SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US government suggests that convicts are not people.
Applying that standard, Bruen held “that the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry
a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Id. at 2122. But
the “where” question decided in Bruen is not at issue here.
Range’s appeal instead requires us to examine who is among
“the people” protected by the Second Amendment. U.S. Const.
amend. II; see Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2157 (Alito, J., concurring)
(“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully
possess a firearm . . . .”); see also Eugene Volokh,
Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-
Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda,
56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009) (distinguishing among “who,”
“what,” “where,” “when,” and “how” restrictions). Range
claims he is one of “the people” entitled to keep and bear arms
and that our Nation has no historical tradition of disarming
people like him. The Government responds that Range has not
been one of “the people” since 1995, when he pleaded guilty
in Pennsylvania state court to making a false statement on his
food stamp application, and that his disarmament is historically
supported.
Having explained how Bruen abrogated our Second
Amendment jurisprudence, we now apply the Supreme Court’s
established method to the facts of Range’s case. Both sides
agree that we no longer conduct means-end scrutiny. And as
the panel wrote: “Bruen’s focus on history and tradition,”
means that “Binderup’s multifactored seriousness inquiry no
longer applies.” Range, 53 F.4th at 270 n.9.
After Bruen, we must first decide whether the text of the
Second Amendment applies to a person and his proposed
conduct. 142 S. Ct. at 2134–35. If it does, the government now
bears the burden of proof: it “must affirmatively prove that its
firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that
delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms"
This one is almost certainly going to the Supreme Court, and it will decide whether non-violent criminals will be treated the same as violent criminals, regarding their Second Amendment rights.
(Score: 5, Informative) by krishnoid on Wednesday June 07, @12:07AM
With the 13th amendment [archives.gov], they can be enslaved while incarcerated.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07, @02:47AM
not by a long shot. [ballotpedia.org]
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday June 07, @12:46PM
Article 1 section 2 of the constitution establishes there's different groups of people:
However, section 9 states that:
So, oddly enough, an argument could be shared between 2nd amendment advocated and immigrant rights groups: If the state wants to tax people, it should allow them to own guns and vote; and vice versa.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 07, @04:29PM (21 children)
This coming from the folks who got all up in arms when Sanders suggested felons regain the right to VOTE!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday June 07, @07:44PM (20 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 07, @09:11PM (19 children)
There you go being dishonest again.
The books aren't banned. The books are unsuitable for young children's consumption. We've been over this. If I refuse to allow children to drink alcohol at will, will you call that prohibition?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday June 07, @09:34PM (18 children)
Do all the PR work you like, it's still totally unnecessary jail time for having books in a library. Oh... and it's massively contradictory to points you've made about gun control etc.
Heh listen to yourself. "Oops... I gotta watch how I phrase this... better to say 'refuse to let kids drink' instead of 'send people to jail for having alcohol!"
It's entertaining watching you pack yourself into a corner because you want a Nanny State but don't want to look like you want a Nanny State.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 07, @11:23PM (17 children)
Perhaps you can cite an instance in which I've argued for prepubescent children's right to carry weapons on their persons, unsupervised? At issue, here, in the sub-sub-thread, is the question, who is responsible for children? Parents, or the state? If Mommy and Daddy say they don't want Junior and Missy reading smut in school, the state has no recourse.
Think about that for awhile. Mommy and Daddy rule, not the state. Citizens rule, not some kinglet at the Department of Education.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Thursday June 08, @01:55AM
This might be the first time I've gotten useful results from the Slash search code. heh!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, @06:16PM (3 children)
You're making the argument for not limiting books (regardless of content) in libraries, school libraries or otherwise.
If "Mommy and Daddy rule, not the state," then the state removing books from the library takes such decisions out of the hands of parents and puts them into the hands of the state.
If I, as a parent, want my child to read books that other parents don't want their children to read, but those books have been removed from libraries, that's definitely a nanny state move, isn't it?
If you don't want your kids to read certain things, be a, you know, parent and make those decisions for your children. But you (or anyone else) have no right to limit what other parents want for their kids. So keep your government hands off of books. Full stop. If you disagree, doesn't that make you a shill for the "nanny state"?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 08, @06:23PM (2 children)
You're still not paying attention. It's Mommy and Daddy multiplied by a few million who objected to the smut in their children's libraries. They challenged the state, and the state's Department of Education, and had that shit removed from their children's access.
It's the nanny state that introduced that crap, not the parents.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, @06:35PM
It doesn't matter *who* gets the government to remove books, nor does it matter what the content of those books might be.
Whether you agree with such actions or not, it's still state censorship. So you're actively supporting the "nanny state" by depriving the kids of other people access to books they may wish their children to read.
That certainly sounds like using the power of the state to limit access to knowledge/information/culture. Just to be clear, you support banning books that you (and perhaps others) disagree with. And you support the government taking such action. Is that correct? Which makes you, as I said, a shill for the "nanny state."
Serious questions: Why is your (or anyone else's) take on specific books more valid than someone else's? And why should you (or anyone else) get to decide for other people, what they (or their kids) can read?
It sure sounds like you're perfectly happy to use the power of the state to infringe on the rights of others when it suits your purposes, and that's normal, according you. If the state attempts to do something you don't like, it's the "nanny state" at work. Quite hypocritical, but not surprising.
Prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, @06:51PM
Not even close. You might be able to hit 100,000 if you push your goal posts close enough together. Oh and those are just complaints, not actual votes, because those laws weren't put to a vote. Remember the question: "Who gets to decide what smut is?" It was NOT a few million mommies and daddies.
> It's the nanny state that introduced that crap, not the parents.
You are unintentionally correct.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Thursday June 08, @07:46PM (11 children)
As long as it's mommy and daddy burning the books, you support it. If mommy and daddy want to burn books about critical race theory, you probably support that, too. If mommy and daddy are young Earth creationists and don't want their children learning about the Big Bang or evolution, you probably support burning those books. If mommy and daddy are anti-vaxxers who don't want their children learning about the benefits of vaccines, you probably support mommy and daddy burning books about Louis Pasteur.
It turns out that mommy and daddy actually do have a choice if they don't want their children learning about these topics. They can spend the money to send their children to a private school that doesn't teach their children the topics that don't want their children learning. They can also take the time to home school their children.
But that's not really your goal. When mommy and daddy burn library books they don't like, it doesn't just stop their children from reading that content. It means dictating what other children learn, even if the parents of those other children are completely okay with the content of those books. You don't just want to choose what your children learn about. You want to impose your will on everyone else as well. This is 100% about you forcing everyone else to bend to your morality. The least you could do is grow some stones and admit that you're an authoritarian.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 08, @10:35PM (10 children)
Or, home school. And, yes, our extended family has done both.
Now, do I hear an opinion on the state reimbursing the family for those expenses? I mean, we've been paying school taxes for as long as we've been working adults. Do you think I should get some of my tax money back, for doing the job that I've already paid the state to do?
More and more Americans are realizing that the public school system is a failure, and pulling their kids out.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dalek on Thursday June 08, @11:29PM (9 children)
You readily admit you have other options if you don't like the contents of public school libraries, and your family has exercised these options. This bolsters my point that your desire to remove content from school libraries is not about protecting your own children but to impose your will on other people's children. Because you readily admit that you have other choices for schooling your children, your objections to books in school libraries is a non-issue. Just admit that you're an authoritarian.
An appropriate funding mechanism for schools is an altogether separate issue. However, I understand the desire to avoid paying for things that I don't use. I'm not a gun owner, nor have I attempted to purchase any guns, so perhaps I shouldn't have to pay for NICS. I might prefer for NICS to switch to a fee-based funding model so that when you attempt to purchase a gun, you pay a fee for the background check to be conducted. After all, as someone who doesn't own any firearms, I shouldn't be burdened with the cost of a system that's only going to be used by gun owners. Isn't that right, Runaway?
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 09, @11:57PM (8 children)
Boy, you got me there. So long as it's not my children being trafikked for sex, why should I care how many children are kidnapped, and sold into sex slavery? So long as it's not my children dying while crossing the US/Mexican border, why should I care that children die in the desert every year? So long as it's not my children dying in slave labor mining camps in Africa, why should I care how many die there? My children are safe at home, well fed, healthy, educated in a manner I approve of. Why would I give the smallest damn about other children being groomed, and pushed into some alternate sex culture?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Saturday June 10, @07:01AM (7 children)
Repeating the same QAnon fantasies over and over won't make them true.
Yes, sex trafficking and slavery are huge problems. Yes, child labor is a huge problem. They are valid concerns, and children should be protected from those things.
But the availability of material in school libraries that you find objectionable is not sex trafficking or sex slavery. It's not child labor. It's not grooming. Pretending that there's any sort of equivalency is a really strong indication that you're either deluded or you're not here to discuss in good faith, perhaps both. If you're here to have an honest discussion, try again without the false equivalency.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 10, @09:18AM (4 children)
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6
In more modern terms, teach the little ones very early that they can't be sure if they are boys or girls, and teach them very early that they don't have to be like Mommy, or like Daddy. Instead of teaching them to be future Mommies, and future Daddies, we'll just take a field trip to a "family friendly" drag queen show.
Ohhhh, yes, I am arguing in good faith. We can see the indoctrination being fed to the children.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Saturday June 10, @10:16AM (3 children)
Ah, so you're not even pretending to have a coherent argument at this point.
You were saying that the decision about what content children have access to should be left to "mommy and daddy." Apparently that's only true if "mommy and daddy" make the decision you think they should.
Like I said, you're an authoritarian. You just can't bring yourself to admit it.
You know, I remember many years ago that there was a HOWTO about trolling Slashdot. I distinctly remember that one of the things it said was that you shouldn't be afraid to contradict yourself. I see you've taken that trolling advice to heart.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 10, @11:06AM (2 children)
You said yourself that if I didn't like how the schools are run, I can put my kids in a private school. That is a two way street. If you feel so strongly that your children should be indoctrinated into the alternate lifestyles, maybe you should send your kids to a queer school.
As for authoritarianism - yes, I am the final authority in my children's rearing. Not you, not the department of education, not the governor, the school board, the president, or whatever. Me. Final authority. My kids won't be part of the dumbing down of America, thank you very much.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dalek on Saturday June 10, @12:10PM
Indoctrination? What, are you going to just trot out every inane right wing talking point?
It just doesn't work like that. Students don't just magically believe what they hear in school or do as they're told. As someone who has taught college students, I can't even indoctrinate them to read the syllabus, let alone any of the other things you claim are happening in schools. As usual, you're completely full of shit.
Children have a way of finding out things that you'd prefer they not learn. They'll hear about those things from their friends or read about them on the internet. Unless you're going to completely isolate your children and cause great harm to their development, they're going to learn the things you don't want them to know. Basically, you have two options: 1) either commit child abuse by locking your children up where they have no access to information, or 2) accept that your children are going to learn how the world works.
The second point is exactly why the books you don't like belong in school libraries. Children are going to make up their minds for themselves, no matter what. However, it's the job of the school to provide children with the knowledge they need to be functioning and productive members of society. No matter how much of a temper tantrum you throw, you can't make LGBTQ+ people go away. Schools are doing their job by educating students about the people around them. No, that's not indoctrination, and it doesn't force children to believe anything. Children think for themselves no matter how much you seem intent on thinking for them. Public schools aren't there just to serve parents. They exist to serve society as a whole by educating children and preparing them to be adults.
Now, if you want to limit your children's access to information they might find in a public school, you have options to do so. We've been over those options. But it doesn't mean that public schools have to remove content from their libraries just because you'd like for your children to remain ignorant. Like I said, unless you take away your children's internet access, TV, and all interactions with other children, they're going to learn about those things anyway.
Your comment about indoctrination is another nonsense talking point. The rest of your argument falls apart when subjected to scrutiny.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Saturday June 10, @11:07PM
That's what you say, but that's not what you do.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11, @11:51PM (1 child)
It is grooming. You may not perceive it, but you can't read others' minds. Wake up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12, @06:56PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09, @04:24PM
"The people" vs. a person. When "the people" convict a person, they are not stripped of personhood but they may be stripped of some rights and that's always been the case. "The people" refers to the default status of a citizen, you are one of "the people" by default until you fuck up and get yourself a conviction. Thereafter you're still a person but you're at odds with the collective "the people" who have determined that you may lose some rights.
So. They're not saying convicts aren't people. They're saying they're not "the people" to whom all these rights apply.