Guns are funny things. I never asked for any guns, but at one point our house had a dozen guns in it. They're like cats or children; everyone's always pawning one off on you. They eventually reached critical mass, and my Dad is now the erstwhile caretaker of a dozen guns. I even found one under the bed a year after I thought I'd gotten rid of all those guns.
Born and raised on this farm, guns used to be like tools that we used. Like you need a hammer to pound a nail, you need a .22 to kill a squirrel. Those days are gone, and nowadays people say they need pistols to kill people. Such a stupid, bloodthirsty society.
My memory may be foggy, but it seems to me that after the first Supreme Court decision on this subject, people found early US laws that restricted gun ownership. The originalist approach falls appart when one looks at actual laws of the time
I think it was a link I got from here, in Tabs or something, that was titled along the lines of "The Supreme Court are bad historians" that talked about that very thing.
well hell, why don't we just give people a gun when they are born and let them all have at it?
also, i am only in favour of 'no restrictions not already in the law from 200 years ago' argument if they have to use the guns that were around 200 years ago only
more like 20 SECONDS- a well-trained soldier was expected to fire his musket 3-4 rounds per minute. The hand-forged rifles of the day were significantly slower, especially after the first few shots left residue in the barrel. At Gettysburg, men were reported having to invert their rifle-musket to strike their ramrod against the ground in order to push the next minie ball down the fouled barrel.
I must be thinking of some other weapon, but I know I read about a gun that you had to go through a lengthy process involving packing it with gun powder etc every time you loaded it.
Was reading the Bruen opinion yesterday (for some research on how frequently the current Supreme Court has made up bullshit "standards" for testing the Constitutionality of laws). Couldn't get over what a monumentally embarrassing piece of drek that opinion is. The clerks who wrote that opinion for Thomas should be run out of the legal profession. If MAGATFG gets elected they will end up on the federal court somewhere.
Sooner or later, a Justice is going to be directly touched by a mass shooting.
I don't mean that it will be directed at them personally as an assassination attempt--I mean they'll be a another random victim who was enjoying themselves doing whatever--and suddenly they hear firecrackers popping at whatever public place or gathering that they're at. Assuming it involves an 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡, they get to observe what happens in real life! Will there be a hero with a gun? Probably not, because most mass shootings have no hero with a gun (unless the Marshalls are present, but even then, the 1st few seconds will be one of confusion for them--that's why 'surprise attacks' are so surprising).
Maybe the justice survives unscathed or perhaps with a minor wound. More likely then not, they'll end up with PTSD. If they get hit with say, an assault rifle and a part of their body turns into ground hamburger as a result, well, now it's a matter of luck, they either die, or undergo surgery and a very long recovery (with the bonus of a possibly amputated limb, or missing kidney and part of their colon, and of course, PTSD).
And if they die, whether immediately or in the hospital, they can remind themselves that they'll lie in state in the Capitol, as well as receive a state funeral, with plenty of thoughts and prayers, as well as a reminders to the left not to "politicize" the event when calling for gun control, while others note how that Justice 'unwittily' played a role in their own demise.
The odds are pretty low, as Justices are not inclined to live in areas that suffer from mass shootings and have Federal Marshals who are detailed in their protection and plan for these kinds of contingencies.
That being said, random events and the statistics that follow are not beholden to what we want. They only indicate the big picture and what the possible outcomes are. And given the number of mass shootings are increasing, there will come a day where somebody on that court will not longer be a considered a fugitive from the law of averages.
In addition to the State Funeral and all those thoughts and prayers, the dead justice would also be awarded his own leaden Darwin Award Medal. Since so many of the right wing justices are Catholics, they will really need those prayers to get out of purgatory. Back when Scalia was still alive, I used to refer to Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts as "Fat Tony and the Mackerel Snapper Five".
Cognitive dissonance is a traditional southern value.
I deleted a reference to him, as prolixity is my vice when it comes to writing comments.
But to the point: if he had converted to being pro gun control, he wouldn't be in office.
That would be too much for a folks down there, even if was shot, wounded, and without the intervention of a certain officer would have died on the field.
Remember, the officer's sexuality (being a black, queer female as one headline screamed) is seen to be perceived as a far bigger threat to the conservative, white Evangelicals than a bullet to Steve's hip.
If not them, someone close to them - a spouse, a child, a parent, a sibling....One of the few things that can sometimes let a little ray of light shine in on a conservative is when something terrible that has been happening to other people all along happens to them. All of a sudden, they get it.
The Supremes are masters (and mistresses) of selectively applying their holy Originalism. "Farmers beat their wives in 1818 and no one took their guns" goes right up next to "Muskets and AR-15s? Meh, close enough."
It really comes down to law being there to protect property, and only that. Civil rights or human rights are the first to be jettisoned as people argue that being able to have a thing and kill another that you suspect if wanting it comes first
I don’t want to minimize the threats and danger to women and children from this man being armed, but what the hell, Texas, the dude shot at several other people, and state law enforcement did NOTHING!!! Why are his threats to his ex and child the only reason he was held semi-accountable? Texas, all hat, no cattle.
That stood out to me too — how come there aren't also a bunch of charges from him shooting at random people? I'm pretty sure that is illegal even if you don't have a restraining order against you.
A flat confiscation would be constitutionally problematic but red flag laws have due process set-offs that allow the person to challenge the removal. As bad as this SCOTUS is I would expect them to articulate that such laws are acceptable as long as there is such a mechanism and it is prompt and accessible.
This guy - who is clearly dangerous - is their chance to set up a perimeter and pretend that they are actually concerned about safety.
Why would it be constitutionally problematic? The second amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to own a gun. That’s a myth. And republicans certainly understood how constitutionally easy it was to confiscate and ban weapons in the 1960s when they passed the Mulford Act that confiscated guns from the Black Panthers and banned them from gun ownership.
I think all reasonable people can agree about what the second amendment actually says. Sadly, the supreme court already ruled that it says something different. Now we're stuck with that because precedent matters to these fascists only when it's in their favor.
A lot of reasonable people have been raised on the myth that the 2A allows individuals guns, though. Most people want gun control, but among that demographic who wants gun control, something like 78% falsely believe that the 2A is an obstacle since it gives ppl the right to own a gun. That's not them being unreasonable, that's just the power of myth and this myth has been actively created since the late 70s.
The more trials we have about the damage that guns cause, the less ability this fascist majority supreme court can deny trial record in favor of their own hypotheticals they come up with as they consult their Ouija boards.
In addition to all of the discussion how Rahimi is not really the kind of poster boy the Republicans want for their gun-rights-uber-alles arguments, there is a second legal argument at work here.
And it's actually worse, I think. IANAL.
The argument is not whether guns should or should not be taken from a crazy person with a history of violence. It's about orders of protection.
As we know, orders of protection are placed on a person whom the court has agreed presents a possible danger to others. Most orders of protection are granted to women afraid of a domestic abuser.
The argument being presented by Rahimi is that that granting an order of protection against a person because of fears of domestic violence is a violation of the perpetrator's rights to due process. That is: a violent person who has not been tried and convicted of being violent should not have an order of protection placed on them.
There is some thought that SCOTUS might use that right-to-due-process argument to grant Rahimi his release, rather than using the 2nd Amendment as a reason to prevent domestic abusers from having access to firearms.
And this is weapons-grade scary: it means that orders of protection are worthless, and it means that many more people, again mainly women, but also those who fear a violent co-worker or angry students or the like, will be murdered.
Guns are funny things. I never asked for any guns, but at one point our house had a dozen guns in it. They're like cats or children; everyone's always pawning one off on you. They eventually reached critical mass, and my Dad is now the erstwhile caretaker of a dozen guns. I even found one under the bed a year after I thought I'd gotten rid of all those guns.
Born and raised on this farm, guns used to be like tools that we used. Like you need a hammer to pound a nail, you need a .22 to kill a squirrel. Those days are gone, and nowadays people say they need pistols to kill people. Such a stupid, bloodthirsty society.
Ok, yeah, but clearly Democratically appointed Justices are
"radicals" who "can't stop legislating from the bench," sure, you betcha!
My memory may be foggy, but it seems to me that after the first Supreme Court decision on this subject, people found early US laws that restricted gun ownership. The originalist approach falls appart when one looks at actual laws of the time
Not if you know how to cherry-pick!
I think it was a link I got from here, in Tabs or something, that was titled along the lines of "The Supreme Court are bad historians" that talked about that very thing.
This stupid fucking country…
well hell, why don't we just give people a gun when they are born and let them all have at it?
also, i am only in favour of 'no restrictions not already in the law from 200 years ago' argument if they have to use the guns that were around 200 years ago only
Muskets that required 20 minutes to reload.
more like 20 SECONDS- a well-trained soldier was expected to fire his musket 3-4 rounds per minute. The hand-forged rifles of the day were significantly slower, especially after the first few shots left residue in the barrel. At Gettysburg, men were reported having to invert their rifle-musket to strike their ramrod against the ground in order to push the next minie ball down the fouled barrel.
I must be thinking of some other weapon, but I know I read about a gun that you had to go through a lengthy process involving packing it with gun powder etc every time you loaded it.
Four to five shots a minute, but still a lower rate of fire than an AR-15.
Also, muskets not accurate beyond about 50 paces.
Damnit! Where's my wadding?!
(in my shorts)
Beat me to it
JFC. 🤦🏻♀️
"Via U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit"
like Gomer Pyle would say: "surprise! surprise! surprise!"
Was reading the Bruen opinion yesterday (for some research on how frequently the current Supreme Court has made up bullshit "standards" for testing the Constitutionality of laws). Couldn't get over what a monumentally embarrassing piece of drek that opinion is. The clerks who wrote that opinion for Thomas should be run out of the legal profession. If MAGATFG gets elected they will end up on the federal court somewhere.
Sooner or later, a Justice is going to be directly touched by a mass shooting.
I don't mean that it will be directed at them personally as an assassination attempt--I mean they'll be a another random victim who was enjoying themselves doing whatever--and suddenly they hear firecrackers popping at whatever public place or gathering that they're at. Assuming it involves an 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡, they get to observe what happens in real life! Will there be a hero with a gun? Probably not, because most mass shootings have no hero with a gun (unless the Marshalls are present, but even then, the 1st few seconds will be one of confusion for them--that's why 'surprise attacks' are so surprising).
Maybe the justice survives unscathed or perhaps with a minor wound. More likely then not, they'll end up with PTSD. If they get hit with say, an assault rifle and a part of their body turns into ground hamburger as a result, well, now it's a matter of luck, they either die, or undergo surgery and a very long recovery (with the bonus of a possibly amputated limb, or missing kidney and part of their colon, and of course, PTSD).
And if they die, whether immediately or in the hospital, they can remind themselves that they'll lie in state in the Capitol, as well as receive a state funeral, with plenty of thoughts and prayers, as well as a reminders to the left not to "politicize" the event when calling for gun control, while others note how that Justice 'unwittily' played a role in their own demise.
The odds are pretty low, as Justices are not inclined to live in areas that suffer from mass shootings and have Federal Marshals who are detailed in their protection and plan for these kinds of contingencies.
That being said, random events and the statistics that follow are not beholden to what we want. They only indicate the big picture and what the possible outcomes are. And given the number of mass shootings are increasing, there will come a day where somebody on that court will not longer be a considered a fugitive from the law of averages.
You can bet on it.
In addition to the State Funeral and all those thoughts and prayers, the dead justice would also be awarded his own leaden Darwin Award Medal. Since so many of the right wing justices are Catholics, they will really need those prayers to get out of purgatory. Back when Scalia was still alive, I used to refer to Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts as "Fat Tony and the Mackerel Snapper Five".
OTOH Steve Scalise was literally shot in a mass shooting and is still pro-gun so go figure.
It’s his “job.”
some people you just can not teach
Cognitive dissonance is a traditional southern value.
I deleted a reference to him, as prolixity is my vice when it comes to writing comments.
But to the point: if he had converted to being pro gun control, he wouldn't be in office.
That would be too much for a folks down there, even if was shot, wounded, and without the intervention of a certain officer would have died on the field.
Remember, the officer's sexuality (being a black, queer female as one headline screamed) is seen to be perceived as a far bigger threat to the conservative, white Evangelicals than a bullet to Steve's hip.
If not them, someone close to them - a spouse, a child, a parent, a sibling....One of the few things that can sometimes let a little ray of light shine in on a conservative is when something terrible that has been happening to other people all along happens to them. All of a sudden, they get it.
This Clarence Thomas guy is starting to look like bad news.
The Supremes are masters (and mistresses) of selectively applying their holy Originalism. "Farmers beat their wives in 1818 and no one took their guns" goes right up next to "Muskets and AR-15s? Meh, close enough."
It really comes down to law being there to protect property, and only that. Civil rights or human rights are the first to be jettisoned as people argue that being able to have a thing and kill another that you suspect if wanting it comes first
I don’t want to minimize the threats and danger to women and children from this man being armed, but what the hell, Texas, the dude shot at several other people, and state law enforcement did NOTHING!!! Why are his threats to his ex and child the only reason he was held semi-accountable? Texas, all hat, no cattle.
That stood out to me too — how come there aren't also a bunch of charges from him shooting at random people? I'm pretty sure that is illegal even if you don't have a restraining order against you.
Not a whole lot of fucking brains neither.
A flat confiscation would be constitutionally problematic but red flag laws have due process set-offs that allow the person to challenge the removal. As bad as this SCOTUS is I would expect them to articulate that such laws are acceptable as long as there is such a mechanism and it is prompt and accessible.
This guy - who is clearly dangerous - is their chance to set up a perimeter and pretend that they are actually concerned about safety.
Why would it be constitutionally problematic? The second amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to own a gun. That’s a myth. And republicans certainly understood how constitutionally easy it was to confiscate and ban weapons in the 1960s when they passed the Mulford Act that confiscated guns from the Black Panthers and banned them from gun ownership.
I think all reasonable people can agree about what the second amendment actually says. Sadly, the supreme court already ruled that it says something different. Now we're stuck with that because precedent matters to these fascists only when it's in their favor.
A lot of reasonable people have been raised on the myth that the 2A allows individuals guns, though. Most people want gun control, but among that demographic who wants gun control, something like 78% falsely believe that the 2A is an obstacle since it gives ppl the right to own a gun. That's not them being unreasonable, that's just the power of myth and this myth has been actively created since the late 70s.
The more trials we have about the damage that guns cause, the less ability this fascist majority supreme court can deny trial record in favor of their own hypotheticals they come up with as they consult their Ouija boards.
This situation is just like the fascist party wants it - everyone is afraid. Fear feeds fascism.
A friend pointed out that everything you do to make connections and build networks of mutual support increases society's resistance to fascism.
They'll put him in the pillory! But with the Uzi in one of his hands! So what if he can't aim it? FREEDUM!
In addition to all of the discussion how Rahimi is not really the kind of poster boy the Republicans want for their gun-rights-uber-alles arguments, there is a second legal argument at work here.
And it's actually worse, I think. IANAL.
The argument is not whether guns should or should not be taken from a crazy person with a history of violence. It's about orders of protection.
As we know, orders of protection are placed on a person whom the court has agreed presents a possible danger to others. Most orders of protection are granted to women afraid of a domestic abuser.
The argument being presented by Rahimi is that that granting an order of protection against a person because of fears of domestic violence is a violation of the perpetrator's rights to due process. That is: a violent person who has not been tried and convicted of being violent should not have an order of protection placed on them.
There is some thought that SCOTUS might use that right-to-due-process argument to grant Rahimi his release, rather than using the 2nd Amendment as a reason to prevent domestic abusers from having access to firearms.
And this is weapons-grade scary: it means that orders of protection are worthless, and it means that many more people, again mainly women, but also those who fear a violent co-worker or angry students or the like, will be murdered.
Both of those arguments are insane, so I could totally see SCROTUS going either way.
On the bright side, orders of protection are already worthless.
As The Founders would surely have agreed.
Yes, it is snark. But probably real also, too.