A federal judge has blocked the state of Hawaii from enforcing a recently enacted ban on firearms on its prized beaches and in other areas including banks, bars and parks, citing last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights.

  • Zaktor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Apart from the “why do you need it” question, the beach is specifically a place people often leave items that can’t be taken in the water unattended. Sure, legislators can write laws about how a gun must not be left unattended and gun nuts can swear up and down about how they would never do that, but they will. No matter how much you think “there’s a lot of people around” or “I’ll just be in and out” or “I’ll watch my stuff from the water”, thefts happen, and now a mundane occurrence has turned a supposedly (not really) “safe” and “legal” gun into one of those dangerous “illegal” guns they can’t be held responsible for.

    We were perfectly happy with our gun laws, and they worked, and now fringe nutcases and a politically captured courts are telling us we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      108
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.

      That’s the real issue, here. These guys are absolutely fucking terrified 100% of the time. They pack heat in order to feel like something besides a helpless babyman.

      I have never even once felt like I couldn’t possibly pick up a head of lettuce and some yogurt from the supermarket without some moral support from a gun. It’s just fucking bizarre.

      • helo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why do you assume they are absolutely fucking terrified vs thinking better safe than sorry?

        I know the risk of a violent encounter is low, but I carry because it’s the only reliable way to not be at a disadvantage in a fight.

        Having a plan to avoid being assaulted isn’t the same as living in terror.

        Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why do you assume they are absolutely fucking terrified vs thinking better safe than sorry?

          Because they are too afraid to go to a grocery store without a gun. That means they’re really, really bad at risk assessment. And that makes them dangers to themselves and others.

          I know the risk of a violent encounter is low, but I carry because it’s the only reliable way to not be at a disadvantage in a fight.

          Do you? Do you actually know that? Because your odds of being a shooting victim are way, way higher as a handgun owner than as a grocery shopper. You’re more likely to be hit by lightning than to be in a violent confrontation at the supermarket, and yet you don’t go around in a rubber suit to be “better safe than sorry.”

          Having a plan to avoid being assaulted isn’t the same as living in terror.

          And yet you’re not wearing a rubber suit. Your risk aversion needs calibration if the gun that objectively makes you less safe makes you feel more safe.

          Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.

          Or they could be members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and they are totally ridiculous.

          For the record, I don’t think all gun owners are ridiculous - certainly not to the level of the WBC. I don’t even think people who feel the need to pack heat while going out for milk are ridiculous. But they’re definitely scared, and bad at assessing risks.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The other day I was at the grocery store and someone shouldered me and my cart out of the way when I was comparing cantaloupes. He looked at me funny like he was gonna start some shit so I blew him away. Motherfuckers not going to take me out without a fight. #alphamale #iamverybadass

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        109
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are a large number of people who carry, they’re not who you think they are and they’re not afraid or paranoid. Just like you put on your seatbelt and have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in your home…they carry and think nothing of it.

        The amount of white privilege shit shows how much propaganda you lot drink.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          68
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ouch. Guess I touched a nerve. Look, carry if it makes you feel better, but statistically, you’re in more danger from your own guns than you are from anyone else. The same cannot be said for seat-belts, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Damn Lemmy doesn’t alert on posts replies properly. So replying late to this one.

            That is completely false. You’re more likely to never use the firearm than be in danger of it. That myth was created by the anti-gun groups using suicides as their stats.

          • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Same in the UK, we had a couple of school shootings and then collectively decided children’s safety isn’t worth trading for the freedom to own guns and that was that. There was very little pushback from any side of the asile.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You also have safety nets, which helps with your crime level. There is a lot more we here in the states could do to curb our violence overall that doesn’t require new gun laws, but a loud majority are idiots who just call everything that involves safety nets and reforming criminals socialism/communism.

            • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, it’s really nothing to do with safety nets and Canadians don’t have any better mental health then Americans.

              We don’t open carry and we have strict handgun laws so we don’t have the amount of shootings as the states.

              That’s it, that’s all.

        • yata@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are a large number of people who carry, they’re not who you think they are and they’re not afraid or paranoid.

          The fact that they do “carry” unequivocally shows that they are indeed afraid and paranoid, no matter how many times they say “not afraid, bro” out loud. Believe their actions, not their lying words.

        • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          How many times have you used your gun to resolve a situation that couldn’t have been solved without one? I legitimately don’t understand the mindset. What situation are people like you “preparing” for? Cause it honestly just seems like you’re afraid.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The same amount of times I’ve had to use my fire extinguisher in my home. Zero. And I hope that number stays that way forever.

        • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m genuinely curious what you mean by your white privilege comment. Can you explain? What’s the relation?

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You and the rest of the anti-gun tools here think that only white people carry. You live in bubbles with no outside experience of what other races have to deal with on a daily basis. It’s actually quite hilarious how disconnected from reality a lot of you are.

        • InternetUser2012@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          My dad said the same thing. He carried a 357 on him. A man, he wasn’t scared… Well, that’s what he said, but in the end he was a racist baby that was afraid a poc was going to car jack him in his fucking chevy equinox. I don’t need a gun to defend myself, it’s getting there though with cult45, that’s a scary bunch of halfwits.

        • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel sorry for these people you describe, I can’t imagine living in such constant fear that I need to carry around a lethal weapon.

          • wavebeam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            OP’s take makes me wonder: am I a badass for walking around completely unarmed and also not afraid?

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure which is worse, someone who intentionally straps a deadly weapon to themselves in full view to be paraded around in public as a show of machismo, or someone who does so thoughtlessly as one would buckle a seatbelt.

    • helo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.

      Do you honestly think that panic attacks by gun carriers is the blocker to reasonable gun laws? The number of people that carry firearms regularly is not statistically significant, let alone those with panic attacks.

      I carry a concealed firearm because I think it’s important for at risk groups to be able to defend themselves. I don’t panic when I don’t carry, but I recognize that I’m less prepared to defend myself from assault.

      It’s important to understand those you disagree with.

      • Zaktor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t think of any at-risk group that has meaningful influence on gun legislation, but many of the groups propping up the Republican party have been convinced they are in mortal danger.

        Though, frankly, I do find someone who thinks restrictions to carrying a gun at a beach in peaceful and multicultural Hawaii aren’t reasonable to be a bit of a nut regardless of whatever risks you have in your personal life.

    • XbSuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guns can absolutely be safe, and if they’re bringing it to the beach, it’s probably safe to assume it’s legal.

      However, why the fuck anyone needs a gun at a beach is beyond me (or a grocery store, or library, or any number of other ridiculous places to bring a gun). America really needs to get their priorities straight, because it’s not really funny anymore, it’s scary.

      • moody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guns, by definition, are not safe. They’re literally made to kill people. You can take all the precautions in the world to mitigate the risks, of course, but the safest gun is the one that nobody can touch.

        • XbSuper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re made to kill, what they kill is up to the person holding it. They aren’t something people should be toting around at the beach, you take them hunting, or to a range.

          • DulyNoted@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Genuine question, does anybody ever hunt with pistols?

            Long guns are one thing, handguns are pretty explicitly anti-personnel weapons from my understanding.

            • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The hunters I know who carry a pistol do so do put down the animal in the case that the first shot didn’t do it but I don’t think it’s that common especially now that it’s virtually impossible to get a permit for pistol in my country

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        As soon as a gun is introduced anywhere, safety automatically drops. That is a statistical fact.

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if they can really be safe at the beach though. You go in the water with your gun, or you leave it under your towel and hope a kid doesn’t find it?

        • XbSuper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I totally agree it’s not safe at a beach, I was just stating that they can be safe, if treated with the proper respect.

  • Dee@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    What happened to respecting states rights? So sick of the judicial branch in the US, the most untethered and corrupt branch of them all. Which is saying a lot considering the state of the legislative branch.

    • watson387@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans only care about state’s rights when they can use state law to push one of their terrible policies at state level because they can’t force it nationally.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      States’ rights only exists in the eyes of Conservatives if it’s related to owning other humans.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans want all power consolidated at the level they can most effectively control. They were only ever about “states’ rights” because they typically are better at capturing state governments than national institutions.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Republicans have no political platform, but they do have a judicial agenda.

      • Zaktor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Until 15 years ago, there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms, so talking about “the Bill of Rights” really just means “the Conservative Supreme Court”.

          • Zaktor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have an individual right to constantly be armed for personal safety.

            • Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Pretty sure that the “shall not be infringed” part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I’d argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I’d argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don’t like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.

              • Zaktor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the Second Amendment was clear in its individual right to bear arms for personal protection (a much different thing from just owning guns), then it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 for it to be recognized, and anyone pretending the Second Amendment is a clearly worded amendment with broadly agreed on meaning is just delusional.

                • Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn’t clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder’s documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.

                  In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn’t have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.

                  If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I’d consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.

    • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hawaii is a colonial project and isn’t respected by the federal court circuits in the same manner that continental states are. It’s closer to Guam and Puerto Rico than other states in that it carries disproportionate financial and military burdens, including the effects from the Jones act for example.

  • sndmn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    How big of a coward do you have to be to feel the need to bring a gun to the beach?

    • Saneless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you met a conservative man lately? They’re scared of everything. Especially their own feelings

    • vd1n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think I know why… They’re criminals.

      Pretty much only criminals have people trying to kill them everyday.

      Maybe America just has a lot of criminals Maybe so many that it’s starting to show in our politics and democracy.

      I wish this post wasn’t so believable. …it was supposed to be sarcasm.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can I carry one into the court where the justices meet? Or is safety just something the “little people” need to work about?

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do they defend so hard for like the one weird out of 1000 who openly waves a gun around that makes everyone extremely uncomfortable. People around open carriers don’t think “wow freedom!”, they get super fucking uncomfortable.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn, the US annexation of Hawai’i continues to hurt their nation :-(

    I hope one day they can win their freedom back.

  • watson387@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why the fuck does anyone need a gun on the beach? I can’t think of one justifiable argument for needing one there.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they can’t ban guns, they should ban conservatives instead. Problem solved.

    Friendly Reminder: It is perfectly legal to discriminate based on political affiliation. Do your part to help fight conservatism by excluding conservatives in your daily life. It is not appropriate to conduct business or keep relationships with such people.

      • S_204@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the twisted retarded logic that conservatives hold.

        “I’m a piece of shit who wants to bring a gun to the beach, Liberals must want the same terrible things I do”

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      look just cuz they have a life sentence doesn’t mean we can start killing each other’s politicians. we need that do-nothing POS controlled opposition party to expand the court

  • solstice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh yeah, well what about MY freedom to go to a beach and not be worried about getting fucking SHOT? Why do THEY get all these rights and freedoms while WE have to suffer the consequences? I don’t fucking get it. What about our rights to not get shot?

  • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Who needs guns on the beach”

    I’m trans. Id sooner never go. But if I had to, with the way things are going, you bet your ass I am afraid and would rather be armed

    • Noughmad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As a trans person, would you rather go to a beach where nobody is armed, or to a beach where everybody might be armed?

      • Established_Trial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not trans, but I’d rather go where everyone might be armed. Just because everyone is supposed to not bring a gun somewhere doesn’t mean there won’t be someone that does- how many shootings in the US happen in “gun free zones”?

        • Fract@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Only in the US. When I go to the beach in my country, Australia, I’d never even consider the possibility of a gunman.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ll foolishly assume this is a comment posted by a human in good faith and not a troll or a bot.

          Does fog of war mean anything to you? Go to a crowded place where everyone is armed. Person 1 is a baddie and kills person 2. Person 3 is a Good Guy and shoots person 1. People 4, 5, and 6 are also Good Guys With Guns and didn’t directly observe the original altercation, they only observed Person 3 shooting Person 1, and assume Person 3 shot Person 2 as well. People 4, 5, and 6, open fire on Person 3. They are bad shots though and the adrenaline dump makes them miss, so People 7, 8, and 9 get shot in the crossfire. At this point it is total chaos, everyone is either shooting at everyone else (fight), running in panic (flight), getting shot in the crossfire (freeze), or just shrieking their head off at the carnage in front of them (freak). Then the police arrive and shoot the survivors.

          Congratufuckinglations, we now have a bunch of bodies and dozens of traumatized people because you morons couldn’t leave your fucking guns at home and enjoy the goddamn beach.

          I hate this country so much sometimes.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        just don’t go anywhere you’re likely to be shot. Like school, work, the grocery store, church, urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas, bars, restaurants, nightclubs, daycare centers…

        Without even addressing the moral panic and domestic terrorism currently being whipped up against trans people the fact is that “just don’t go places where people are allowed to carry” is a bad solution even for the average person.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hell yes. Make guns a nonpartisan “nonissue.” Armed minorities are harder to oppress, and gun control disproportionately affects minorities in marginalized and overpoliced communities. One state just removed the requirement for pistol purchase permits because (as it was designed to be in the first place since it was a Jim Crow era law) racist sheriffs were denying black people’s permits, 60% of denials were to black people.

      • ycnz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, famously, the US doesn’t oppress minorities because of all the guns.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a reason California has so much gun control, and it is Ronald Reagan being racist in the 80’s because the Black Panthers were exercising their right to bare arms, because it was making it harder for the police to oppress them. In fact CCW and purchase permits were designed and are often still used as a way to keep POC from exercising their rights, as it makes them harder to oppress if they can carry. They use gun control to oppress those minorities, things like stop and frisk, or denying permits and charging them when they carry anyway. They enforce this gun control primarily in overpoliced marginalized minority neighborhoods, not in gated communities or majority white neighborhoods. Regardless of your intentions or perceptions, the real life effects of gun control are these, and it is harder to oppress a person/community/people who have guns than one who does not.

  • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Second Amendment is all about having arms and arms training so that men are generally ready to join a war, specifically against the English. It was never about walking around with a gun for “self-defense.” Also, bullets weren’t even invented yet, so they really had no idea at all about modern guns.