us know. I'd prefer to stay the hell out of that bar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:24PM
Please do. No one wants to see you doing that.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:06PM
Didn't comment on what was right, or proper (and still won't.)
Did comment that open carry takes a bit more courage than concealed carry, and also commented that the concealed carriers I know are all basically cowards at heart - they aren't carrying to protect other people, they're carrying to make themselves feel better in a big world that scares them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:46PM (8 children)
What I said was anti-second-amendment.
"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."
There is both a right to "keep" and a right to "bear" arms here, it's an explicit restatement of the tradition of the armed English freeman, and that tradition ultimately reaches all the way back to the germanic common law codes of the migration period and earlier. If all this means is (as the NRA, and you apparently, would have it) that you have the right to own a weapon and keep it locked in a box, then the word "bear" would have no effect. "Bear" explicitly means to carry openly. This is EXACTLY what the founders intended to protect.
"Open carry doesn't appeal to cowards."
You got one thing right at least.
It's concealing the weapon which is justifiably subject to regulation. Concealing it is suggestive of a bad purpose, of a desire or perhaps a plan to use it in a surprise attack.
Carrying one openly should alarm no one.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:10PM
I don't think the NRA is looking for every person to own a weapon. I think the NRA is looking for a small group of enthusiasts to own upwards of 100 weapons each, give a couple dozen weapons each to their close family members, and practice shooting as a hobby/sport.
I decided against gun ownership for myself because I just didn't enjoy the practice range enough and I would consider a gun in my hands to be more of a liability than an asset due to my lack of practice. I'm of no interest to the NRA - unless they can convince me to collect guns that I never plan to use, I'm sure there are people like that out there too.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by weeds on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:10PM (6 children)
I like how you just skipped over the part about,
and then went on to claim that,
means all the time, anywhere.
Then you go on to claim,
and just ignore the easily accessible explanation for the second amendment.
Take some time to research and read the Federalist Papers. The explanation is clearly provided.
1. The state governments and the federal government are NOT a hierarchy of Federal above State. They are equals. Some responsibilities to the federal government and those that are not explicitly given to the federal government are left to the states. (I'm not going to argue about how this is actually done in practice, just that it was the design.)
2. The militia was to be run by each state with state provided leadership. It was to be well regulated (that means has oversight by the state.)
3. The purpose of the militia was to have the possibility to fight and overthrow the federal government if the states determined that it was getting to powerful or not serving their needs. You will also read about limits on the size of the federal army for the same reason - so that it can't be too big.
Some details about the guns of the time:
1. The best regulars of the time could fire 3 shots in 1 minute. That's assuming there was one round loaded up and ready to go.
2. The guns were often less accurate than a bow and arrow. (Which could be reloaded and fired faster.)
3. If someone decided to shoot up a school, a saloon, or any other collection of people, after they got the first shot off, they would never get off a second shot. Try counting 20 seconds next time you are walking and see how much ground you can cover.
Sad to say, but no matter how many guns or members the state militia's had today, they could never compete with the US armed forces, never. Truth be told, the second amendment is obsolete.
The interpretation of the second amendment as meaning that we should all be carrying guns around all the time, anywhere we want, is a strategy of the NRA to sell more guns. They are an industry lobbyist and could not care any less about the second amendment then they do about mental health. (How much money have they donated to any mental health organization? How much money have they given to politicians to retain, repeal or pass laws as needed to keep guns flowing?)
The real reason to have a gun?
https://vimeo.com/219338338 [vimeo.com] (explicit language - all stats are made up, it's comedy)
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:28AM (4 children)
There's a good reason to do so. It's not legally relevant.
Then why didn't they say that in the Second Amendment? After all, it's not a stretch to think that well-regulated could merely mean a well-trained and equipped private force, for example.
And yet, even then, guns with a higher fire rate were known and being developed.
Which let us note is still the same today. The least accurate guns are indeed less accurate than a bow and arrow. If it's relevant then, then why isn't it relevant now? And the most accurate guns of that time were more accurate than a bow and arrow and to a greater range.
Or they'd bring a bunch of friends so that they outnumbered who else was there. And why would it be a bad idea to continue to arm people today so that the situation continues as it did then?
Even if it's two orders of magnitude more than the US armed forces can muster? Think about it.
Evidence? Or is this yet another time you just make up shit?
(Score: 2) by weeds on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:05PM (3 children)
So some of the words in the amendment matter and some don't - I see
I don't know. The amendments and the entire document are brief. They don't expand on the common knowledge or meaning of words. Hence the federalist papers.
Actually it is. well regulated militia meant a state controlled force. You don't have to imagine anything.
I don't think that is really relevant. I give these boys a lot of credit for what they did and what they foresaw. I suppose they could have imagined going into a local department store and buying a semiautomatic weapon.
Well then, we will allow this to apply to all guns since some of them are similar in some way. Makes sense to me.
But that isn't what is happening is it?
As I said, it's because the guns are not the same
I have thought about that. And I suppose it would be along debate. I just don't see it when I think of grenades, RPG's, carpet bombing and drones, etc... vs automatic rifles
Read the federalist papers. It is explained there where so much is explained so that the states would ratify the new constitution.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:36AM (2 children)
That is indeed correct. The Preamble is another such example.
They don't need to. And the Federalist papers aren't legally binding.
Whatever. It's not what "well-regulated" meant back then or means now.
Indeed.
The point is that the comment was deceptive and I illustrated that by pointing out that it's still true today.
You need better than that. Most things change. If we threw away the rules just because things changed, then we wouldn't ever keep any rules around.
Most gang warfare probably is of that sort.
And sufficient manufacturing capability to make grenades, RPGs, carpet bombing, etc. There is this conceit that the US military will be able to protect its supply lines and manufacturing capability while being able to indefinitely deny the same to a vastly numerous foe.
Which ones? Maybe you ought to read the collective works of Ayn Rand first before telling us to do a lot of work without reason or context.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Monday August 27 2018, @06:55PM (1 child)
This has gotten pretty long and I do enjoy getting these perspectives. Let me make a few comments and you can close it out.
I don't try to say this part is important and this part isn't. To me that gives too much latitude to pick and choose. By the time you are done with that, you don't have anything.
I know the Federalist Papers aren't legally binding. I'm not an expert in constitutional law (or any law for that matter.) The Federalist Papers were written to explain the values of the constitution (and amendments) to the common man. They were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. I respect their opinions and consider this work to be significant.
I can see your point on this. However, I really don't think any number of untrained civilians with guns have much chance against the US military force.
From what I read, Well Regulated meant that the state had good control of the militia. I don't remember where I read that.
I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I think there are very big problems when applying the 2nd today owing to the huge change in what constitutes "arms". There isn't much in the constitution that speaks to technology. It endures because it speaks about values, responsibilities and such. To my eyes, those things change much more slowly than technical items.
This is the same as the previous comment. It's not just things change, its the technology change that's different.
I haven't really heard much about gang warfare. I was thinking more about the single shooter who kills a bunch of people. "The plural of anecdote is not fact" (I love that one) but I'll say that it's hard to conclude that the shooter who kills himself after killing a few others is going to be deterred by the presence of guns. Just my perspective.
Fair enough. It's not that hard to find and I read it some time ago... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 [wikipedia.org]
Madison wrote
I think he was considering that the arms would be the same. Now it is nowhere the same.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 28 2018, @11:49PM
And yet it's the opinions of three people.
If they have familiarity with firearms, including care and use, then they're not entirely untrained.
And I've read differently elsewhere. Stalemate on that basis.
The former situation kills a lot more than the latter. For example, this FBI summary [bjs.gov] (for the period 1980-2008) claims that there were almost 1000 known firearm-based homicides from gang warfare in 2008. They also mentioned a variety of other sources of homicide, particularly during arguments and commission of felonies that made up most of the remaining known causes of firearm homicides. In comparison, deaths from mass shootings is far lower (under 20 that year with over 50 the previous year). As I noted [soylentnews.org], that death rate from mass shootings is comparable to death from lightning in the US.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:56AM
I didn't do that.
"and then went on to claim that,"
Didn't do that either.
If you can't be bothered to parse what I read, why should I do the same for you?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:05PM (2 children)
Have you ever been stalked and attacked by people? People with the intent of finding out where you live, where you work, beating the crap out of you and making your life a misery?
Police are minutes away. Minutes. Enough time for someone to deal serious damage. They might even do jail time for their actions. Maybe.
Meanwhile, what do you do? Learn a marital art? Carry around a heavy torch or umbrella to even the odds against multiple assailants? What?
This happened to me. I had to move.
Given the option I would easily choose to carry a gun. If for no other reason than to signal to this idiot or anyone else that if they put me in a position where I had no other choice I would defend myself with lethal force.
Guns are banned here. Doesn't stop criminals carrying them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:00PM
Turn on your hunting mode. Turn off your victim mode.
When I get chased by dogs on my ride I just turn around and chase them back. They all run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @02:34AM
fuck the law and the whores who hide behind it. you have an inalienable human right to protect yourself and your family and you have the right to overthrow any government (or kill it's agents) which is trying to rule you without your consent. life is short. you will be dead very soon. the only question is whether you were a free man/woman or not.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:17AM
No other factors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0P8idE23sA [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @02:26AM
if you depend on your masters to protect you and your family while you watch them steal everyone's rights and put people in danger, it is you who is the coward.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:37PM (2 children)
The NRA played the long game. For the better part of 200 years the high court never considered the 2nd Amendment to be about personal gun ownership. Then in the 1970s at the famous 1977 convention, they decided to turn into the nutty Washington lobbyists they are today [theconversation.com]. From that point on, they decided to change the legal philosophy. Everyone is pretty familiar with their overt political influence of vote-buying (in fact, they've pretty much defined the stereotype of the K Street vote bribing machine), but they also spent a lot of time and resources behind the scenes [washingtonpost.com] in supporting the "right" kind of thinking legal academics, including establishing chairs at law schools for people who think the right way. Then by the late 80s, the Second Amendment suddenly spoke so clear about personal gun ownership, which was something that it apparently wasn't so crystal clear for the previous 200 years [iit.edu].
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:48AM
Except no. Here is the drafting history of the 2A: https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=47472&p=654598#p654575 [theliberalgunclub.com]
And note that it didn't arise in a vacuum, but came out of legal oppression and solutions to that oppression back in the Old Country: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/16/the-nice-girl-who-saved-the-second-amendment/ [nationalreview.com]
That the 2nd Amendment may have been treated as an embarrassment by certain people over the years does not change the meaning of it. We should reconsider all these efforts to interpret the Constitution out of existence -- if you want to change it, then follow the process for changing it. Don't do to it what was done to the 4th Amendment, such that the exceptions add up to virtual meaningless today. This "undermine and redefine" strategy is incredibly dangerous -- it turns these principles into mere power-principles and you have to plan for the day when you are out of power. If there is anything people should have learned in the last two years, it is that you don't always win and someone you might hate will then wield power. Let yourselves be constrained by the Constitution so that your opponents are likewise constrained, otherwise, you will suffer at the hand of your enemy.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:48PM
Everyone understood the right is both an individual right for the first 200 years and knew they'd be ridiculed as a dunce if they said something different, so there was no need for a high court to take up the matter as it didn't arise.
The Constitutional convention wasn't a mythical event. We have the minutes of the meetings and the letters of the participants. They felt that mere words weren't enough defense for freedom (from the new federal authority in the case of the states) so they intended the 2nd to apply both to states and individuals and spelled that out. Towards the end the document was far to long and wordy so it was cut for length. Most thought the current wording clear enough for all but a dunce, but others figured the unethical would try to use weasel language to deny the plain meaning. Apparently the minority was correct.
You can find the actual things they said gathered in places like the Annals of America. It's not some kind of mystery.
If you want to change the 2nd to mean something else, get an amendment passed.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:09PM (4 children)
This is yet another example of the overtly liberal 9th circuit court. I expect the Breitberts of the country will be up in arms at this horrible judicial overreach and travesty of justice.
Any minute now...
Yeah...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:07PM
Jack ass.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:25PM
Jack ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:16AM
Jack ass.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:54AM
From the opposite side of the fence, I have to warn you that you are in for a long wait. The pro-gun rights world grabbed its collective chest and fainted away at this news. The 9th circuit has been where gun rights go to die. This ruling is way off script for them.