• sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. Waiting until after murders occur is definitely the right approach to curbing gun violence.

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it’s quite an equivalence. When carrying firearms is illegal (as it effectively is in my country of Canada), you know whenever you see someone with a gun that you should run and call the police. You know they’re up to no good. In many US states, if you see someone with a gun… you kinda just have to deal with it. Maybe they’ll shoot you. Maybe they just need to overcompensate for something. You can’t really run from it because it can be so common.

          A decent amount of gun crime is also spur of the moment acts. They won’t go home, get their gun, and come back. The gun violence only happens because the perpetrator happened to have a gun when they were angry. Banning carrying doesn’t guarantee people won’t be armed in public, but it sure will heavily reduce it.

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Criminals don’t open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.

            Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you’re making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you’re in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren’t sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don’t want to hurt anyone

            • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you don’t want to hurt anyone, why carry a weapon designed for that exact purpose? There’s literally no other use for a gun.

            • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Did you see that video of the lady open carrying in Houston who started shooting at the car that cut her off? Hilarious. Sorry, you were saying?

              • sudo22@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.

                In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for ever article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.

                • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  US has a gun problem. It isn’t really news. Unfortunately guns are ingrained into US culture and people will defend their right for guns against all common sense.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.

    This is from a gun owner.

    • sudo22@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.

      • Poob@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public

        • sudo22@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it’ll stop criminals.

      • Poob@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nifty. Neither being a firearm owner nor count of firearms in any way invalidates the decisions of those who choose to do so.

          • Poob@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re right. It was only a side point to imply that not every gun owner is as loony as certain American ones.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Unfortunately, the only loony stance here is that legally carrying firearms is somehow a loony thing to do.

              It’s always weird seeing how incapable some people are of considering that a different point of view is every bit as valid as their own.

              • Poob@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not all views are valid. That should be pretty obvious. I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view. It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not all views are valid.

                  I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view.

                  It’s interesting that you seem incapable of considering yours may be the invalid view.

                  It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.

                  I’d argue being so terrified of the possibility someone might be legally carrying a firearm to, itself, be the indicator of paranoia.

  • rayyyy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officers."
    It’s only temporary and there’s bound to be exceptions.
    Seems like she is desperately making a wake-up call to gun owners to come up with a solution to killings.

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

    Well, its kill or be killed out there. If you’re the only one alive, they can only hear your side of the story

  • Turbo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yeah… Not constitutional.

    She’s just doing this for her image.

      • Turbo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah I didn’t know that.

        Well, grasping for straws, trying to say that she did something bold etc. Anyway I read in another article that a judge is blocking this

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

      Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

      New Mexico has it in it’s constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.

    • sudo22@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.

    • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights

      • Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?

        Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re only declared inherent human rights on the very same sheet of paper that defines the rights and codifies them into law. Without the government backing them, they don’t mean anything and are just words written on a piece of paper.

          • Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.

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

      Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.

        If you paid attention in English class youd know this

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter

              • transigence@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Let me try to explain:
                The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
                The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
                “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.

                  and you don’t want to get shot.

                  I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?

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

          Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.

          You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.

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

            A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

            In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, “the people,” or “a well balanced breakfast?”

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

                So if you skip breakfast you don’t deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?

                It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you’re wrong.

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

                  You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.

                  You made a bad example and declared it victory lol

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.

      • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yawn, it’s clear you don’t know how to read literature from the period. There’s plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don’t really care, you already have your ideology.

        Go read any Jane Austen and you’ll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their gun

            I’d argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.

          • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for finding which paper it was… I have a copy but didn’t feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷‍♂️

            And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn’t by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It’s pretty clear if you’ve read anything from 1600 onward.

            Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - “twenty and four years” is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the “English language” such as it was, was considered beneath “proper” Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.

            It’s pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.

          • transigence@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it’s just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn’t dangerous is mental illness.

        • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.

          There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.

          The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.

          It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.

          The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.

          • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, that’s a nice wall of text, but it isn’t going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn’t enforcing it, and the state AG isn’t even defending it apparently.

      • transigence@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.

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

        Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.

        “The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.

    • nothing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement

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

      I’m no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn’t say you’re allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don’t see how this is much different. It’s not like they’re even saying you can’t have guns at your home.